Slashdot Mirror
Feds Fund Anti-Terrorism Search Engine
Ben writes "The FAA and researchers at the University at Buffalo are developing an anti-terrorism search engine that will hunt for 'hidden' information -- like how to take down an airliner -- that can be puzzled together by grabbing bits and pieces from unrelated documents. Eventually, they say, the technique can be commercialized to improve search results on more mundane matters.`"
That's the funniest thing I've heard about the government doing since they shut down the "psychic spies" unit ten years ago.
Huh, doesn't google do this already!????
Sounds to me like it's simply a terrorism search engine designed perfectly for terrorists. What purposes would culling bits and pieces of info about how to take down an airplane serve for anti-terror efforts? You would find out that it's possible to find lots of info on the subject... great... now what? You're not really going to be able to stop that information from existing.
My sig is blank, I typed this by hand.
is this going to do us any good?
Yes, research in a field otherwise not really (directly) profitable for commercial applications, is now done by the US government... like the summary says, this could have a good impact on search algorithms.
- Leon Mergen
http://www.solatis.com
They will try. Hell, the US has 20,000 gun laws and the areas that have the most gun laws have the highests amount of gun/violent crime.
It doesn't have to make sense, it just has to transfer money from the taxpayers to who ever donated to those that sponsored this.
To be honest, that sort of thing has never struck me as the kind of problem terrorists have had- usually when they've tried it, they've been pretty successful. They haven't tried many times, and we've seen how close even complete and total idiots like Richard Reid(sp?) can come, despite all our "security measures".
Nevermind that far more planes crash because of pilot error or mechanical problems than terrorist hijackings- maybe we should rethink priorities here a little?
What's next? The Department of Transportation determining driver ed manuals need to be pulled because they tell people how to drive a truck, and trucks might be used to carry bombs? Next thing you know, budgets will be hidden because, gasp, we wouldn't want terrorists to know where we spend the most money, they might try to blow it up! Then CSPAN won't be allowed to broadcast senate sessions- wouldn't want terrorists to know when senators are in session. The list goes on and on and on.
This paranoia is getting REALLY annoying. Folks- come to grips with the fact that freedom might, on occasion, require personal sacrifice. This country is getting really fucking annoying to live in, which is pretty much exactly what terrorists set out to do.
In the words of Ben Franklin, "they that give up essential liberty to obtain temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Please help metamoderate.
btu wlli ti wrk if I tpey htings ni schu a wya thta u cna raed lla abuto a trreor plt?
I smee 2 ermmeber taht poeple cn rdae obfsuctaed
wrds. So hw wlle wlil ti wrok whne I strt tlaknig
aobut pultonmiu ro drity bmbs?
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
Well, it makes more sense than a lot of the alternatives, like the idea that we invaded for idealistic causes like liberty and human rights and all that shit. If that were really the case, why has the Bush administration proven so reluctant to get involved in places like Liberia and the Sudan, where there's a lot of humanitarian issues, but no economic interests?
If you really want to get a measure of the character of a person, check out how they treat people who they have nothing to gain from. If you apply that same criterion to the United States, I don't think it comes off as very well. The United States' actions in Iraq are- well, at least were intended to be- self serving.
What those self-serving motives were, I don't know. Part of it, I think, was that after the fall of the USSR, the U.S. became the sole remaining superpower. The Neocons wanted to cement that position by knocking off one of the few guys who challenged us, acquiring strategically important bases in the Middle East, and using that position to ensure that America would continue to be able to access the cheap oil it needs to grow. The liberty of the Iraqis was like all the Halliburton contracts- not the main reason for invading, just a bonus.
If they really want quick results, it seems to me that our tax dollars would be better spent hiring Google to whip them up something instead. Or better yet, just save the tax dollars altogether and find something more useful to spend it on.
Actually, all one has to do is look at the history of enactment of gun control in the US, and you will find that one does cause the other:
Gun crime causes gun laws.
Of course, whether gun laws reduce or increase gun crime is still inconclusive. For every example of one, there is a counter-example of the other.
The Middle East matters and Africa does not. At least from a geopolitical perspective.
For the time being the middle east is going to play a large role in world politics simply because it sits on an ocean of texas tea. The United States did not invade Iraq specifically for oil, liberty, humanitarian purposes, or to combat the spread of WMD. It was probably a combination of those and the fact that Iraq, no matter the leader, has a large influence on the geopolitics of the middle east. And to an extent from there, the entire world.
It's in the United States' best interests to have a power in Iraq that is amicable to the American worldview. Especially one that is amicable to America's regional view.
So really, take your pick as to why the United States invaded Iraq.