Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Railroad Association Says TSA's Hacking Memo Was Wrong

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the switch-in-time-saves-none dept.

Government 121

McGruber writes "Wired reports that the American Association of Railroads is refuting the U.S. Transportation Security Administration memorandum that said hackers had disrupted railroad signals. In fact, 'There was no targeted computer-based attack on a railroad,' said AAR spokesman Holly Arthur. 'The memo on which the story was based has numerous inaccuracies.' The TSA memo was subject of an earlier Slashdot story in which Slashdot user currently_awake accurately commented on the true nature of the incident."

cancel ×

121 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Lying again? (5, Interesting)

sadness203 (1539377) | more than 2 years ago | (#38834049)

I'm not surprised... TSA is a cancer.

Re:Lying again? (2, Insightful)

Suki I (1546431) | more than 2 years ago | (#38834185)

I'm not surprised... TSA is a cancer.

Just like the rest of the government.

Re:Lying again? (5, Funny)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#38834311)

I'm not surprised... TSA is a cancer.

TSA THREAT LEVEL ORANGE

Talk like that will elevated it to PLAID

Re:Lying again? (1)

Troke (1612099) | more than 2 years ago | (#38834913)

Blackwatch plaid!

Re:Lying again? (1)

The Mister Purple (2525152) | more than 2 years ago | (#38835043)

Or even to the cover of Rush's seminal album Moving Pictures! Ha ha! Seminal.

Re:Lying again? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38836623)

Plaid? Sir, are you absolutely sure?

It does mean changing the bulb.

Re:Lying again? (4, Insightful)

jamstar7 (694492) | more than 2 years ago | (#38834607)

No, TSA is just justifying its budget. Nothing to see, move along, move along.

Re:Lying again? (4, Insightful)

JWSmythe (446288) | more than 2 years ago | (#38835229)

You are absolutely right. If there is no threat, there is no job. So they will make themselves worthwhile any way they can.

    Consider the current "Terrorists want to blow up your plane with binary explosives!" [theregister.co.uk] . You can't carry [tsa.gov] a soda on a plane, unless you purchased from a TSA approved vendor inside of the security perimeter. And dear god, a mother can't bring a bottle of breast milk [usatoday.com] .

    Even lighters [tsa.gov] were banned for a while, but after enough complaints, they again allowed them.

    Terrorists must be anyone who isn't an old rich white guy. If they talk funny, look different, or behave differently due to cultural differences, they must be terrorists. The evil enemy that all Americans must fear.

    The terrorist behind every Bush fear subsided. Then we killed the leader of the terrorists we were told to fear.

    They are trying to find the next threat. If there isn't a threat, there isn't a need for DHS, is there? Those new threats will keep coming. They may be foreign nationals with a misguided grudge. They may even be regular, but insane, Americans. [google.com]

    If they don't get enough real threats, they'll overstate some minor threat. They weren't clear what the real threat was. It could have been a local kid, who bounced through an off-shore server, who managed to log into a control box.

    My question is, why the hell would they leave those controls accessible by the Internet in general? Why was it connected to the Internet at all? Assuming there was a good reason for it, why weren't they restricted to select IPs? Rather than freaking out and blaming "the terrorists", why don't we focus on the problems like "our infrastructure shouldn't be accessible by the whole Internet".

    Hell, when I stick a server online with a previously unused IP, I get people trying to hit it in no time. If you want some entertainment, put an older unpatched distribution up with root logins enabled, and set the password to "password". I'd give it 10 minutes before it had new people running it.

    Lets not forget who the new terrorists are. All those people who agree with, or fall into the category of 99%. Domestic terrorism is our greatest threat. They must be stopped. We're going to need bigger prisons and more guys with badges and guns.

    Oh wait.. I forgot the right line. "I trust our government. Terrorists are behind every Bush. Protect me government. I'll give up any rights you ask me to."

Re:Lying again? (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 2 years ago | (#38835989)

"My question is, why the hell would they leave those controls accessible by the Internet in general?"

Exactly.

Re:Lying again? (2)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 2 years ago | (#38835939)

Scary thought:

We don't buy into the BS, so they purposefully let something bad happen like a shooting at an airport or something. "See?! We're NEEDED!"

Re:Lying again? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38835585)

don't be surprised the next time you fly if you're pulled to the side for "extra screening" due to that comment.

And we want this gov't in charge of health care? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38834055)

I really wish the /. crowd would lose the dissonance about huge governemnt.

Hate the TSA.

Hate the Patriot Act.

Hate the loss of privacy and freedom.

LOVE the idea of even more government power by putting it in charge of health care.

Re:And we want this gov't in charge of health care (5, Insightful)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 2 years ago | (#38834085)

There's a difference. Putting them in charge of health care is a matter of ensuring our wellbeing. The others are about violating our rights.

Re:And we want this gov't in charge of health care (4, Funny)

Brett Buck (811747) | more than 2 years ago | (#38834101)

Heh, I wish I had mod points - but I am sure the point will be lost on most of the mods. +5 Funny!

Re:And we want this gov't in charge of health care (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38834123)

You need them to make sure you're okay? Are you two?

Re:And we want this gov't in charge of health care (3, Insightful)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 2 years ago | (#38834291)

You need them to keep the invaders at bay? What, you expect to breathe air, not soot? You mean you expect to not get shot for your boots when you go to work? Clearly you need a nanny.

Re:And we want this gov't in charge of health care (4, Insightful)

Dishevel (1105119) | more than 2 years ago | (#38834895)

The government should be restrained from doing anything that not only the government can do.
The government is wasteful and slow. everything it does can be done better, faster and cheaper by private enterprise.
There are of course no exceptions to this rule. There is however a problem. There are certain things that ONLY a government can do.
Defense being just one. Only a federal government can be effective dealing with foreign governments. You need a federal government to dole out the radio spectrum. You need a federal government to make the state governments play nice. You need government to protect your rights. The government has to do these things.
It still does them at great expense and badly. Still it is government that needs to do them.

Health care.
Let me start by reminding people what "rights" are. "Rights" are things that the government should never be allowed to take from you and that the government should protect from being taken from you. They are not things that are given. I have a right to my spiritual beliefs. I have a right to speak my mind. I had a right to bear arms to protect myself, my neighbor, my community and my country if need be. I have a right to a fair hearing before my rights are taken from me. I have a right to not be compelled to incriminate myself. These and a few more are rights.
I do not have a "right" to your car. I do not have a right to your money. I do not have a right to health care. These things would be nice. I am not saying they are bad. They however are most certainly not rights.
That which is given to you can be taken from you. Protect your rights and stop giving them up for your wants. It feels good now but as all governments do. This government will continue grow and take your rights. They will offer you candy for your rights. You will give them up. When you finally see what they are doing it will be to late. You will have given up freedom of speech to protect suicidal teenagers from mean high school bullies. You will have given up your right to a gun in a vain attempt to take them away from evil people. You will have given up your right to a fair trial to protect yourself form scary terrorists. You will have given up your rights. They will not taken them from you. You will give them up. Then you will have no protection left.

Understand the difference between what you want and your rights. Then make sure you do not give up your rights for warm feelings inside.

Re:And we want this gov't in charge of health care (1)

Toby Tucker (2550988) | more than 2 years ago | (#38834981)

Well said :)

Re:And we want this gov't in charge of health care (2)

jd2112 (1535857) | more than 2 years ago | (#38835359)

Yes, we should put private enterprise in charge of our roads and highways. Won't travel be more fun when every road is a toll road.

Re:And we want this gov't in charge of health care (1)

mjwx (966435) | more than 2 years ago | (#38836359)

Yes, we should put private enterprise in charge of our roads and highways. Won't travel be more fun when every road is a toll road.

Life will be so much better when every road now to make a profit rather then simply having tolls to offset some of the cost.

Re:And we want this gov't in charge of health care (3, Insightful)

fizzer06 (1500649) | more than 2 years ago | (#38835593)

Have you noticed how far this thread has strayed from original subject of a railroad signal system being hacked?

Re:And we want this gov't in charge of health care (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38836769)

As a non-US citizen i just can't understand what's the difference between (for example) private property rights (the right to your car, and that not being taken away) and right to publicly funded medical care? Basically you are using mutual funds to guarantee both rights. You really have only the rights that the society around you grants you. You have it all backwards when you think the government takes your rights. You are the government. You are living in a democracy. It's not the government taking anything away from you, it's your common will granting and protecting your rights.

Re:And we want this gov't in charge of health care (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38834139)

There's a difference.

Like WHAT? Same government, same politicians bowing to the Golden Rule: Them that's got the gold makes the rules.

Putting them in charge of health care is a matter of ensuring our wellbeing. The others are about violating our rights.

I'm sure they'll take care of our well being about as well as they take care of our rights.

Jeez. How willfully blind can you be?

Re:And we want this gov't in charge of health care (5, Funny)

dougisfunny (1200171) | more than 2 years ago | (#38834243)

Whoosh?
Ostensibly the TSA, PATRIOT ACT, etc are there to ensure public well being.

Re:And we want this gov't in charge of health care (-1, Troll)

gmanterry (1141623) | more than 2 years ago | (#38834601)

And when they have pissed away all the money like they have done with Social Security and Medicare, do you suppose they will deny heathcare to the aged to try to save money? Be patriotic, die for the good of the younger generation. Why do you think they (Our overlords in Congress) exempt themselves from most of the laws they inflict upon the peon masses?

Re:And we want this gov't in charge of health care (1)

HJED (1304957) | more than 2 years ago | (#38836803)

How is funding health care any different from funding roads, they are both essential services which we require in modern day society. Lack of health care increases wealth gaps and makes our society less efficient.

Re:And we want this gov't in charge of health care (0)

twotailakitsune (1229480) | more than 2 years ago | (#38834213)

conspiracy theory Time! The rich are pushing government to do health care. If controlled by the government (that is controlled by corps) then they can kill off the poor (sorry, we could not save your son. The ingrown toenail was to bad. No, you can't see him. Health care requires that we turn in his organs. But you should feel better, your son just save the CEO in the next room.).

Re:And we want this gov't in charge of health care (0)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 2 years ago | (#38834383)

Totally off-topic:

I had an ingrown (two actually, one each foot) nail. 1/4" deep past the skin (nail grew with a sharp curl on the sides, so it grew down like a knife-edge). I delt with that for over a year before we finally had an opportunity to get a doctor to cut them out and burn back the nail bed to prevent regrowth.

Local infection (drainage etc) but never receded even to the knuckle, we kept it at the surface. We did a damn good job at keeping that at bay, all things considered. ... fun times! Thanks for the reminder! (that shit hurt)

Re:And we want this gov't in charge of health care (0)

Toby Tucker (2550988) | more than 2 years ago | (#38834525)

Or try this on for size, "sorry, your blog is critical of Obamacare..."

Obamacare is an entity which cares for its own well being.

Re:And we want this gov't in charge of health care (-1, Troll)

Toby Tucker (2550988) | more than 2 years ago | (#38834449)

There's a difference. Putting them in charge of health care is a matter of ensuring our wellbeing. The others are about violating our rights.

The TSA, and Patriot Act are to, "protect your well being", as well. Government run healthcare is the most vicious and disgusting loss of your freedom, the right to choose whether you live or die. You lose the privacy of your medical records, because they will exist in a national database for all to see. As a freedom loving person, you will probably grow up, realize that health insurance is cheep, and finally figure out that national healthcare is evil.

Re:And we want this gov't in charge of health care (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38835113)

As a freedom loving person, you will probably grow up, realize that health insurance is cheep, and finally figure out that national healthcare is evil.

LOL on the cheap health insurance, heh, that is amusing. If national health care is evil why do Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan Norway, Sweden, and the UK* in comparison to the USA all have:
Nationalized health care
longer life expectancy
lower infant mortality
higher number of MD's per capita
AND
spend less $'s per capita on health care (a little bit more than half as much per person)
spent much less as a percent of GDP on health care (about 9-10% versus US's 16%)

Unless, of course, by evil you mean people living longer and paying half as much for their health care.

Perhaps some day you might realize that the freedom to either get very little health care while contributing to record profits of large health insurance companies or opting to spend even more for direct health care because of monopolistic practices by same companies, isn't really freedom.

  *(I pick these because the info was easy to find via Wikipedia and comes from an OECD 2007 study)

Re:And we want this gov't in charge of health care (4, Informative)

ATMAvatar (648864) | more than 2 years ago | (#38835447)

Reality seems to contradict you [commonwealthfund.org] . The US healthcare system is neither cheap (most expensive on the planet [kff.org] ) nor efficient/good (usually towards the bottom of the list when ranking 1st world countries [nytimes.com] ). In contrast, many of the cheapest and best systems for healthcare are either national healthcare systems (e.g., Canada and UK) or hybridized systems (e.g., the Netherlands).

Comparisons won't work (1)

dbIII (701233) | more than 2 years ago | (#38836525)

There'r no point making outside comparisons, the view is that American healthcare is the best on the planet because it is goddamn American! Instead it's better pointing out parts of their system already quietly inspired by successful examples overseas.
Their problem is they have an insurance system with a side order of heathcare but they do not understand why that makes it so expensive and inefficient. Even Nixon saw that as a problem and attempted to fix it with a proposal that suggested a lot more than Obama dared to try.

Re:And we want this gov't in charge of health care (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38834541)

Hate the loss of privacy and freedom.

Putting them in charge of health care is a matter of ensuring our wellbeing. The others are about violating our rights.

And you think that having the biggest bureaucracy in the country in charge of health care won't result in a loss of privacy and freedom?

Re:And we want this gov't in charge of health care (2)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 2 years ago | (#38836717)

No, it won't. Not as long as you have the option of private insurance to supplement what the government will cover, or paying for things the government won't cover out-of-pocket.

What makes the TSA so insidious is that you don't have the option of flying through a no-bulls**t airport... unless you can afford to own your own private jet. It took over security, and did so in a draconian way, without allowing any other voices to participate in the discussion—any other players to participate in the day-to-day operations—any other alternatives short of choosing a radically different form of transit (which, incidentally, is probably the main reason Amtrak ridership has increased by almost 30% since September 11th after being nearly flat for the twenty years previous).

Besides, when the government health care does it, they are checking for disease.... :-D Turn your head and cough, please.

Re:And we want this gov't in charge of health care (2, Insightful)

pseudofrog (570061) | more than 2 years ago | (#38834163)

Oh yeah. Cause for-profit industry is doing a great job bringing affordable health care to the masses.

We're all better served by folks with pre-existing conditions being denied basic coverage, huh?

Re:And we want this gov't in charge of health care (4, Informative)

characterZer0 (138196) | more than 2 years ago | (#38834263)

health care != health insurance

Re:And we want this gov't in charge of health care (4, Informative)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | more than 2 years ago | (#38834353)

health care != health insurance

True, but in the United States, without health insurance, you cannot get adequate health care.

medical care (3, Interesting)

ProfBooty (172603) | more than 2 years ago | (#38834599)

I have relatives from out of the country staying with us. One of them had a medical issue. We took her to several doctors, got x-rays, and perscriptions. Everything was surprisingly cheap, unless we were purchasing brand name medication.

Of course, surgical procedures and chronis conditions may be another story, but we didn't pay all that much more than 200 bucks for 3 doctors visits, medication, and the x-rays. I figured it was going to be closer to 1,000 based off what I see insurance is billed for on my own visits.

Re:medical care (3, Interesting)

hawguy (1600213) | more than 2 years ago | (#38834917)

I have relatives from out of the country staying with us. One of them had a medical issue. We took her to several doctors, got x-rays, and perscriptions. Everything was surprisingly cheap, unless we were purchasing brand name medication.

Of course, surgical procedures and chronis conditions may be another story, but we didn't pay all that much more than 200 bucks for 3 doctors visits, medication, and the x-rays. I figured it was going to be closer to 1,000 based off what I see insurance is billed for on my own visits.

If providers would bill me what they bill to insurance, it might actually be worthwhile to drop to a major medical plan with a $5K deductible and pay out of pocket for routine costs (which fortunately for me has meant annual routine checkups and one x-ray in the past few years).

However, when I wanted to self-refer myself to a specialist for a specific problem, they quoted an office visit rate that was nearly 10 times higher than what they bill to insurance and any treatments would be billed at similarly high rates. I asked them about a discount for self-pay and they said that their policy was firm, the insurance rate is a negotiated rate with the insurance company and if I wanted to self-pay, I'd have to pay the full quoted rate.

So I ended up going to my primary care physician under insurance, insurance paid me to go through several sessions of his prescribed physical therapy before he was willing to refer me to the specialist that I wanted to go to in the first place.

Health care would be much more affordable if health care providers had to charge self-pay patients their lowest negotiable rate for that treatment.

Re:medical care (2)

Martin Blank (154261) | more than 2 years ago | (#38834937)

I went into the ER for severe abdominal pains a couple of months ago and was there for about four hours. One doctor, two nurses, one dose of Dilaudid, and some lab tests on one vial of blood for various possible causes of the pains racked up some $3000, and they weren't able to pin down the cause. Insurance covered two-thirds of it, but I still had to shell out for a little over a grand. (I have a PPO, so I expect to pay more in most cases, but if I'd known it would be that much out of my pocket, I might have tried to tough it out.)

Re:medical care (1)

flimflammer (956759) | more than 2 years ago | (#38836301)

You were somewhat lucky. A friend of mine was in the ER for a stomach ache about 9 months ago. He had some kind of stomach flu or something and was in there for several hours. Couple X-Rays, medicines, and prescriptions later and his final bill came to over $13,000. He was uninsured, too, so he was stuck with the whole thing.

Re:medical care (2)

RubberMallet (2499906) | more than 2 years ago | (#38837031)

And then there's me. I live outside the US as an expat working in Europe. I pay into the national healthcare. My back gave out and I had to be taken to hospital (I couldn't even walk). I was there 12 hours. I had x-rays, blood tests, and an MRI along with various meds to ease the pain and several examinations. Cost to me out of pocket.. zero.

My partner collapsed at work. An ambulance was called and she as taken to the hospital. Treated kept overnight and released the next day. Cost to her.. zero. Not once did anyone ask for money. She was sick, she was treated (and treated very well / efficiently).

We didn't have to think about things like... can we afford the ambulance, can I afford the MRI... what is this blood test going to cost me? We just got treatment and were healed up.

If I was in the US... ALL of those questions would have to be asked... I am thankful I was sick in a country other than the US.

Re:medical care (1)

Adriax (746043) | more than 2 years ago | (#38834955)

1 night hospital stay in california for a bleeding ulcer. My hemoglobin count had dropped to 8 (average healthy is 15) by 48 hours after the first symptoms.
Treatment consisted of 3 student doctors bickering over whether I deserved a single blood pack, then an EGD where they cauterized the ulcer ("The clot came loose completely by itself and at no fault of our own, so we had to close it."), and finally a boot out the door.

Total cost without insurance because I had just moved there 4 months prior and disney didn't offer it, $17k and I never did get that blood pack.
The hospital tried to blow past the financial assistance when I was admitted too, "I'm legally required to tell you about the assistance options you have, but you'll never get it so just sign here to decline..." Luckily I'm still pretty darn coherent even missing half my blood and got all the proper forms filled out.

Re:medical care (1)

hrvatska (790627) | more than 2 years ago | (#38835195)

Around where I live (central NY) you pay more than what the insurance companies pay. The insurance companies negotiate special rates with all the in network providers.

Re:And we want this gov't in charge of health care (1)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 2 years ago | (#38834415)

health care != health insurance

This needs to be +50, because neither the R's nor the D's understand it and continue to make serious policy decisions based on their misunderstanding that will affect us all.

Re:And we want this gov't in charge of health care (1)

Shavano (2541114) | more than 2 years ago | (#38836059)

Medical charges without insurance in America are off the charts. This doesn't seem consistent with the idea that health care is something private industry can do efficiently.

Re:And we want this gov't in charge of health care (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38834273)

Oh yeah. Cause for-profit industry is doing a great job bringing affordable health care to the masses.

The government isn't going to make health care more affordable, they're just going to make someone else pay for it.

Re:And we want this gov't in charge of health care (2)

Fned (43219) | more than 2 years ago | (#38834381)

The government isn't going to make health care more affordable

I'm not so sure about that. [theonion.com]

they could... (1)

ProfBooty (172603) | more than 2 years ago | (#38834619)

Increase the output of doctors from medical schools by increasing federal funding. Have lots more internists and GPs, or more nurse practitioners. It might not make the AMA happy as it may depress salaries.

Of course if billing wasn't as complex, then providers could lay off all the people they have on staff to deal with those issues.

Re:they could... (1)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | more than 2 years ago | (#38834789)

Increase the output of doctors from medical schools by increasing federal funding.

Apparently you don't understand how the system works. You don't need increased funding, you just have to remove the government caps on internships. That's the mechanism used by the health care industry to keep supplies artificially low.

Re:And we want this gov't in charge of health care (4, Insightful)

Em Adespoton (792954) | more than 2 years ago | (#38834759)

Actually, in most countries with socialized healthcare, the government DOES make healthcare more affordable. This is due to the fact that since they're footing the bill and are already in debt, they don't want to have to spend more on healthcare than they need to -- because unlike other budgets, it's hard to kick back some of the healthcare budget into perks for government employees without a huge backlash from the electorate.

So what you get is big pharm saying "here are these drugs for $X." and government saying "Not if you want to sell them in this country, they're not. You get our contract only if you sell them for $Y*."

*usually, YX.....

Re:And we want this gov't in charge of health care (1)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 2 years ago | (#38834899)

This is due to the fact that since they're footing the bill and are already in debt, they don't want to have to spend more on healthcare than they need to -- because unlike other budgets, it's hard to kick back some of the healthcare budget into perks for government employees without a huge backlash from the electorate.

Yes, but we are talking about America where half the nation thinks its fine when the guys they voted for (because they told them what they wanted to hear) literally borrow trillions per year, and do not "backlash" when it is found that the money just went to the corporations that supported the guys they voted for.

They think that they are "entitled" to shit so cant for the life of them figure out what can be cut enough to balance the budget, let alone pay for their new spending idea.

Re:And we want this gov't in charge of health care (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38836021)

Someone else ALREADY pays for it. A lot. Twice as much as the rest of the civilized world. That somebody is you, and me, and everyone unfortunate enough to live in this privatized paradise.

You think the 20 plus percent off the top of your premiums, the taxes for programs to help those without insurance (inefficient due to lack of scale), write offs for indigent care, idiotic rules about which labs you can use or which doctors you can see, plus all the paperwork associated with helping insurance companies say no to you costs NOTHING?

I once had a claim denied because the receipt was printed on a dot matrix printer with a bad ribbon. I had to FAX the receipt because our modern capitalist insurance company couldn't use better tech, and it didn't fax well. I'd have mailed them the damned thing but they only took faxes. Took months to straighten out, and involved 3 director-level people where I work. You think all THAT was free? And that was incredibly minor to the hell that a lot of people go through. At least I wasn't waiting for care for a life-threatening illness while that was going on.

Purely socialized or highly regulated private systems (as in mandatory not-for-profit but privately run hospitals and insurance companies) are proven to work. Ours is a proven disaster. Something's got to give, and soon.

Re:And we want this gov't in charge of health care (2)

mjwx (966435) | more than 2 years ago | (#38836399)

Oh yeah. Cause for-profit industry is doing a great job bringing affordable health care to the masses.

The government isn't going to make health care more affordable, they're just going to make someone else pay for it.

The facts dont agree with you. The average American with their god like private system pays over $13,000 for insurance. The average Australian pays around $4000 for top private health care with our evil government backed Medicare system. And yes, I included the Medicare levy in that figure. Based on a family of four, parents aged 35-45 avg income A$66,000 used for Medicare levy calculations.

The public system in Australia is good enough that a lot of people, especially young people dont have to get private. This alone puts the private insurance rate for basic cover at $500 for a single 25-35 yr old, top cover starts around $1000.

Re:And we want this gov't in charge of health care (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38834339)

As someone who is working for a for-profit company that does provide healthcare for its employees as well as make large donations to non-profit healthcare organizations, I'd like you to shove your opinion up your ass.

Improve rewards (read, decrease amount of money paid in taxes) for donating to healthcare related charities and there wouldn't need to be a government program and the taxes needed to run said program.

Re:And we want this gov't in charge of health care (1)

uniquename72 (1169497) | more than 2 years ago | (#38834829)

I really wish the Republican crowd would lose the dissonance about huge government.

Love the PATRIOT ACT.

Love the loss of privacy and freedom (habeas corpus & due process suck!)

Love any and all military action.

Love vast expansion of the deficit, as long as it's by Republicans.

Hate the idea of taxes being spent health care (except Medicare part D, a givaway to Big Pharma) and education.

I'd venture to say that most of the /. crowd leans more libertarian than Republican. This is the "dissonance" you're seeing.

Mandatory XKCD (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38834065)

Fearmongering (5, Interesting)

guruevi (827432) | more than 2 years ago | (#38834083)

I think the railroads are the last form of transportation where TSA is not allowed and they want their grubby little hands in the pot. There is literally a conspiracy going on to track every citizen where they are. They can already track your car with all the camera's (to monitor traffic or give you tickets) and license plate detection in unmarked and regular police cars as well as pull you over, detain you indefinitely and search you without cause if you are 200mi from a US border or airport. Now they want in on the train stations too so all railways would be included in their 200 mile zones?

I say, kill the beast while you still can. The TSA needs to be shut down immediately.

Re:Fearmongering (5, Interesting)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | more than 2 years ago | (#38834183)

I say, nonsense! Instead we should vote to rename the TSA to Central Services [wikipedia.org] . I mean, we've already caught them red-handed making up acts of terrorism to facilitate power grabs—what's missing?

Re:Fearmongering (3, Insightful)

plover (150551) | more than 2 years ago | (#38834471)

After this little incident, and last year's "Russian Hackers Remotely Destroyed Your City's Pump, So Panic Now" incident, renaming them to be Minitrue [wikipedia.org] might be more appropriate.

Re:Fearmongering (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38836589)

You know what's missing? Form 27b-6, that's what's missing.

Re:Fearmongering (1)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | more than 2 years ago | (#38836659)

Found it. [suberic.net] Google totally ruins the dystopia of Brazil.

Re:Fearmongering (3, Informative)

longacre (1090157) | more than 2 years ago | (#38834195)

TSA is already allowed to handle ALL modes of transport. TSA screens passengers at some Amtrak stations. The NYPD subcontracts TSA to perform random screening at subway stations (it's cheaper than having cops search bags). TSA also recently started set up some checkpoints along interstates.

Re:Fearmongering (1)

KhabaLox (1906148) | more than 2 years ago | (#38834497)

TSA also recently started set up some checkpoints along interstates.

Citation needed. I saw that claimed in an earlier comment thread and it was debunked then.

Re:Fearmongering (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38834555)

Re:Fearmongering (0)

KhabaLox (1906148) | more than 2 years ago | (#38835007)

Sorry, not doing your research for you.

Re:Fearmongering (1)

Em Adespoton (792954) | more than 2 years ago | (#38834807)

IIRC, TSA is not allowed on BART property. All screening has to be done off-premises. BART does their own screening. NYPD/NYS has CHOSEN to let TSA do this for them; it's not their remit by default. If NYC residents don't like it, they can get the municipality to revoke TSA's license, and there's nothing anyone outside NYC can do about it.

Re:Fearmongering (1)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 2 years ago | (#38836759)

They were banned from Amtrak property for a while, too, after one of their little stunts. To the extent that they are allowed at all, it is at the sole pleasure and discretion of the Amtrak Police, who have final authority over the operation of the entire system, including all aspects of security. If they cross the line, they have been, and will continue to be, escorted off the premises. :-)

seeing how in 2012 railroad still use hole punch (2)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | more than 2 years ago | (#38834219)

seeing how in 2012 railroad still use hole punch tickets taking seems a long way off and to have any thing like a TSA cheek point will need a BIG TIME rebuild of all the stations

Re:seeing how in 2012 railroad still use hole punc (2)

CelticWhisper (601755) | more than 2 years ago | (#38834307)

Which is effectively impossible given that so many stations are little more than a ticket booth and a platform. In rural areas, it's more like needing to BUILD a station in the first place than to rebuild or reconfigure existing structures.

Re:seeing how in 2012 railroad still use hole punc (1)

Sarten-X (1102295) | more than 2 years ago | (#38834489)

A ticket booth and a platform? Wow!

My hometown's station didn't have a ticket booth. We had a sign. Eventually, they got fancy and installed a button with a light inside a little shelter.

Re:seeing how in 2012 railroad still use hole punc (2)

R3d M3rcury (871886) | more than 2 years ago | (#38836311)

You had a sign? Luxury! We had a message scrawled in the dirt! If it rained, you didn't know what to do until the guy with the stick came by and re-wrote the message!

And you try and tell the young people of today that. They won't believe you. [phespirit.info]

Re:seeing how in 2012 railroad still use hole punc (1)

Sarten-X (1102295) | more than 2 years ago | (#38836371)

I was being serious. It looks much like this [wikipedia.org] now.

Re:seeing how in 2012 railroad still use hole punc (1)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | more than 2 years ago | (#38834391)

Why bother? It's not like you can fly a train into a building.

Re:seeing how in 2012 railroad still use hole punc (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38834597)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Train_wreck_at_Montparnasse_1895.jpg

Re:seeing how in 2012 railroad still use hole punc (1)

mjwx (966435) | more than 2 years ago | (#38836423)

seeing how in 2012 railroad still use hole punch tickets taking seems a long way off and to have any thing like a TSA cheek point will need a BIG TIME rebuild of all the stations

Dont be so quick to knock it. Where I live we moved to a RFID system that had millions of dollars in cost overruns before the roll-out and now has millions of dollars in cost overruns because the machines dont work properly. Not to mention the delays because people cant use the RIFD cards properly.

A grandma will literally stare at a smarcard reader because she doesn't know where to swipe the RFID card and of course the RFID system is the only way she can get a senior citizens discount. Also people keep them in the inner most pocket of a massive purse so they cant be read properly. They'll keep swiping it 10 or 20 times getting the error beeps before taking it out of their massive purse. The old magnetic strip card system was easier and faster. So thanks to Modern Technology(TM) public transport is more expensive and less efficient.

Re:Fearmongering (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38834475)

Cameras.
No apostrophe.
God DAMN we can't trust someone who is that dumb to make up the rules on how free we should be.

Re:Fearmongering (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 2 years ago | (#38835309)

The TSA isn't "not allowed" to be involved in trains; they've already done trials which were probably just done to work out costs.

How inconvenient for TSA (5, Interesting)

CelticWhisper (601755) | more than 2 years ago | (#38834157)

I'm sure TSA is unhappy about this. They've long been talking about their intent to spread out into other modes of transportation. Since Amtrak's police have been throwing them out of train stations lately, they've no doubt been searching for any politically-convenient justification they can find to invade rail transit. Doubly so since Amtrak ridership is at an all-time high with people taking trains for the sole purpose of avoiding TSA.

For the politically-active among us, this is perhaps a good opportunity to write to U.S. congresspeople to alert them about TSA's misrepresentation of this report, as well as state congresspeople to encourage them to pass state-level legislation reining in TSA (Tenth Amendment Center has a pre-written Travel Freedom Act [tenthamendmentcenter.com] that works at the state level to criminalize invasive TSA screening procedures).

TSA isn't going to stop their reign of sexual assault and desecration of Constitutional rights until and unless the people stop it for them. Public opinion has been turning against TSA lately, especially with the three elderly travelers who were strip-searched late last year (about which TSA blatantly lied). Now is as good a time as ever to push your elected officials to stop TSA. The site in my sig is a good resource, as is Freedom To Travel USA [fttusa.org] . Please do anything and everything you can to help stop TSA.

Re:How inconvenient for TSA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38834335)

Are you telling me, people were actually supposed to take the TSA seriously? Obviously the media does ...

Guess I didn't get the memo....

Re:How inconvenient for TSA (1)

daviee (137644) | more than 2 years ago | (#38834657)

How can TSA help with cyber attacks/hacker issues on railroads. Are they going after railroad workers and IT staffs to make sure they follow security protocols; then station TSA staffs at train control room doors?

Re:How inconvenient for TSA (1)

dbIII (701233) | more than 2 years ago | (#38836543)

Wasn't it a TSA machine that nobody with a clue was allowed to touch or disconnect that caused a packet storm that put a pile of important systems at LAX offline for many hours some years ago? Those clowns need to be kept away from IT systems for valid security reasons.

Scaremongering, inventing enemies. (3, Interesting)

unity100 (970058) | more than 2 years ago | (#38834165)

Thats what u.s. 'deep government' backed by private interests have used to keep suppressing freedoms and keep progress and plurality outside not only u.s. but all nato members :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio [wikipedia.org]

Every nato member got one of these founded in their own country. these underground organizations then staged assassinations of non-u.s./nato aligned political figures, journalists, activists. in most cases, extra steps were taken to set up leftist (or whatever opposing faction) terrorist organizations which were actually under control of these gladio clones. these terrorist organizations then staged terror attacks while claiming to be doing these for the political views that gladio wanted to alienate public from. for most of the cold war, this was left ideas. and not surprisingly, in all countries these terrorist attacks were used to alienate public from those political views, marginalize their ideas, and also implement various 'security' measures and laws to limit freedoms.

i dont need to tell any american that after soviet union ended and there was no way that this scheme would work, suddenly the 'terror threat' from islamist groups replaced these - and you all know what happened after 2001. ...................

this is no different. in case you have noticed, we are having an extremely ridiculous amount of 'cyber threat' bullshit coming out of not only private interests, but also the government. they are basically just applying the same policies they used to control every aspect of life, to internet. internet was 'way too much' free for them.

i think we dont need to even dwell on the fact that tsa is just a cog in this machine. but, they are floppy at it.

Re:Scaremongering, inventing enemies. (3, Interesting)

jamstar7 (694492) | more than 2 years ago | (#38834791)

Almost reminds me of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Team_b [wikipedia.org] Team B, the CIA's infiltration by Neocon nutjobs to scaremonger themselves back into power. Looking at the roster, it's almost a Who's Who of Neocon wannabe-powerbrokers who later showed up in Dubya's administration and their mentors.

Lovely reading in the official Team B report, thoughtfully provided in PDF format at the end of that page.

I found out about Team B, btw, through a BBC documentary, 'The Politics of Fear', findable on Youtube or at your friendly neighborhood video pirate.

now slashdot posts are legitimate sources... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38834241)

wow, i guess face book comments are also good sources of information...

Not surprising.. (3, Interesting)

b5bartender (2175066) | more than 2 years ago | (#38834247)

So that's the second [sj-r.com] false "cyberattack" in so many months..

Obligatory Monty Python (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38834255)

Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency

Terrorist Attack? (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 2 years ago | (#38834329)

Trains carrying toxic chemicals will be derailing. School buses will be rammed by freight trains at inoperative crossings.

How will we know the difference between an attack and normal operations?

Re:Terrorist Attack? (1)

forkfail (228161) | more than 2 years ago | (#38834521)

More like:

Ticket agents will be sending money off to pay the fees on Nigerian Oil Ministry inheritances.

Conductors will be giving away their World of Warcraft account information.

Popups may start appearing on train information screens.

Re:Terrorist Attack? (2)

WoOS (28173) | more than 2 years ago | (#38835099)

> How will we know the difference between an attack and normal operations?
We would know because each accident on the railroads is meticiously investigated.
See e.g. the web page of the Accident Investigation Office of the German Federal Railroad Agency [German knowledge required]:
http://www.eisenbahn-unfalluntersuchung.de/cln_031/nn_316888/EUB/DE/Publikationen/Untersuchungsberichte/__Function/untersuchungsberichte__tabelle.html [eisenbahn-...suchung.de]

Includes a report on an air condition failure (admittedly that specific failure lead to 9 people having to be brought to a hospital).
At least in Germany we _would_ most probably know if a train had derailed due to a cyber attack.

Re:Terrorist Attack? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38836549)

Whoosh!

Funny how TFA... (1)

forkfail (228161) | more than 2 years ago | (#38834435)

... still makes it sound like some major incident with their nomenclature.

Weird plug (2)

iluvcapra (782887) | more than 2 years ago | (#38834531)

The original currently_awake comment wasn't informative, it was merely a correct guess, and an extremely fuzzy one at that.

Slashdot comment threads will always be more accurate than authoritative information, as long as you grade them relative to a stopped clock.

Re:Weird plug (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38834627)

Made me wonder if both users were not one and the same.

Really TSA? (5, Insightful)

Kozar_The_Malignant (738483) | more than 2 years ago | (#38834643)

Was this really TSA? Let's see:
  • False story... check
  • Spreading FUD... check
  • Blaming hackers... check
  • For something that didn't happen... check

Yep, TSA alright.

Pre-emptive goodbye (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#38835035)

To /. crowd: what are the plans continuing to maintain the existing reader / commenter base of this site once the government shuts down the Internet?

Re:Pre-emptive goodbye (1)

dbIII (701233) | more than 2 years ago | (#38836593)

Rupert Murdoch and others that rent large portions of the government are more interested in an internet that can squeeze more money out of the consumer than no internet at all.
BTW, those links are annoying for people like me that want to read SOMETHING about what a video is about before hitting play. I suppose it's all very cool and post literate but instead it conveys an impression of illiteracy and stupidity whether that is deserved or not.

Signal outage, maybe. (3, Informative)

Animats (122034) | more than 2 years ago | (#38835201)

There was one event a few years ago where some attack on a network resulted in a signal outage. That was because the long-haul links to wayside signal controllers went over an IP network.

But those aren't safety related. The safety logic is all local, in wayside boxes. That's where the train detection to signal control logic is. The long-haul connections are for dispatching - which train goes where, setting up routes, etc. Both the dispatching and safety information have to agree to produce a green light.

An outage of the links to the dispatcher turns signals red and stops trains. Such outages happen occasionally, and they're a huge headache, but not a safety issue. As a backup, trains can be given train orders by voice radio, but they're limited by slow-speed operation in that mode.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>