How does the number of pedophiles convicted globally during the same time frame relate to the number of terrorist attacks?
Wrong question.
How high is the occurence of paedophiles among scanner operators?
And even more important, are these scans stored and available to others not connected with security of this flight?
I think the initial question is a fair one with a slight change, since I can theorise how the number of pedophiles convicted domestically during the same time frame might be relevant to the number of terrorist attacks.
If children in your country are being subject to molestation, abduction, rape, and murder in numbers that completely dwarf the number of people affected by foreign terrorist attacks on carried out against domestic targets, then one could reason that your government is being grossly negligent by misallocating the resources meant to protect it's citizens.
Why isn't "a quick, less-intrusive scan and other, less-indecent security measures" an option? It's not that hard to secure a plane without basically taking nude pictures of people. Place an armed guard or two on every plane (and create some jobs doing so, yay!), use conventional scanners to ensure people don't bring along explosives, and enable the pilot to seal the cockpit from the inside so that in case of an extremely unlikely, but possible terrorist take-over he can still land safely.
Personally, I'm content with checked baggage scanners, going through a metal detector and being wanded, and running carry-on items through the scanner next to the metal detector. So long as the pilots are sealed in the cockpit, and there's proper security around the plane itself while it's on the ground, no one's managed to do anything scary that I can think of. Note that the key security aspects aren't applied to travellers. Ensure there are no explosives in checked baggage, keep the planes on the ground secure from sabotage, and make sure the pilots are safe and secure. Normal security for passengers, like metal detectors, helps to keep the rest safe from obvious things like getting shot or detonating easily detected explosive devices.
As for someone with a stomach or colon full of C4, that's the sort of thing that just has to be addressed from the other angle: don't let terrorists get C4, or at least catch them when they waddle out from an area known for terrorist training camps and head toward an airport.
If they need to take an x-ray of your hip (or, heaven forbid, a child's hip) for medical reasons, do you complain that genitals will show up as a silhouette in that as well?
In this situation, I am well aware of patients privacy laws, and authorised the x-ray after accepting the recommendation that it will be useful to treat what which ails me. I have yet to see comprehensive (and by nature, international) laws concerning rights while travelling, and I don't for a minute accept the claim that body scanners are beneficial to me in the slightest way. As you say, they don't actually make a difference. If I suspect my hip might be broken, I an x-ray will be useful.
Why is it worse for kids to be forced through this scanner than it would be for adults?
Expanding from the naked photos of kids perspective of these scanners, I can't really think of any situation where it's acceptable (or legal) to require an adult to be photographed naked if he or she doesn't wish to be.
Terrorists will always find a way to get explosives on planes if they feel they need to.
I keep thinking that it's only a matter of time before they figure out they don't need to. Forget defeating the security lineup; just strap on some old-fashioned bombs, walk into said security lineup, and before being searched, blow themselves to hell and take a hundred or so innocents with them. Coordinate that at a few different airports around the world, and watch the entire airline industry collapse overnight.
Terrorists who do that kind of planning are presently sending people to blow up markets and government buildings in Pakistan and Afghanistan, not to mention soldiers and police. The shoe and underwear bombers are isolated cases with their own circumstances, not part of a comprehensive campaign to attack western targets. We can see the comprehensive campaign waged by extremists against their perceived enemies, because it's killing innocent people every day. Just because the mainstream public doesn't count those attacks as blows against the US doesn't mean that the extremists have the same perspective.
How many terrorist attacks have happened against planes? Well, depends how far you go back. You see, all the security is nothing new and BEFORE they were put in place, attacks happened far more often. That an entire generation has grown up without constant hijackings, that says something.
It doesn't matter how far you go back if you're comparing the number to something else, like traffic accidents or violent crime, measured over the same time span. If you take such a comparison and then examine the rhetoric and national priorities we hear in politics, the "war on terror" seems pretty absurd. Terrorism is presented to Americans as such a critical and dangerous part of the world today, but really, that's ridiculous. There are countless comparisons one can make to demonstrate this. Is your child more in danger from a) terrorists, b) pedophiles? Answer? Are you more comfortable taking them on a flight with you, or losing track of them in a crowded mall?
Personally, I have a much simpler measure. In my daily life, do I consider myself to be at risk from a terrorist attack, at all? Honestly, no. Things that I consider might threaten my well being are much more mundane, and almost universally things that would be improved by the government investing money improving various aspects of them (money wasted on bad decisions concerning terrorism).
What I find more intriguing is the real reason behind all of this crap. Distract people from real problems? Collapse the air transportation system? Mess with our minds? Totalitarian control?
No need to be so dramatic, it's just politics. I think people genuinely are more afraid for their safety while flying (trapped, uncomfortable, incomprehensibly high above the ground, etc). It's can be good politics to play that up (even without any specific goals other than raising poll numbers), and if something does happen like the underpants bomber, it's good politics to attack if your opponent tries to assuage the public's fear with reason rather than respond with visible new security measures.
So they spend millions preventing a rare event, yet allow sale of tobacco that kills millions a year.
Speaking of which, I wonder if the TSA rules still let air travellers carry lighters and matches onto flights, so they will be able to smoke in the designated smoking areas during layovers and such. I remember sometime after 9/11 when I was flying a fair bit, fingernail clippers had been banned but a person could still carry up to 2 lighters and 3 matchbooks, or something like that.
How long before someone blows a train or two and the same security theater takes place on train stations? What comes after that - schools, theaters, shopping malls, churches....face it, the terrorist assholes won, because our collective stupidity, hysterical media and gutless politicians did 95% of the job.
The same security theatre will never take place for trains as it has for air travel. I think people feel safer on the ground, and they've never seen a train destroy two skyscrapers full of thousands of people. On the ground, accidents happen, violent crime happens, and it's been that way for as long as anyone can remember. I don't think people will ever be as fearful about their security with any means of travel as they do with flying.
I simply don't buy it. I don't care if this "feels" less invasive. Its still my privacy going away, for what I see as no benefit to anyone, not even myself as a flyer.
I've been thinking, why not focus on making planes harder to crash instead? Just think, if the underpants "bomber" had not managed to smuggle aboard that could have so easily crashed the plane, and instead had set off something that had no real chance of causing key damage. Then, feeling good about flight safety, we wouldn't have need for these enhanced body scanners.
I'm being a little sarcastic there, but in all seriousness, what how vulnerable are these planes, with the pilots now locked in the cockpit? If the only real threat is in the area of punching a hole in the cabin and causing violent decompression, there must be real limits to how much explosive force can be brought on a plane through traditional security measures. How does that compare against the real limits to how much a plane's cabin can be reinforced? Obviously "armoured" planes would use much more fuel, but maybe people would pay more to avoid the intrusion?
Privacy is a civil right. Flying is an activity, a means of travel. A scenario. However, the civil rights of Americans are protected in many different opt-in scenarios and activities, and the same goes for plenty of other countries as well (all to different extents). When travelling on the bus, for example, I somehow doubt even a police officer can search your person without probably cause (the important part being that probable cause is not already implied by your presence on the bus).
a fear of nakedness can never be an excuse for less security.
In your opinion, what can be an excuse for less security? Surely there is a limit; what do you think should this limit be?
While I can't offer the opinion of the poster you are replying to, I can suggest what I think is a pretty good excuse for less security: cost, privacy, along with a realistic assessment of what the actual danger to airline customers from terrorists really is. When something like the Christmas Day pants-fire incident happens, I don't think it's cynical to say that a political response in airline security is inevitable, regardless of whether or not there was any real threat that the plane might have crashed.
I'm not saying there was or wasn't in that case. However, the cost of increased security measures and the extent to which they invade travellers' privacy can definitely be an excuse for not increasing security, if the extent of the increase is proportional as a political response, not as a security response.
I assume this is because white people who convert to Islam are the most likely to be radicalised in the eyes of the security people.
Look, in the last 10 years, there's been 9/11, the London and Europe train bombings, and the "set his balls on fire" man... all done by Muslims in the name of Islam.
Exactly *which* demographic should the security guards be looking at ? Over 65 year old Mormons ?
It's not radicalisation, it's just common fucking sense... target the ones who are more likely to be terrorists, rather than wasting even more of everyone else's time in the name of "fairness".
I see a different angle: of all the Muslims, or people with Islamic last names, who have flown on aeroplanes in the last 10 years, how many of them have committed a terrorist act in the process? If you profile against that demographic, I bet the ratio of innocent people who fall into that category of ethnic heritage versus people within that subset who turn out to be actual terrorists will show that all you're doing is wasting a specific demographic's time. If you can only think of two flying-related examples over a period of 10 years, strictly going by the numbers you're likely to get a conclusion that terrorists statistically don't exist.
However, if you still think it's common sense to waste time based on ethnicity instead of wasting time comprehensively, why waste time at all? It's ridiculous to assert that security screening is needed, but it's acceptable to set protocols based off assumptions from a limited set of past data that inherently doesn't account for threat changes in the future. If strong security is truly needed, why weaken it by applying it selectively (for your increased convenience)?
Sure, it's nice to get things for less... But I didn't pay $400 for an ebook reader because I was too cheap to buy paper books. I bought it largely for the convenience of being able to carry my whole library around with me, and being able to purchase/download new titles without having to find a bookstore.
You've nailed exactly where the value of ebooks is. It obvious to anyone who's invested the $400 and buys ebooks, but still seems to elude many participating in the discussion who haven't. I have not bought an ebook reader for exactly the same line of reasoning that you did; I just (reluctantly) came to the conclusion that I didn't "read on the go" enough for the convenience to out-weigh the cost. If the price of ebooks went way down, or if I got a new job that required a train commute, I'd re-evaluate.
Secondly, where did you get the idea that eBooks are supposed to be cheaper so the publishing industry goes to the "right" direction? Frankly if I buy a book, I want it as hardcover/paperback. Sure, music I want to download digitally, but books just aren't the same thing.
I agree with this sentiment, and as such, I don't own an ebook reader. However, there is more to books not being the same thing as music. While I want the books I buy to be physical books, hardcover or paperback, there are many books that I don't want to buy, I just want to read. In most cases, my interest in reading the book doesn't coincide with it being available through the regional public & university library network (or the book isn't likely to end up in the library at all). Presently, I don't buy those books. I have no desire to own them. I would pay to read them, however, at a price that reflects my evaluation of it's lower, does-not-warrant-purchase, value.
We have seen such a model before in home movies, be they VHS, DVD, or Bluray. I can buy movies I wanted for my collection for $10-20, or I can rent a title I'd never consider buying for a single viewing on movie night, etc. Books are similar, in the sense that they are varied in taste and quality, and I can still be in the mood to read a book that isn't worth owning. Right now, authors and publishers just don't get any money from me for those titles, but they could if they found a model that allowed for it (and ebook readers seem like the most viable path to one).
Digital music downloads are definitely different than digital book downloads, if only due to the nature of what we consume them with. I would never have bought an MP3 player if I wasn't able to move music onto it from my CD collection. At the same time, having my CD collection moved onto a single, convenient device made me more reliant on the MP3 format, and more open to paying for song downloads rather than going out and buying a CD (since the music would end up on the MP3 player anyway).
Ebooks, on the other hand, aren't something I see replacing physical books. The convenience is there if I'm travelling and don't have to fill an extra bag with books to read, but at home I like having the physical books I've bought, and I'm certainly not going to get the urge to make "chapter playlists" with them.
You fundamentally misunderstand Google's proposed settlement.
This is essentially true, although technically, it's that I don't find the specifics of the settlement particularly interesting until Google's plan comes together and we see what they actually do with it.
This isn't about a change in the industry, it's about Google (and Google alone) cornering the market.
Sounds like a change in the industry to me, but I get what you mean. More to the point, just what market is Google cornering? Out-of-print books? Or is it more about ebook versions of books that weren't digital until Google scanned them? It seems like what the specifics, it's a market that no one was paying much attention to under Google moved in. Of course, I'm not saying this is whole thing isn't potentially bad for all of us. I'm just waiting to see what comes of it all.
Google's proposed settlement gives Google alone the right to universal copyright violations in America. Nobody is allowed to do like they do, or they will get sued by authors and publishers as before. Google's settlement with the authors' guild is on behalf of everybody, eg the guild has spoken for *you*, if you ever decide to write a novel, *you*'ve lost the right to sue Google if you don't like what they'll be doing with your book.
It sounds to me that the Author's Guild screwed this one up, or at least had too much power. It's my (ill-informed) impression that Google has followed copyright law, and the complaints are that there was simply too big a loophole in it. Now I know this is an issue of intellectual property, but all the same, I'm still interested to see what Google will be doing with those novels everyone writes. I'm particularly interested how whatever they do will integrate into products like the Nook or an Android tablet.
It would be great if copyright was reduced *for everybody* and the industry was forced to change, but if that doesn't happen it's best if no single corporation gets a free pass, ie it's best if the playing field is level. If only Google has the right to infringe, then there will never be competition or innovation in the market.
This must be complicated legally by the presence of plenty of companies with the rights to sell digital books. In any case, I think there's still room for Google to come up with a very innovative service, one that might foster more competition in other areas (like ebook readers).
Google's proposed settlement of a US lawsuit turns copyright law on its head
Good. Copyright law has been quite ridiculous for some time now.
I see this potentially being about more than specific copyright law. There has been such a big fuss about the direction Google has taken with Google Books, and I've read a lot of opinions on Slashdot that point to this and rebuke Google for it. If I'm to interpret this by "Do no evil" then I am hard pressed to sympathise with authors and publishers at all. With ebooks moving more into the mainstream, thanks largely to ebook readers like the Kindle and the ebook stores that pair with such devices, I see more and more parallels to what we as consumers went through with the music industry.
Once upon a time, labels wanted consumers to only be able to buy physical CDs, at prices that many consumers felt was too high ($15-20). When MP3 players became wide spread, the music industry couldn't hold onto that model of selling a high priced CD driven largely by a single hit song or two. Then we had digital download stores, and even subscription stores where you had access to entire catalogues while you were a subscriber. We have that even with movies now.
As ebook readers spread, I see yet another industry threatened by a digital aspect to their business model. You can't watch a cable news show or network talk show without someone plugging a book, even if it's not relevant to the discussed topic. A lot of these books are timed releases, interested in context to what's going on, but not something I'd want to own. Library's lend books, but they are quite limited and may not even get the new releases until the context that makes them interesting has passed.
In short, the publishers and authors profit through those limitations rather than pure quality. If these books could be rented to an ebook reader for a low price, the publishing industry would lose millions, but consumers would get a better deal (read the Amazon vs. MacMillan slashdot discussion for a flood of complaints about ebook pricing). Just think about how the Opera Book club would have played out if everyone could read her latest recommendation for a couple dollars rather than buying a hardcopy for $15-30 to read it one time.
Authors will complain their work is worth the price, but as someone who likes to read a lot of different things and keeps a library of carefully selected books on my bookshelf, there is clearly a range in value when it comes to books. If a campaign aide or government official ghost writes a "tell all" book, it's definitely not worth it's price, although I would otherwise read it once. Other books are brilliant works, and I'd buy them even after having rented it. In fact, I'd be more prone to spend more on the books that I buy, say opting for a nice hardcover edition, because they would become part of my library.
This may largely be a separate issue from Google's battles with publishers and author's groups. Still, I bring it up because if Google manages to find a ebook business model that better reflect how I see the consumer value of books, that's fantastic, and I hope they manage to overcome opposition from everyone who will be forced to face a change in their industry.
Look at our international standardized test score rank. Look at the fraction of foreign students in our universities.
These two points can also be explained by things improving outside of the US.
Look at the strength and depth of our public debate.
This can also be explained by increased apathy and cynicism, leading to fewer people contributing to the quality of public debate.
Then compare what you saw to the documented evidence of the past 50 years.
I can conclude that things have changed in 50 years, but not on specific causes for each issues. These are still very interesting aspects of our present society to examine, of course. Things may well be getting worse. It certainly has started to feel that way, more than it has in the past. I think it's inherently difficult to compare one era against another, though, since so many things were different in addition to whatever single issue or fact one is trying to examine.
That can be really dangerous though. In all of science, engineering, medicine, history, and philosophy it is important to be extremely precise in your wording in order to properly convey ideas.
Doubly so, as publications in these fields often have to be translated into many different languages and still preserve the full concept.
You are only half right. The unnessecary u's are in British English. Colour, honour, flavour are British English spellings not American.
IMHO, he's less than half right, as the u's aren't unnecessary. At the very least, they let us distinguish ourselves from Americans. Out of curiosity, are there any countries other than the USA that have English as an official language and use American spelling?
It isn't poor grammar if everyone does it. Languages are living beings. It is just proof that the academic institutions hasn't kept up with advances (changes) in the spoken language.
Languages are living things, but they are still exist with rules and structure. Aside from the fact that everyone most certainly does not use manner of writing or speaking described in the article summary, it is still poor grammar until the academic institutions catch up (that is, until the language actually evolves, as opposed to just having different pockets of slang and dialects that don't reflect a single, universally common use).
I think the perspective that whatever people say is correct because languages are living things is contradictory (or perhaps a fallacy). Language includes spelling and grammar, and poor spelling and grammar is the failure to adhere to those rules. We know languages are living things because, over time, those rules change. Changes in the spoken language drive that change, but that doesn't mean every use of poor grammar is a fluid evolutionary change in the language. Languages change gradually over time, they don't jump from era's slang to another.
This is most important for language used in places like academic institutions. Their obligation runs counter to addressing spoken language trends, as they have to produce work that has persevering success at communicating it's contents, including the expectation that it can be correctly translated to other languages to preserve any required subtleties. How ridiculous would it be to have to learn about basic computer architecture from a text book filled with abbreviations like "u" "b4" "cuz" "l8er" and so on. OR IF IT WAS WRITTEN ALL IN CAPS OMG!!!1 It would work if the English language had gradually changed so that it was natural for everyone, but if it's just something that a lot of people use now, the concept that it should be considered seriously by academic institutions at this time is nonsense.
My sophomore year of high school I walked into my English class and started writing. My mind took over and, before I realized it, my I's were uncapitalized, my words were abbreviated, and many words were misspelled for the purpose of shortening. That summer I had spent more time on instant messenger programs than I had in past years. Without realizing it, my mind was setup to use Internet speak. The rules of grammar were still there, somewhere. They were hard to access, though. It was a struggle to get myself to start writing coherently. Since then, I've switched my style and have been trying to maintain proper grammar throughout all of my text conversations.
This was 2003
Maybe I'm an old man now (at 27), but I have never understood this predicament. I have used instant messenger as a primary means of communicating (excluding face to face) since the late 90s. While I definitely let myself lapse with precise grammar and capitalisation, I have never fallen into an "Internet speak" mind setting. When I went to college and had to write in lab books, I apologised for my abysmal penmanship as a result of using a computer for the vast majority of my writing, but I still wrote sentences.
The reason that "Internet speak" puzzles me is that it seems like a contradictory problem. If someone uses computers to communicate so much that it becomes predominant in their mind, then clearly that person must type quite a bit. I know I do. As a result, I type very fast and naturally. Thanks to that ability to type, when it comes to instant messenger "you" is just as quick and easy to type as "u" (truth be told "you" is faster, as I think of it as a word and not a letter, so it's what comes to mind).
I definitely abbreviate phrases on instant messenger (e.g. brb, afk, lol), but never words that would show up in any other situation where I have to write. I understand that abbreviations such as "u", "cuz", "b4", and the like make sense if a person has no typing skills, but lack of typing skills seems to run contrary to high computer use (a required factor for the "Internet speak" mindset). I have used abbreviated words such as "u" in SMS messages to stay under length from time to time, but that is such a dramatically different experience physically that it can never spill over to my habits when using a regular keyboard.
I suppose I might just have an abnormal perspective on the issue. As I used the computer more and more as a writing instrument, I made sure to hone my ability to type quickly and accurately. It's one of the classic signs of a computer programmer: putting in a small amount of effort with the goal of greatly reducing future effort. Maybe this new online generation doesn't see typing accurately at high speeds across the whole keyboard (as opposed to just the letter keys) as much a core part of the experience that I did. Nevertheless, if a person uses computers that much, I still don't see why anyone would type "u" instead of "you". Sure, it's two letters shorter, but in the middle of typing a sentence I don't believe it's any faster. Throw in abbreviations with numbers (later vs l8er), and I definitely don't think it's faster. Or to be more specific, if it actually is faster for someone, I think that person must not have developed the ability to type very well yet.
As a current student at the University of Waterloo, I only had to pass the English Language Proficiency Exam. I did not have to take any writing courses after the exam. However, I think there are some supplementary courses available if you do fail. Personally, I think they should be failing more than 30% of the students. Some of the writing I have seen from my peers is horrible! (I don't think being in Engineering is an acceptable excuse for not being able to write coherently)
This is similar to my experience, except that the exam was waived since I'd scored high enough on an English AP exam in high school. As for an engineer's ability to write, I discovered in the work place that writing well was an invaluable skill, and not only when diplomatically crafting emails to explain to clients that the information just sent out by the PHB is completely wrong (but we're not idiots, really).
And now, a professor in Pennsylvania, I get papers riddled with "cuz", "u", and God knows what else.
I hope you have a crate of red "Sharpies" to give every such paper a giant, circled F (or, if that perhaps confuses the students, FTL). If you're at a high enough level to be called professor, then it seems that the time for giving partial credit for attempting to tackle the assignment is over. Such blatant, basic incompetence seems enough to warrant a failing grade. I don't think it's expecting much for students to use actual conjunctions and pronouns when writing.
What's the problem? I blame teachers' unions. When it's impossible to fire an idiot who has no business in the classroom, you end up with a generation of idiots. My 11-year old son has a better grasp of the subjective vs. the objective ("who" vs. "whom") than his English teacher; and at a social function a few years ago I had an English teacher tell me that "Speedily is not a word" (Firefox disagrees, as it did not put the little red spellcheck line underneath it). These two women are just two among countless examples of people with no clue on how language works, but are tasked with teaching the elements of language to children.
I blame parents (though not the type you seem to be). When I was going through primary school, I was that little boy with a better grasp of things than many of my teachers. Looking at my experiences and those of my sister, I know that children can go through lousy school systems and come out smart and educated regardless. It is certainly the job of a school's teachers to teach, but I believe the majority factor in a child's success comes from the home environment.
There has been plenty of effort to try to improve the education of students through wide programs imposed on teachers and schools, and plenty of time to see that such attempts are problematic at best. Red tape goes both ways, and competent teachers aren't automatically able to fail a student for using "cuz" in an English class (as opposed to just marking them down, resulting in the student getting enough credit in the end for a D). I'm not suggesting abandoning school reform, but personally I'm ready to see more fingers pointed at the parents of failing students. School is important, and, barring learning disabilities, for the most part easy. Good parents naturally foster that perspective. When I read about university students using "cuz" in academic papers, I wonder about the idiots managed to raised a child who could possibly think that is correct or appropriate.
Slashdot Mirror
How does the number of pedophiles convicted globally during the same time frame relate to the number of terrorist attacks?
Wrong question.
How high is the occurence of paedophiles among scanner operators?
And even more important, are these scans stored and available to others not connected with security of this flight?
I think the initial question is a fair one with a slight change, since I can theorise how the number of pedophiles convicted domestically during the same time frame might be relevant to the number of terrorist attacks.
If children in your country are being subject to molestation, abduction, rape, and murder in numbers that completely dwarf the number of people affected by foreign terrorist attacks on carried out against domestic targets, then one could reason that your government is being grossly negligent by misallocating the resources meant to protect it's citizens.
Why isn't "a quick, less-intrusive scan and other, less-indecent security measures" an option? It's not that hard to secure a plane without basically taking nude pictures of people. Place an armed guard or two on every plane (and create some jobs doing so, yay!), use conventional scanners to ensure people don't bring along explosives, and enable the pilot to seal the cockpit from the inside so that in case of an extremely unlikely, but possible terrorist take-over he can still land safely.
Personally, I'm content with checked baggage scanners, going through a metal detector and being wanded, and running carry-on items through the scanner next to the metal detector. So long as the pilots are sealed in the cockpit, and there's proper security around the plane itself while it's on the ground, no one's managed to do anything scary that I can think of. Note that the key security aspects aren't applied to travellers. Ensure there are no explosives in checked baggage, keep the planes on the ground secure from sabotage, and make sure the pilots are safe and secure. Normal security for passengers, like metal detectors, helps to keep the rest safe from obvious things like getting shot or detonating easily detected explosive devices.
As for someone with a stomach or colon full of C4, that's the sort of thing that just has to be addressed from the other angle: don't let terrorists get C4, or at least catch them when they waddle out from an area known for terrorist training camps and head toward an airport.
If they need to take an x-ray of your hip (or, heaven forbid, a child's hip) for medical reasons, do you complain that genitals will show up as a silhouette in that as well?
In this situation, I am well aware of patients privacy laws, and authorised the x-ray after accepting the recommendation that it will be useful to treat what which ails me. I have yet to see comprehensive (and by nature, international) laws concerning rights while travelling, and I don't for a minute accept the claim that body scanners are beneficial to me in the slightest way. As you say, they don't actually make a difference. If I suspect my hip might be broken, I an x-ray will be useful.
Why is it worse for kids to be forced through this scanner than it would be for adults?
Expanding from the naked photos of kids perspective of these scanners, I can't really think of any situation where it's acceptable (or legal) to require an adult to be photographed naked if he or she doesn't wish to be.
Terrorists will always find a way to get explosives on planes if they feel they need to.
I keep thinking that it's only a matter of time before they figure out they don't need to. Forget defeating the security lineup; just strap on some old-fashioned bombs, walk into said security lineup, and before being searched, blow themselves to hell and take a hundred or so innocents with them. Coordinate that at a few different airports around the world, and watch the entire airline industry collapse overnight.
Terrorists who do that kind of planning are presently sending people to blow up markets and government buildings in Pakistan and Afghanistan, not to mention soldiers and police. The shoe and underwear bombers are isolated cases with their own circumstances, not part of a comprehensive campaign to attack western targets. We can see the comprehensive campaign waged by extremists against their perceived enemies, because it's killing innocent people every day. Just because the mainstream public doesn't count those attacks as blows against the US doesn't mean that the extremists have the same perspective.
How many terrorist attacks have happened against planes? Well, depends how far you go back. You see, all the security is nothing new and BEFORE they were put in place, attacks happened far more often. That an entire generation has grown up without constant hijackings, that says something.
It doesn't matter how far you go back if you're comparing the number to something else, like traffic accidents or violent crime, measured over the same time span. If you take such a comparison and then examine the rhetoric and national priorities we hear in politics, the "war on terror" seems pretty absurd. Terrorism is presented to Americans as such a critical and dangerous part of the world today, but really, that's ridiculous. There are countless comparisons one can make to demonstrate this. Is your child more in danger from a) terrorists, b) pedophiles? Answer? Are you more comfortable taking them on a flight with you, or losing track of them in a crowded mall?
Personally, I have a much simpler measure. In my daily life, do I consider myself to be at risk from a terrorist attack, at all? Honestly, no. Things that I consider might threaten my well being are much more mundane, and almost universally things that would be improved by the government investing money improving various aspects of them (money wasted on bad decisions concerning terrorism).
What I find more intriguing is the real reason behind all of this crap. Distract people from real problems? Collapse the air transportation system? Mess with our minds? Totalitarian control?
No need to be so dramatic, it's just politics. I think people genuinely are more afraid for their safety while flying (trapped, uncomfortable, incomprehensibly high above the ground, etc). It's can be good politics to play that up (even without any specific goals other than raising poll numbers), and if something does happen like the underpants bomber, it's good politics to attack if your opponent tries to assuage the public's fear with reason rather than respond with visible new security measures.
So they spend millions preventing a rare event, yet allow sale of tobacco that kills millions a year.
Speaking of which, I wonder if the TSA rules still let air travellers carry lighters and matches onto flights, so they will be able to smoke in the designated smoking areas during layovers and such. I remember sometime after 9/11 when I was flying a fair bit, fingernail clippers had been banned but a person could still carry up to 2 lighters and 3 matchbooks, or something like that.
How long before someone blows a train or two and the same security theater takes place on train stations? What comes after that - schools, theaters, shopping malls, churches....face it, the terrorist assholes won, because our collective stupidity, hysterical media and gutless politicians did 95% of the job.
The same security theatre will never take place for trains as it has for air travel. I think people feel safer on the ground, and they've never seen a train destroy two skyscrapers full of thousands of people. On the ground, accidents happen, violent crime happens, and it's been that way for as long as anyone can remember. I don't think people will ever be as fearful about their security with any means of travel as they do with flying.
I simply don't buy it. I don't care if this "feels" less invasive. Its still my privacy going away, for what I see as no benefit to anyone, not even myself as a flyer.
I've been thinking, why not focus on making planes harder to crash instead? Just think, if the underpants "bomber" had not managed to smuggle aboard that could have so easily crashed the plane, and instead had set off something that had no real chance of causing key damage. Then, feeling good about flight safety, we wouldn't have need for these enhanced body scanners.
I'm being a little sarcastic there, but in all seriousness, what how vulnerable are these planes, with the pilots now locked in the cockpit? If the only real threat is in the area of punching a hole in the cabin and causing violent decompression, there must be real limits to how much explosive force can be brought on a plane through traditional security measures. How does that compare against the real limits to how much a plane's cabin can be reinforced? Obviously "armoured" planes would use much more fuel, but maybe people would pay more to avoid the intrusion?
Privacy is a civil right. Flying is an activity, a means of travel. A scenario. However, the civil rights of Americans are protected in many different opt-in scenarios and activities, and the same goes for plenty of other countries as well (all to different extents). When travelling on the bus, for example, I somehow doubt even a police officer can search your person without probably cause (the important part being that probable cause is not already implied by your presence on the bus).
a fear of nakedness can never be an excuse for less security.
In your opinion, what can be an excuse for less security? Surely there is a limit; what do you think should this limit be?
While I can't offer the opinion of the poster you are replying to, I can suggest what I think is a pretty good excuse for less security: cost, privacy, along with a realistic assessment of what the actual danger to airline customers from terrorists really is. When something like the Christmas Day pants-fire incident happens, I don't think it's cynical to say that a political response in airline security is inevitable, regardless of whether or not there was any real threat that the plane might have crashed.
I'm not saying there was or wasn't in that case. However, the cost of increased security measures and the extent to which they invade travellers' privacy can definitely be an excuse for not increasing security, if the extent of the increase is proportional as a political response, not as a security response.
I assume this is because white people who convert to Islam are the most likely to be radicalised in the eyes of the security people.
Look, in the last 10 years, there's been 9/11, the London and Europe train bombings, and the "set his balls on fire" man ... all done by Muslims in the name of Islam.
Exactly *which* demographic should the security guards be looking at ? Over 65 year old Mormons ?
It's not radicalisation, it's just common fucking sense ... target the ones who are more likely to be terrorists, rather than wasting even more of everyone else's time in the name of "fairness".
I see a different angle: of all the Muslims, or people with Islamic last names, who have flown on aeroplanes in the last 10 years, how many of them have committed a terrorist act in the process? If you profile against that demographic, I bet the ratio of innocent people who fall into that category of ethnic heritage versus people within that subset who turn out to be actual terrorists will show that all you're doing is wasting a specific demographic's time. If you can only think of two flying-related examples over a period of 10 years, strictly going by the numbers you're likely to get a conclusion that terrorists statistically don't exist.
However, if you still think it's common sense to waste time based on ethnicity instead of wasting time comprehensively, why waste time at all? It's ridiculous to assert that security screening is needed, but it's acceptable to set protocols based off assumptions from a limited set of past data that inherently doesn't account for threat changes in the future. If strong security is truly needed, why weaken it by applying it selectively (for your increased convenience)?
Sure, it's nice to get things for less... But I didn't pay $400 for an ebook reader because I was too cheap to buy paper books. I bought it largely for the convenience of being able to carry my whole library around with me, and being able to purchase/download new titles without having to find a bookstore.
You've nailed exactly where the value of ebooks is. It obvious to anyone who's invested the $400 and buys ebooks, but still seems to elude many participating in the discussion who haven't. I have not bought an ebook reader for exactly the same line of reasoning that you did; I just (reluctantly) came to the conclusion that I didn't "read on the go" enough for the convenience to out-weigh the cost. If the price of ebooks went way down, or if I got a new job that required a train commute, I'd re-evaluate.
Secondly, where did you get the idea that eBooks are supposed to be cheaper so the publishing industry goes to the "right" direction? Frankly if I buy a book, I want it as hardcover/paperback. Sure, music I want to download digitally, but books just aren't the same thing.
I agree with this sentiment, and as such, I don't own an ebook reader. However, there is more to books not being the same thing as music. While I want the books I buy to be physical books, hardcover or paperback, there are many books that I don't want to buy, I just want to read. In most cases, my interest in reading the book doesn't coincide with it being available through the regional public & university library network (or the book isn't likely to end up in the library at all). Presently, I don't buy those books. I have no desire to own them. I would pay to read them, however, at a price that reflects my evaluation of it's lower, does-not-warrant-purchase, value.
We have seen such a model before in home movies, be they VHS, DVD, or Bluray. I can buy movies I wanted for my collection for $10-20, or I can rent a title I'd never consider buying for a single viewing on movie night, etc. Books are similar, in the sense that they are varied in taste and quality, and I can still be in the mood to read a book that isn't worth owning. Right now, authors and publishers just don't get any money from me for those titles, but they could if they found a model that allowed for it (and ebook readers seem like the most viable path to one).
Digital music downloads are definitely different than digital book downloads, if only due to the nature of what we consume them with. I would never have bought an MP3 player if I wasn't able to move music onto it from my CD collection. At the same time, having my CD collection moved onto a single, convenient device made me more reliant on the MP3 format, and more open to paying for song downloads rather than going out and buying a CD (since the music would end up on the MP3 player anyway).
Ebooks, on the other hand, aren't something I see replacing physical books. The convenience is there if I'm travelling and don't have to fill an extra bag with books to read, but at home I like having the physical books I've bought, and I'm certainly not going to get the urge to make "chapter playlists" with them.
You fundamentally misunderstand Google's proposed settlement.
This is essentially true, although technically, it's that I don't find the specifics of the settlement particularly interesting until Google's plan comes together and we see what they actually do with it.
This isn't about a change in the industry, it's about Google (and Google alone) cornering the market.
Sounds like a change in the industry to me, but I get what you mean. More to the point, just what market is Google cornering? Out-of-print books? Or is it more about ebook versions of books that weren't digital until Google scanned them? It seems like what the specifics, it's a market that no one was paying much attention to under Google moved in. Of course, I'm not saying this is whole thing isn't potentially bad for all of us. I'm just waiting to see what comes of it all.
Google's proposed settlement gives Google alone the right to universal copyright violations in America. Nobody is allowed to do like they do, or they will get sued by authors and publishers as before. Google's settlement with the authors' guild is on behalf of everybody, eg the guild has spoken for *you*, if you ever decide to write a novel, *you*'ve lost the right to sue Google if you don't like what they'll be doing with your book.
It sounds to me that the Author's Guild screwed this one up, or at least had too much power. It's my (ill-informed) impression that Google has followed copyright law, and the complaints are that there was simply too big a loophole in it. Now I know this is an issue of intellectual property, but all the same, I'm still interested to see what Google will be doing with those novels everyone writes. I'm particularly interested how whatever they do will integrate into products like the Nook or an Android tablet.
It would be great if copyright was reduced *for everybody* and the industry was forced to change, but if that doesn't happen it's best if no single corporation gets a free pass, ie it's best if the playing field is level. If only Google has the right to infringe, then there will never be competition or innovation in the market.
This must be complicated legally by the presence of plenty of companies with the rights to sell digital books. In any case, I think there's still room for Google to come up with a very innovative service, one that might foster more competition in other areas (like ebook readers).
Google's proposed settlement of a US lawsuit turns copyright law on its head
Good. Copyright law has been quite ridiculous for some time now.
I see this potentially being about more than specific copyright law. There has been such a big fuss about the direction Google has taken with Google Books, and I've read a lot of opinions on Slashdot that point to this and rebuke Google for it. If I'm to interpret this by "Do no evil" then I am hard pressed to sympathise with authors and publishers at all. With ebooks moving more into the mainstream, thanks largely to ebook readers like the Kindle and the ebook stores that pair with such devices, I see more and more parallels to what we as consumers went through with the music industry.
Once upon a time, labels wanted consumers to only be able to buy physical CDs, at prices that many consumers felt was too high ($15-20). When MP3 players became wide spread, the music industry couldn't hold onto that model of selling a high priced CD driven largely by a single hit song or two. Then we had digital download stores, and even subscription stores where you had access to entire catalogues while you were a subscriber. We have that even with movies now.
As ebook readers spread, I see yet another industry threatened by a digital aspect to their business model. You can't watch a cable news show or network talk show without someone plugging a book, even if it's not relevant to the discussed topic. A lot of these books are timed releases, interested in context to what's going on, but not something I'd want to own. Library's lend books, but they are quite limited and may not even get the new releases until the context that makes them interesting has passed.
In short, the publishers and authors profit through those limitations rather than pure quality. If these books could be rented to an ebook reader for a low price, the publishing industry would lose millions, but consumers would get a better deal (read the Amazon vs. MacMillan slashdot discussion for a flood of complaints about ebook pricing). Just think about how the Opera Book club would have played out if everyone could read her latest recommendation for a couple dollars rather than buying a hardcopy for $15-30 to read it one time.
Authors will complain their work is worth the price, but as someone who likes to read a lot of different things and keeps a library of carefully selected books on my bookshelf, there is clearly a range in value when it comes to books. If a campaign aide or government official ghost writes a "tell all" book, it's definitely not worth it's price, although I would otherwise read it once. Other books are brilliant works, and I'd buy them even after having rented it. In fact, I'd be more prone to spend more on the books that I buy, say opting for a nice hardcover edition, because they would become part of my library.
This may largely be a separate issue from Google's battles with publishers and author's groups. Still, I bring it up because if Google manages to find a ebook business model that better reflect how I see the consumer value of books, that's fantastic, and I hope they manage to overcome opposition from everyone who will be forced to face a change in their industry.
Look at our international standardized test score rank. Look at the fraction of foreign students in our universities.
These two points can also be explained by things improving outside of the US.
Look at the strength and depth of our public debate.
This can also be explained by increased apathy and cynicism, leading to fewer people contributing to the quality of public debate.
Then compare what you saw to the documented evidence of the past 50 years.
I can conclude that things have changed in 50 years, but not on specific causes for each issues. These are still very interesting aspects of our present society to examine, of course. Things may well be getting worse. It certainly has started to feel that way, more than it has in the past. I think it's inherently difficult to compare one era against another, though, since so many things were different in addition to whatever single issue or fact one is trying to examine.
That can be really dangerous though. In all of science, engineering, medicine, history, and philosophy it is important to be extremely precise in your wording in order to properly convey ideas.
Doubly so, as publications in these fields often have to be translated into many different languages and still preserve the full concept.
You are only half right. The unnessecary u's are in British English. Colour, honour, flavour are British English spellings not American.
IMHO, he's less than half right, as the u's aren't unnecessary. At the very least, they let us distinguish ourselves from Americans. Out of curiosity, are there any countries other than the USA that have English as an official language and use American spelling?
It isn't poor grammar if everyone does it. Languages are living beings. It is just proof that the academic institutions hasn't kept up with advances (changes) in the spoken language.
Languages are living things, but they are still exist with rules and structure. Aside from the fact that everyone most certainly does not use manner of writing or speaking described in the article summary, it is still poor grammar until the academic institutions catch up (that is, until the language actually evolves, as opposed to just having different pockets of slang and dialects that don't reflect a single, universally common use).
I think the perspective that whatever people say is correct because languages are living things is contradictory (or perhaps a fallacy). Language includes spelling and grammar, and poor spelling and grammar is the failure to adhere to those rules. We know languages are living things because, over time, those rules change. Changes in the spoken language drive that change, but that doesn't mean every use of poor grammar is a fluid evolutionary change in the language. Languages change gradually over time, they don't jump from era's slang to another.
This is most important for language used in places like academic institutions. Their obligation runs counter to addressing spoken language trends, as they have to produce work that has persevering success at communicating it's contents, including the expectation that it can be correctly translated to other languages to preserve any required subtleties. How ridiculous would it be to have to learn about basic computer architecture from a text book filled with abbreviations like "u" "b4" "cuz" "l8er" and so on. OR IF IT WAS WRITTEN ALL IN CAPS OMG!!!1 It would work if the English language had gradually changed so that it was natural for everyone, but if it's just something that a lot of people use now, the concept that it should be considered seriously by academic institutions at this time is nonsense.
My sophomore year of high school I walked into my English class and started writing. My mind took over and, before I realized it, my I's were uncapitalized, my words were abbreviated, and many words were misspelled for the purpose of shortening. That summer I had spent more time on instant messenger programs than I had in past years. Without realizing it, my mind was setup to use Internet speak. The rules of grammar were still there, somewhere. They were hard to access, though. It was a struggle to get myself to start writing coherently. Since then, I've switched my style and have been trying to maintain proper grammar throughout all of my text conversations.
This was 2003
Maybe I'm an old man now (at 27), but I have never understood this predicament. I have used instant messenger as a primary means of communicating (excluding face to face) since the late 90s. While I definitely let myself lapse with precise grammar and capitalisation, I have never fallen into an "Internet speak" mind setting. When I went to college and had to write in lab books, I apologised for my abysmal penmanship as a result of using a computer for the vast majority of my writing, but I still wrote sentences.
The reason that "Internet speak" puzzles me is that it seems like a contradictory problem. If someone uses computers to communicate so much that it becomes predominant in their mind, then clearly that person must type quite a bit. I know I do. As a result, I type very fast and naturally. Thanks to that ability to type, when it comes to instant messenger "you" is just as quick and easy to type as "u" (truth be told "you" is faster, as I think of it as a word and not a letter, so it's what comes to mind).
I definitely abbreviate phrases on instant messenger (e.g. brb, afk, lol), but never words that would show up in any other situation where I have to write. I understand that abbreviations such as "u", "cuz", "b4", and the like make sense if a person has no typing skills, but lack of typing skills seems to run contrary to high computer use (a required factor for the "Internet speak" mindset). I have used abbreviated words such as "u" in SMS messages to stay under length from time to time, but that is such a dramatically different experience physically that it can never spill over to my habits when using a regular keyboard.
I suppose I might just have an abnormal perspective on the issue. As I used the computer more and more as a writing instrument, I made sure to hone my ability to type quickly and accurately. It's one of the classic signs of a computer programmer: putting in a small amount of effort with the goal of greatly reducing future effort. Maybe this new online generation doesn't see typing accurately at high speeds across the whole keyboard (as opposed to just the letter keys) as much a core part of the experience that I did. Nevertheless, if a person uses computers that much, I still don't see why anyone would type "u" instead of "you". Sure, it's two letters shorter, but in the middle of typing a sentence I don't believe it's any faster. Throw in abbreviations with numbers (later vs l8er), and I definitely don't think it's faster. Or to be more specific, if it actually is faster for someone, I think that person must not have developed the ability to type very well yet.
As a current student at the University of Waterloo, I only had to pass the English Language Proficiency Exam. I did not have to take any writing courses after the exam. However, I think there are some supplementary courses available if you do fail. Personally, I think they should be failing more than 30% of the students. Some of the writing I have seen from my peers is horrible! (I don't think being in Engineering is an acceptable excuse for not being able to write coherently)
This is similar to my experience, except that the exam was waived since I'd scored high enough on an English AP exam in high school. As for an engineer's ability to write, I discovered in the work place that writing well was an invaluable skill, and not only when diplomatically crafting emails to explain to clients that the information just sent out by the PHB is completely wrong (but we're not idiots, really).
And now, a professor in Pennsylvania, I get papers riddled with "cuz", "u", and God knows what else.
I hope you have a crate of red "Sharpies" to give every such paper a giant, circled F (or, if that perhaps confuses the students, FTL). If you're at a high enough level to be called professor, then it seems that the time for giving partial credit for attempting to tackle the assignment is over. Such blatant, basic incompetence seems enough to warrant a failing grade. I don't think it's expecting much for students to use actual conjunctions and pronouns when writing.
What's the problem? I blame teachers' unions. When it's impossible to fire an idiot who has no business in the classroom, you end up with a generation of idiots. My 11-year old son has a better grasp of the subjective vs. the objective ("who" vs. "whom") than his English teacher; and at a social function a few years ago I had an English teacher tell me that "Speedily is not a word" (Firefox disagrees, as it did not put the little red spellcheck line underneath it). These two women are just two among countless examples of people with no clue on how language works, but are tasked with teaching the elements of language to children.
I blame parents (though not the type you seem to be). When I was going through primary school, I was that little boy with a better grasp of things than many of my teachers. Looking at my experiences and those of my sister, I know that children can go through lousy school systems and come out smart and educated regardless. It is certainly the job of a school's teachers to teach, but I believe the majority factor in a child's success comes from the home environment.
There has been plenty of effort to try to improve the education of students through wide programs imposed on teachers and schools, and plenty of time to see that such attempts are problematic at best. Red tape goes both ways, and competent teachers aren't automatically able to fail a student for using "cuz" in an English class (as opposed to just marking them down, resulting in the student getting enough credit in the end for a D). I'm not suggesting abandoning school reform, but personally I'm ready to see more fingers pointed at the parents of failing students. School is important, and, barring learning disabilities, for the most part easy. Good parents naturally foster that perspective. When I read about university students using "cuz" in academic papers, I wonder about the idiots managed to raised a child who could possibly think that is correct or appropriate.