Slashdot Mirror

Actually, these types of systems have been studied intensely for years. The US DOT has a whole program centered on smart safety devices called the Intelligent Vehicle Initiative (IVI). Many of the OEMs have also been pursuing this in their own labs.

I should point out that intelligent cruise control (speed adjustment to maintain gap between cars) is already in some cars in the US market (e.g., Infinity Q45). Europe and Japan have more models to choose from (cite your favorite US lawsuit quote here). ICC (aka ACC) with limited (~33%) braking authority is just around the corner.

Also, and perhaps more relevant to /. fears, the Eaton Vorad collision warning and ICC system has been on the market for years. There are a lot of trucks out there with these in use.

Do you have evidence that two SUV's in an accident are not safer than two rice burners?

For Front impact statistics: The compact cars range from 3 to 5 stars, as do the SUVs... but there are 15 5-star compact makes and only one 3 star, while there are 13 5-star SUVs to 11 3-star SUVs. It's more important to choose the right make in either case, but the average is worse for an SUV than for a compact car.

For Side impact, the test uses a fixed-momentum side impact object, so it's not a 'vehicle vs. the same vehicle' test as in the front impact. The more massive vehicle is safer than the less massive vehicle when the two collide because it has more momentum, so this test doesn't address the two identical vehicles in a collision question.

How about an SUV vs a stop sign or tree compared to a rice burner and a non-moving object.

I don't have any recent accident anecdotes to respond with, as I haven't been in an automobile accident in 15 years. This also allows you to not lose your car.

Do you have evidence that two SUV's in an accident are not safer than two rice burners?

For Front impact statistics: The compact cars range from 3 to 5 stars, as do the SUVs... but there are 15 5-star compact makes and only one 3 star, while there are 13 5-star SUVs to 11 3-star SUVs. It's more important to choose the right make in either case, but the average is worse for an SUV than for a compact car.

For Side impact, the test uses a fixed-momentum side impact object, so it's not a 'vehicle vs. the same vehicle' test as in the front impact. The more massive vehicle is safer than the less massive vehicle when the two collide because it has more momentum, so this test doesn't address the two identical vehicles in a collision question.

How about an SUV vs a stop sign or tree compared to a rice burner and a non-moving object.

I don't have any recent accident anecdotes to respond with, as I haven't been in an automobile accident in 15 years. This also allows you to not lose your car.

The constitutionality of sobriety checkpoints has been affirmed by the Supreme Court.

Microphone! sheesh..
Check it out.

Open Container doesn't literally mean open container, it means "a container which is other than in the manufacturer's sealed condition." Take a look at this US Traffic Safety Administration page, for example.

It says: An "open alcoholic beverage container" is any bottle, can, or other receptacle that contains any amount of alcoholic beverage, and that is open or has a broken seal, or the contents of which are partially removed.

Anyway, it was originally supposed to be a joke, albeit not the laugh-out-loud kind.

They already have: No Radar Detectors

Hey, despite the fact that fourteen lives have so far been lost in two shuttle accidents, it's still a whole lot safer than driving your car on a "lives lost per mile travelled" basis.

The orbital speed of the shuttle is over 17000 mph. In a little over a week, the shuttle travels 3 million miles. Even if every single shuttle crashed on reentry like this one did, resulting in the death of the entire crew (7 people), that would mean 7 deaths per 3,000,000 passenger-miles or only 230 deaths per 100 million, which is an absurdly high figure and should tell you that deaths per mile is an inappropriate and misleading statistic to use in this comparison.

But let's go with it for a minute, just to see what the numbers are. Let's conservatively assume that only one percent of shuttle flights end with the deaths of everyone onboard. (This is being generous- the failure rate is slightly higher than this.) That's about 42,800,000 passenger-miles per fatality, or 2.3 deaths per 100 million passenger-miles. Which is pretty good compared to automobile travel, right?

According to the government, in the year 2000, there were 1.5 deaths per 100 million vehicle miles traveled. (The deaths per passenger mile are not given, although they should be similar.)

Therefore, even in terms of "lives lost per mile travelled", the shuttle is still not as safe as a car! Incredible!

I don't doubt that certain behemoth makers dump small/alt power cars for this reason, I still am not convinced Honda, Toyota, Nissan, much less *all* manufacturers operate at a loss on the majority of their fleets. That still doesn't pass the smell test.

-Ted

Automated Mileage and Stateline Crossing Operational Test (AMASCOT):

Here's the Iowa State University study

Here a longer, more general PDF report on AMASCOT

It was originally designed for tracking commercial vehicles, but now is being cited for passenger vehicles too.

In Wisconsin, a man is charged with using GPS to stalk his ex-girlfriend.

Well, state gas taxes are already pretty high. Doubling is would put the price of gas over $2 in some places, and you can imagine the riots. :)

If you look at the DOT report, they seem to believe fuel taxes will become useless or very unfair in the future, esp. with electrics, so start transitioning now. I think they're probably right, though I don't know the solution.

I call bullshit, and demand references.

Do you understand how ABS works? It alternatively locks and unlocks the wheel, which gives a pulse pattern, which means you stop for a second, roll for a second, etc. (Not actually 'a second', but short, pre-determined time intervals)

Read the first 10 pages of google results for "abs increases stopping distance".

What, like;

• This one?

  "1) It isn't entirely clear that antilock braking will reduce stopping distance for the skilled driver;"

  "The IIHS report, issued December 10, 1996, notes that in single-vehicle accidents, cars with antilock brakes are as much as 44% more likely to produce fatalities than are cars without the antilock system."

• Or this one?

  "Other factors affecting ABS performance include the condition of the tires, shocks, and suspension components, as well as their design. For example, if a tire hits a bump and the shocks/springs are weak, the tire may lift off the ground and lock under brake pressure. ABS interprets lockup and releases the brakes. The more the tire is off the ground, the more the brakes will release, thus extending the stopping distance."

• Or this one?

  "Stopping distance is nearly the same for pumped brakes as it is when the brakes are locked. However, with locked brakes the driver has little, if any, control over vehicle direction. ABS pumps the brakes automatically during emergency stop. It prevents wheel lock and allows the driver to maintain a higher degree of control."

  "Most people who have tested ABS in panic situations feel positively towards them. ABS, as stated before, does not shorten stopping distance. If the driver doesn't leave enough room to stop, an accident could occur. Drivers must apply good judgement whether or not their vehicle has ABS."

• Or this one?

  "Do cars with ABS stop more quickly than cars without it? Not always. Although the stopping distance with ABS is shorter under most road conditions, drivers should always keep a safe distance behind the vehicle in front of them and maintain a speed consistent with the road conditions. While a vehicle with ABS maintains its steering capability in a sudden stop, it may not turn as quickly on a slippery road as it would on dry pavement."

• Or this one?

  "ABS technology is designed to maintain rolling traction and steering. The rolling action may produce longer stopping distances on some surfaces, such as freshly fallen snow or loose gravel."

I think you get the point. The comonality between all of thesee pages looks like this;

1. Ideal conditions are required (both road and vehicle)
2. Drivers must be trained/knowledgeable in use of the system
3. Stopping distance is not always reduced, but the steering advantage is hilighted.

The problem with light cars (a very large number of consumer purchased vehicles lately) is that they don't have the weight to keep the skipping wheels on the ground, thus dramatically reducing the efectiveness in both stopping distance and steering control, hence the reason for removing them from the likes of the Cavalier and Sunfire.

Especially in snow, gravel, and sand (loose pack) ABS will drastically increase your stopping distance (by about 200% in some cases, depending on speed and density of the material you're driving in). The plow effect by your car's tires slows the trajectory of your vehicle.

ABS isn't designed to reduce stopping distance, it is designed to give steering control. These are two VERY different things. Incidentally, locking your tires and knowing how to change directions can/will significantly reduce your stopping distance with the same amount of control, as anyone who's ever taken or instructed a crash course will tell you.

I've conducted 80KM/h tests myself, in snow (loose and hard packed), gravel, sand, and wet and dry asphalt and under many of the conditions, especially the non-ideal driving conditions, my stopping distance was increased. I will grant you that my tires did suffer more on the locking tests, but if I'm making an emergency stop, I'd much sooner replace some tires than find myself face-first in the side of an SUV/Minivan/truck/etc.

BTW, speaking of ideal conditions; This study hilights another problem with ABS - Driver reaction time and leg strength. Many (most?) women and smaller men have great difficulty in putting 100lbs pressure on their brake pedals in a real hurry, which the NHTSA has discovered increases stopping distance (150-200lbs is the desired pressure, which was difficult to attain, except by the TRC (professional) test driver).

In the US they are designed to try and save people who refuse to wear seat belts. Over here most people wear them

I'm always a little curious about broad statements, especially when comparing the habits of different societies.

I live in California, which is the most populous state, and has by far the most cars of any state, as well as the most stringent emissions laws. It turns out that, at least as of 1999, it also had the highest rate of seat belt use, nearly 90%. (Buckle up America Report, 2001)

At a national level, that 90% is considered a target number for 2005. As of 2002, national usage is at 75%, which was a sad surprise to me. Of course, each state has its own laws.

It isn't surprising to me that less than half of North Dakotans wear a seat belt, considering the rural environment and culture, but I would have thought the national average would be higher by now.

Interestingly, all the states that border California are also very high.

I'll throw two simple facts at you:

1-number of deaths per year involving a gun in the EU: 600
2- same in the US of A: 11.000

Decibels aren't on a linear scale. Your 53db is a logrithmic difference. Every 3db in difference is a doubleing of intensity. 123db is twice as intense as 120db. So 53/3 = 17.6667 which means 173db is 2^17.6667 times as loud as 120db. Which is actually 208063.83 times as loud. Which means the article was still wrong. Here's a link about decibel math: here.

Links 'n quotes:

Alaska Railroad Quote: The conversion to CWR dramatically decreases maintenance costs, and improves ride quality as shown in the successful CWR test section in South Anchorage.

Federal Railroad Administration Quote: Continuous welded railroad track is constructed with extremely long lengths of rail rather than traditional 39-foot lengths of rail. With far fewer rail joints than "jointed rail track," continuous welded rail offers a smoother ride and easier track and rail car maintenance.

Well, just to clarify the post. Audi/VW is not really any type of "leader" when it comes to mpg. If you don't believe me take a look for yourself. nhtsa.dot.gov Fuel Econ Study

• here's a topic specific page
• and a google search

People try to do way too many things while driving. I have a bad habit of talking on the phone, as well as switching CDs. Driving is difficult b/c it can be so unpredictable, and people lose sight of that fact. Here's some articles on use of telematics while driving:

• indiana state medical assoc.
• nhtsa
• in fact, here's a google search

My company recently did a study on telematics use and driver/user attention, and it was pretty freaky how poorly people were able to attend to their main task while performing the secondary telematics task.

Todd

IE is standard because it's the most popular web browser. When banks analyze their log file traffic and 90%+ of their traffic is coming from IE, then yes, people get the impression that IE is the standard.

Does IE actually use "standards" though? Well, that's another argument. Unfortunately, the most popular browser becomes the browser that sites get coded against. Consequently, it becomes the standard.

I would say that Opera is an alternative browser too. The average web user has no idea what Opera is. Even if they did know what it is, why would they even want another web browser when IE is conviently located on their desktop? Man, if the IE icon isn't right on the start menu, quick launch toolbar and on the desktop, my family has no idea where the icon is.

And it's a good thing Ford isn't the standard otherwise we would have to deal with more of this and that but I digress

I have yet to actually see anyone making the claim of "Increased costs of healthcare" actually produce figures to back it up.

Having debated this issue while in college, I've done my homework. Here's some reading:

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/pedbimot/sa febike/endnotes.html

Judge shopping, etc

one node in the web of these special non-profits

Why is this relevant or even on-topic? Because it wil be this exact sort of machinery and framework that will be used on the internet. The same methods. They will conduct "research" and lawmakers will use that information as a basis for making decisions just as the NHTSA has done, and the NHSTA, a government agency, literally uses the words "judge shopping" intheir recommendations they've gotten by proxy of one of these non-profits.

they play pretty dirty, don't they? you just wait, that same judge shopping and jury tampering advice will be given to the prosecutors who come after you for file sharing.

Personally I feel there should be MORE responsibility placed on the consumer, not less. Why should we have laws protecting them from their own bad decisions? Did Microsoft advertise that their product would be bug-free? On the contrary, their EULA says exactly the opposite. It's the consumer's responsibility to buy products from companies which they believe will support them in the future, won't cause death or financial loss, etc.

Umm, huh???

Have you ever looked at the NHTSA Recalls web site?

Find me a car manufacturer that a consumer can reasonably believe will make a vehicle that won't "cause death". Or just one that won't cause inconvenience.

You think car makers support previous year models because they want to? Nope. The government makes them. More specifically, the government makes them correct product defects at the manufacturer's cost. If you ever paid for recall work to be done on your car, you were ripped off.

By the same logic, if you pay for correction of a defective software product... are you getting ripped off?

And don't think this is just for serious injury or death. Car recall work covers such non-life-threatening things as air conditioning.

When a company sells a defective product, consumer protection laws are *supposed* to make the manufacturer repair or replace that product. Doesn't matter if it is a kid's toy, a car, a television, a computer, or computer software. A defective product is a defective product.

And don't give me any of this crap about how hard software development is. Designing bridges so they don't fall down is hard. (Look at Tacoma-Narrows.) Designing cars so they don't have exploding gas tanks is hard. (Look at Ford Pintos, and appearently some police cruisers too.)

Saying "but it's hard" is another way of saying "I don't want to be bothered doing it right".

And the academic CS response of "it is mathematically impossible to verify complicated software"... We used to think it was physically impossible for bumblebees to fly too, the models of their wings said they couldn't possibly do that. Somebody noticed bumblebee wings are curved, not flat, and everyone that said it was impossible suddenly stopped talking. "It's impossible" is another way of saying "we don't know how yet".

If your justification is "the industry is immature" then the solution is to either outlaw use of your products until they are mature, or to force manufacturers to offer additional protections for this immature product, not fewer protections.

Hmm. This suggests an interesting new social philosophy. If you make people follow rules, you're punishing them. Most people don't need rules, because they have enough common sense not to abuse their freedom. So, it shouldn't be against the law to rob banks. After all, only a few are greedy enough to try to take all the money, and we shouldn't punish all the sensible people who only steal money when they absolutely need to.

Bad analogy. Traffic laws are completely different than laws against robbing a bank (for starters, while a traffic ticket is technically considered a misdemeanor criminial offense, a bank robbery is usually at least a felony, and often under federal jurisdiction. apples and oranges). You're arguing that if one rule or one set of rules is wrong or bad or pointless, then all rules should be the same. Let's turn this around, then shall we? How do you feel about the DMCA? Don't like it, do you? Well, if robbing a bank is illegal, and you think there should be a law against it, then obviously (by your argument) the DMCA is good and just. "But wait!" you say. The DMCA is evil! It's bad! It's just plain wrong! Well, how about this: "Put simply, the 85th percentile speed is the speed at which most people drive. BUT... most limits are lower than this number by about 10 MPH." (from here, summarizing from here) Does that mean that speed limits are bad, or wrong? They're obviously designed to hinder motorists and line the pockets of local governments (tin-foil hat alert!).

So let's recap. The DMCA is wrong, and shouldn't be a law. Current speed limits are wrong, and should be adjusted correctly. So that must mean that it should be okay to rob a bank, right?

It's a major issue: does the Government have the right to track your travel? Historically, the answer for U.S. citizens within the US has been "no".

U.S. Transportation Security Agency regulations 1544.201 do not call for an ID check, just searches of passengers. Airport employees are subject to stringent ID checks, but passengers don't seem to be. And those regs are dated February 22, 2002; they're definitely post-9/11.

Gilmore's lawyers have probably read that material. The ID requirement doesn't seem to rest on law or regulation. Airlines may wish to impose such a requirement, but the Government doesn't seem to.

You would have sounded like less of a fucking retard had you said:

And they pay for it too, what the hell do you think all those toll booths all over the interstates are for? Art?

First, Most of the interstate highway system doesn't have toll booths, fucknut. Drive outside Jersey (or whatever tiny world you live in) and you'll notice that toll roads aren't all that common in the Interstate Highway System. Only 2,230 miles out of the 42,800 mile Interstate highway system are toll roads (that's about 5%), and the toll money is used strictly for maintaining that one section of road. Basically, you have it ass-backwards: it's not that they decided to charge tolls on the interstate, it's that the DOT allowed toll roads into the interstate system because they were already there and building a parallel (free) road was essentially a waste of resources.

Second, the toll-free 95% of the Interstate highway system is maintained with federal money, so we're all paying for it. Even if the federal fuel tax revenues were enough, it still would be a case of light-users subsidizing heavy-users because fuel tax is paid whether you use the gas to drive on the interstate or not, and MOST vehicular travel is people driving within 5 miles of home, not on the everfucking INTERSTATE.

I sound like a retard? At least I know how to look up shit to verify my claims, jackass.

For the record, the Federal Railroad Administration has a Maglev page here. looks like the page hasn't been updated too recently, which is either good news or bad news, depending on what side of the monorail you're on...

For those who are interested, these numbers can be verified from the Deparment of Transportation's Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS)Web-Based Encyclopedia website. Check out the Traffic Safety Facts 2000 Annual Report.

Summary for 2000: 41,821 killed, 3,189,000 injured.

For those who are interested, these numbers can be verified from the Deparment of Transportation's Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS)Web-Based Encyclopedia website. Check out the Traffic Safety Facts 2000 Annual Report.

Summary for 2000: 41,821 killed, 3,189,000 injured.

For more information, here's the memo as a pdf or text from the the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Transportation.

For some background into why this may be happening, consider the following: FAA Administrator Jane Garvey was a champion of the STARS program. She is about to leave the post, and may want to be able to claim some success before she goes. Also, th philadelphia TRACON is nearing its capacity and needs to be upgraded in the immediate future. There are two ways to go for the upgrade: One is to put in STARS, and the other is to install Common ARTS, a competing system. If they can't put STARS on in the immediate future, practical necessity will force them to install Common ARTS instead. If they put the money into installing Common ARTS now, they'll have a hell of a time justifying switching over to STARS later, because there'll be no need. Thus, Raytheon and Garvey and other STARS proponents are in a now-or-never situation to get STARS in, by hook or by crook, unless they want the work to go to a competitor and make them look bad.

NOTE: This is my own opinion, written on my own time, and I DO NOT speak for my employer (one of the companies involved).

For more information, here's the memo as a pdf or text from the the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Transportation.

For some background into why this may be happening, consider the following: FAA Administrator Jane Garvey was a champion of the STARS program. She is about to leave the post, and may want to be able to claim some success before she goes. Also, th philadelphia TRACON is nearing its capacity and needs to be upgraded in the immediate future. There are two ways to go for the upgrade: One is to put in STARS, and the other is to install Common ARTS, a competing system. If they can't put STARS on in the immediate future, practical necessity will force them to install Common ARTS instead. If they put the money into installing Common ARTS now, they'll have a hell of a time justifying switching over to STARS later, because there'll be no need. Thus, Raytheon and Garvey and other STARS proponents are in a now-or-never situation to get STARS in, by hook or by crook, unless they want the work to go to a competitor and make them look bad.

NOTE: This is my own opinion, written on my own time, and I DO NOT speak for my employer (one of the companies involved).

Why is it so hard for people to understand that speeding kills and, no matter how they would like to believe otherwise, they're only average or below the average drivers?

Because it's not necessarily true? Exspecially when the posted speed limits are below the 85th-percentile speed on the road.

See the MUTCD for more info.

There is an unsubstanciated assumption in your comment that driving safely is contingent on driving legally.

I believe the connection between breaking driving laws and accidents is well substantiated. After all, the only purpose of enforcing the laws is to reduce accidents. It would be quite a stretch to argue that breaking the laws is generally safer than obeying them.

They should learn to respect someone who wants to drive faster than them, not get aggravated at them. Chances are I'll be the one with the expensive ticket, not them.

In 1996, speeding was a contributing factor in 30 percent of all fatal crashes, and 12,998 lives were lost in speeding-related crashes.

Chances are you'll be the one who kills an innocent person, not them.

A driver's license wasn't always required. The first states to require a driver's license were Massachusetts and Missouri in 1903. However, it wasn't until the 1950s that all states required road test and/or examination in order to get a license (reference). Somehow the world managed to survive those 40 odd years of unlicensed drivers.

Most people don't have any inkling as to how how much the world has changed in the last 50 years (or 100 years for those of you over 50). Politicians today can get elected on platforms that would have had them run out of town on a rail only 30 years ago.

In the future people watching old movies won't understand the terror implicit in the phrase "ver are your paperz!". They won't recognize that phrase as being fundamentally un-American.

Revisionist history will make sure they aren't even taught that things were ever any different. Revisionist history may not even include a mention of Washington, Jefferson, or Franklin.

If some people get their way you won't even be able to teach yourself history. All that you will know are the "facts" The State has approved for your consumption.

The sad thing is that already anyone who points these things out is derided as a nut.

and large, roads are built with money from taxes on property or retail sales or personal income

Actually, the Federal government pays out highway subsidies and direct highway expenditures nearly as much as it takes in for gas taxes. Source.

For the states, it depends. In Wisconsin, gas tax pays for all of road expenses. We have slightly higher gas tax than our neighboring states, but we also have IMHO nicer roads.

On the federal level, it's close. Here's a table that shows FHA revenues vs. expenditures.

On the state level, it depends on the state. In Wisconsin we have high gasoline tax, but all of it goes to the roads and thus we have nice roads. In Minnesota all of the gas tax plus more from the general fund goes toward roads, their gas tax is lower so more is paid from the general fund. I don't know about other states.

Right. I can see it now. You want the same population that can't keep their tires inflated correctly to see that a robotic car gets software updates? Imagine the carnage. Yikes!

The article is good, but it misses some points. First, Los Alamos is a far cry from a university. They develop atomic weapons there and those are classified.

Even though there is no more "Enhanced Class B" airpace in the U.S., Santa DID get permission to fly from the U.S. government.

The Experimental Aircraft Association filed a flight waiver request for Santa which was granted by the Federal Aviation Administration.

Earlier he got permission directly from U.S. Secretary of Transportation Norman Y. Mineta.

In spite of this, Santa flies VFR (Visual Flight Rules) and it it is up to him to "see and avoid" other traffic in the air.

No, it would be like making Capt. Hazelwood the Secretary of Transportation.

(Uh, he was in charge of an oil tanker.)

The "15 times" is based on the fatality rate per 100 million vehicle miles traveled for motorcycles and passenger cars. The latest numbers can be found here. For 1999, motorcycles were 18 times as dangerous as passenger cars.

Accrding to this site, an average of 110+ people are killed every day in automobile accidents - and we never give that a second thought.

National Highway Traffic Saftey Association-Fatal Accident Reporting System

My prayers go out to all the families affected by this :(

Someone targets airplanes, and people stop flying. Someone targets mail, and people stop using mail. Is this kind of a response reasonable? There's a lot of knee-jerk reactions which are not necessarily effective, and the economic effects of wholesale eschewment of mail and air travel are pretty widespread.

Yet in other areas people are so incredibly complacent. People will put off travel despite an impossibly remote possibility of being a victim of travel, but they'll happily hop on the local highway without regard for hundreds of 20,000lb transports hurtling down the road at 75mph all around them, any of which could crush them to death in the slightest instant if the driver just flicked the steering wheel the tiniest bit. 41,611 people were killed in automobile accidents alone in 1999 on US roads. 430,700 people died per year between 1990 and 1994 from cigarette smoking alone. It's quite stunning really the fear that the media can drum up when we come to live with enormously costly things like the millions that die every year because of voluntarily choosing to eat Big Macs and other high saturated fat foods.

I'm not saying that dying at the hand to terrorists is comparable to voluntarily undertaken risks, but it does seem that some things are being grossly overstated, such as the risks of anthrax.

Ah even better... http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/

*I* am the original poster of the comment due to some misconfiguration I posted anonymous.

You are still anonymous.

Let me clarify please:

OK

I do not support and do not agree with the series of events which happened in New York.

That is good. However, it is kind of an empty statement. Few people support or agree with the WTC deaths.

Still I do think that this way of retaliating will not make your country (or mine) your family.

...safer?

Actually I think it will make it unsafer and more prone for such actions. Someone with enough determination will eventually be able to do the same thing again (eg flying a airplane in to a building).

If the people that want to kill you are dead, they cannot get you. The people with the determination are trying to kill us, right now.

What we are doing now is giving them a lot more determination:

We are not "giving" anyone determination. We are preventing terrorists from trying to kill us. As another Anonymous Coward put it, they can hate us, but they shouldn't kill us.

- A lot of suicide activists are doing it for the money, not for themselves but for their family. They know their family will be good taken care of!

They are still terrorists. Should we ignore them and let them kill us too? What is the point?

- When they get caught they probably get a death sentence anyway, so what is the difference?

The difference, again, is that if they are dead, they cannot kill us.

A reader asked don't I love my oil etc? Yes, but at what cost? A lot of the rulers in the middle east came to power because of us! The population of these countries knows that and they are not getting a fair share of the oil-money do they?

Fine. That doesn't mean they should kill us.

We don't allow importing grain for example from third world countries because that would harm our farmers (or we subsidise our farmers so much that it renders the effect the same), but yet we impose strong regulation on what those countries should import from us (nuclear waste?)

Really? Where is the data? I've heard this argument before, yet there is very little evidence that this is true.

The idea that we won't import grain seems silly. We are one of the world's largest exporters of grain. I think you have your facts wrong.

You talk about freedom? How can you feel free if 75% of the world population is not?

How is the U.S. preventing other countries from having freedom? Your comment makes no sense. We allow people into the U.S. so they can be free. We also try to help countries that want to have democratic governments. Sure, this is a blanket statement, but in general, the U.S. supports freedom.

Other countries are like alcoholics -- we can only help them if they want to be helped, and want to help themselves.

A lot of people are being hurt by American weapons (isreal --> palestina to name one) People dont forget that.

Good point. This is true, from what I have read.

A big part of the World economy thrives on selling weapons, so is the American economy.

As I said above, this is true, to my knowledge.

But wait, exactly what do this have to do with people killing Americans? Because we sell guns? Seems like a feeble argument.

Where somone gets rich someone else gets poor.

The economy is not a zero sum game. If you think otherwise, provide some evidence.

Now this happened in your backgarden and you are rightfully outragous about it, but please dont think your country's hands are any cleaner than theirs.

The other readers are making the point that you should not kill other people. If they are killing you, how should you react? Even if policies are changed, do you sincerely think they will stop trying to kill us? I thought the main question one Anonymous Coward wrote was spot on the mark:

"If these fsckers are willing and able to kill you, and they will not negotiate, how should we deal with them?"

• Look at each proposed limitation on freedom and clearly explain why it won't work.

• Increased security and searches at airports, especially on domestic flights: This will help. It's common in most European countries, and has been recommended several times in the US, most recently by good old Al Gore in 1997.
• Go hog wild with FISA warrants: Might help, although "hog wild" in the context of FISA is relative, and as the details of FISA warrants are secret and non-overseen, how would we know how effective they are?
• Mandatory encryption backdoors: OK, I wrap my message in an older PGP, then wrap that in the backdoored version. How does that help you find or read it?
• Mandatory copy control on all hardware: What the hell has this got to do with this issue, you ask? The Bill under consideration mentions "security". It talks about defending the US economy. It could sneak through just on those merits. That makes it (very unfortunately) relevant to this discussion, as it's a warning that we can't let "me too!" legislation slip through on the back of this.

Some of the proposed measures are effective, and actually overdue. Some, like FISA, are unfortunate necessities. But the backdoors are pointless at best, and at worst, criminalise Joe Public (or more likely, Jane Corporate).

Actually in 1999 it was 3468, but the point is well taken.

Regards, Ralph.

Still around. You can see some basic info about that program (pre-bombing) on the FAA site. (Report at DOT site on the program is also available.) 9-15 USA Today article also discusses this.

For all those individuals who are not aware of the situation, there are numerous executive orders
and laws(the biggest one passed in 1947, IIRC the National Security Act) which lay out and govern the functioning of the government in a state of emergency.

In Bush's case, he is practically required to keep moving until such time that the emergency is over. Again IIRC, during any instance where there are large number of government officials in a small area such as a State of the Union Address,
at least one of the four top officials in the chain of command is taken to another location...just in case.

Amazing how I learned this back in Junior High in Civics class and yet most of the media and the obviously superior and brilliant John Katz are not aware of these simple facts.

For a some discussion visit Continuity of Government - United States Nuclear Forces.

Newsmax has a discussion of accused spy Hanssen allegedly revealing these plans to the Russians located here.

There is a short blurb located here.

CF