Not only did you read it, but you then took the time to comment on it. Why? Obviously there are no such things as zombies. You should have been able to tell that that's what it was about merely from reading the summary. Therefore the conclusion that I come to is rather then there being something wrong with Slashdot, there must be something wrong with you.
"It's a false dichotomy not because you can have both, but because you can have neither. Both accidental deaths and criminal deaths are things which will never be eliminated. (And let's be honest, there's no real reason to treat the 9/11 attacks as anything other than simple criminality; they accounted for only about 15% of murders in the US in 2001.) We can certainly reduce them, but eliminating either one is simply out of the question. Given the costs of each, both in lives and dollars, I know which one I'd rather see get the most attention."
Nobody (but the people i'm arguing with) thinks that these problems can be eliminated though. Bush's Rah-Rah-we're-gonna-git-the-terraists talk non-withstanding. Working to REDUCE both car accidents AND global terrorism is not only possible, but both are worthy pursuits. I'll go one further and say that not only are both possible, but its actually pretty mandatory that we work on both, if we want to maximize our productive society. And we do pay attention to both. Maybe not in equal dollar amounts, but lots of attention gets paid to telling people not to drive aggressively, to wear seatbelts, catching people speeding, etc. There's only so much that can be done on that front though, and none of it makes the front page of the Times.
Unfortunately, lots of attention also gets paid to dropping bombs on people we don't like. I would like to see the USA out of the middle east and working on traffic problems probably more than you, but I recognize that that simply is not possible at the moment.
People are working on all of these problems, is my point. Its just that the ones that make the news tend to be the ones that have pretty explosions attached to them.
Great discussion though. Its nice to see this kind of well thought out discussion on slashdot of all places.
Sure, but what is the total cost of the car wrecks that kill 40K people per year. Probably not even a billion dollars, although I'm not an actuary, so it could be more than that or less. That was the original point. The OP said something to the effect that we are wasting so much money on terrorism when only 3000 people (give or take) died in the last 7 years, when that money could be better spent addressing the 40K people who die a year in auto accidents.
I'm just pointing out that A.) that is not a good comparison because its not just about the number of dead, and B.) its a false dichotomy anyway. We could easily do both, and more.
Why bother with security at all then with that attitude? No system is going to be 100% perfect anyway, so why bother at all. What are we going to do? tear down all the airports, scrap all the airplanes and rebuild it all from scratch with an eye for security? Not going to happen. You are totally correct that us looking out for our best interests is the root of the problem, but the problem with that problem is that us looking out for our best interests necessarily means that we aren't looking out for the interests of others. That's why I said your idea was unworkable. It would be nice if world relations were a zero-sum game, but that's just not how the world works.
Now, that being said, I just wanted to say I do get what you're saying. We could probably do alot to improve security by trying a little harder not to be dicks to people in other countries. But that's neither completely possible, nor will it solve it entirely.
"we need to stop with the meddling in the middle east to the extent we have been (Afghanistan = good idea, Iraq = bad idea), work on our image as a nation and then encourage people to stop being scared of the bogeyman, and start paying attention to the REAL dangers that our arrogance and national policy are causing."
I agree with you 110% there, and I'll raise you we should also cut all ties with Israel. But I have news for you, that still isn't going to solve the problem. There are just bad people in the world, who want what we have. worse, there's some that just don't plain like us for no real discernible reason. And no amount of being nice to them is going to convince them otherwise. And its just too easy to make your point by taking down an airliner or three.
That's funny, I thought alot of economic damage would have occurred by several billion dollar buildings crumbling to the ground, loss of office space, the death of 3000+ highly productive workers, the grounding of all flights for several days, etc.
Not things I would consider to be caused by people reacting irrationally.
But you're assuming that there is one 100% fool-proof security system out htere, that once our researcher discovers what it is, they will put it in place and all will be secure. That isn't the case in physical airport security any more than it is in computer security. In the real world, and computing, security is more like an onion. It has many layers, some closer to others. Worse, in both cases you evolve towards better security using trial and error.
I would argue that taking off your shoes does indeed do something: it prevents terrorists from sneaking in bombs in their shoes. Furthermore, it doesn't really hinder useability of the system all that much, so I would say its a pretty good tradeoff. It is one less exploit "they" can use against our system. Think of it as a patch, if that helps. You don't run an unpatched IIS 3 server, even if nobody is seriously using any exploits against IIS 3 anymore.
"The true solution is to stop pissing people off who would be terrorists, and stop allowing them to fuck up our economy and SUCCEED at the terrorism. Terrorism only works when your target is afraid of you."
I agree that would be a good solution, but it is also not a realistic solution since it would only work on Fantasy Island.
"3000 deaths this century in the US from terrorism and 40,000 every single year on the highways, but OMG ITS TEH TERRAISTS!"
I would counter that by comparing economic damage as well as deaths. I bet if you tally up the economic damage done in TEH TERRAISTS attacks, it would probably not be insignificant.
But beyond that you are sort of proving Bruce's point. Because *you* don't understand the security measures we as a nation are taking against global terrorism, and how those measures benefit us (or do not), you are resorting to belittling them (OMG ITS TEH TERRAISTS!), and assigning them less importance than something else you are more familiar with. Irony, thy name is Slashdot Commenter.
"How much money and how much trouble have we expended to go after terrorists? But how few people have they killed? It won't please anyone, but if we spent that money fighting something ordinary, say heart disease (#1 killer, last I knew), we might actually save more lives."
Maybe the money and trouble we've spent on fighting terrorism so far is precisely what keeps them from killing alot more people. More directly, how do you know what effect, good or bad, people taking their shoes off in airport security lines has on air security? Just because the TSA doesn't report its results directly to you? For all we know (you and I both) taking shoes off may have prevented hundreds of bombs from being smuggled aboard airplanes.
Just because it doesn't make sense to you personally doesn't mean its not worthwhile to do. Which I suppose is part of Bruce's actual point.
Also, you are setting up something of a false dichotomy. There is no reason why we can't spend a lot of money and trouble on fighting both terrorism AND heart disease, as well as Cancer, jaywalkers, speeders, people with too much back hair, etc. etc.
Oh, I agree with you. But this article like many others before it were not in response to mindless american chauvinistic patriotism, but on the contrary, it seemed specially written to start off a fresh round of america bashing (Look! America sucks because they can't even buy mp4 watches there LOL), and many commenters readily took up the call to arms.
I also agree with you that there are countless ideas we can potentially look to Europe as an example of. Cell phone tech/lifestyle integration and public transportation springs to mind quite readily.
Its not the point that you can or cannot get these items. The point is, this article is yet another opportunity for the Sour Grapes "America Sucks" people to come on out in droves and comment about how their country in Europe or wherever is sooooooo very much better than america because (pick one) they can get mp4 watches/they have solved poverty and hunger/nobody in their country has ever even heard of guns let alone would own one/they abolished police states millenia ago/they invented interstellar travel/whatever is fashionable to complain about America this week.
Slashdot Mirror
Not only did you read it, but you then took the time to comment on it. Why? Obviously there are no such things as zombies. You should have been able to tell that that's what it was about merely from reading the summary. Therefore the conclusion that I come to is rather then there being something wrong with Slashdot, there must be something wrong with you.
"It's a false dichotomy not because you can have both, but because you can have neither. Both accidental deaths and criminal deaths are things which will never be eliminated. (And let's be honest, there's no real reason to treat the 9/11 attacks as anything other than simple criminality; they accounted for only about 15% of murders in the US in 2001.) We can certainly reduce them, but eliminating either one is simply out of the question. Given the costs of each, both in lives and dollars, I know which one I'd rather see get the most attention."
Nobody (but the people i'm arguing with) thinks that these problems can be eliminated though. Bush's Rah-Rah-we're-gonna-git-the-terraists talk non-withstanding. Working to REDUCE both car accidents AND global terrorism is not only possible, but both are worthy pursuits. I'll go one further and say that not only are both possible, but its actually pretty mandatory that we work on both, if we want to maximize our productive society. And we do pay attention to both. Maybe not in equal dollar amounts, but lots of attention gets paid to telling people not to drive aggressively, to wear seatbelts, catching people speeding, etc. There's only so much that can be done on that front though, and none of it makes the front page of the Times.
Unfortunately, lots of attention also gets paid to dropping bombs on people we don't like. I would like to see the USA out of the middle east and working on traffic problems probably more than you, but I recognize that that simply is not possible at the moment.
People are working on all of these problems, is my point. Its just that the ones that make the news tend to be the ones that have pretty explosions attached to them.
Great discussion though. Its nice to see this kind of well thought out discussion on slashdot of all places.
Sure, but what is the total cost of the car wrecks that kill 40K people per year. Probably not even a billion dollars, although I'm not an actuary, so it could be more than that or less. That was the original point. The OP said something to the effect that we are wasting so much money on terrorism when only 3000 people (give or take) died in the last 7 years, when that money could be better spent addressing the 40K people who die a year in auto accidents.
I'm just pointing out that A.) that is not a good comparison because its not just about the number of dead, and B.) its a false dichotomy anyway. We could easily do both, and more.
Why bother with security at all then with that attitude? No system is going to be 100% perfect anyway, so why bother at all. What are we going to do? tear down all the airports, scrap all the airplanes and rebuild it all from scratch with an eye for security? Not going to happen. You are totally correct that us looking out for our best interests is the root of the problem, but the problem with that problem is that us looking out for our best interests necessarily means that we aren't looking out for the interests of others. That's why I said your idea was unworkable. It would be nice if world relations were a zero-sum game, but that's just not how the world works.
Now, that being said, I just wanted to say I do get what you're saying. We could probably do alot to improve security by trying a little harder not to be dicks to people in other countries. But that's neither completely possible, nor will it solve it entirely.
"we need to stop with the meddling in the middle east to the extent we have been (Afghanistan = good idea, Iraq = bad idea), work on our image as a nation and then encourage people to stop being scared of the bogeyman, and start paying attention to the REAL dangers that our arrogance and national policy are causing."
I agree with you 110% there, and I'll raise you we should also cut all ties with Israel. But I have news for you, that still isn't going to solve the problem. There are just bad people in the world, who want what we have. worse, there's some that just don't plain like us for no real discernible reason. And no amount of being nice to them is going to convince them otherwise. And its just too easy to make your point by taking down an airliner or three.
That's funny, I thought alot of economic damage would have occurred by several billion dollar buildings crumbling to the ground, loss of office space, the death of 3000+ highly productive workers, the grounding of all flights for several days, etc. Not things I would consider to be caused by people reacting irrationally.
But you're assuming that there is one 100% fool-proof security system out htere, that once our researcher discovers what it is, they will put it in place and all will be secure. That isn't the case in physical airport security any more than it is in computer security. In the real world, and computing, security is more like an onion. It has many layers, some closer to others. Worse, in both cases you evolve towards better security using trial and error.
I would argue that taking off your shoes does indeed do something: it prevents terrorists from sneaking in bombs in their shoes. Furthermore, it doesn't really hinder useability of the system all that much, so I would say its a pretty good tradeoff. It is one less exploit "they" can use against our system. Think of it as a patch, if that helps. You don't run an unpatched IIS 3 server, even if nobody is seriously using any exploits against IIS 3 anymore.
"The true solution is to stop pissing people off who would be terrorists, and stop allowing them to fuck up our economy and SUCCEED at the terrorism. Terrorism only works when your target is afraid of you."
I agree that would be a good solution, but it is also not a realistic solution since it would only work on Fantasy Island.
5.) ???
6.) PROFIT!!
"3000 deaths this century in the US from terrorism and 40,000 every single year on the highways, but OMG ITS TEH TERRAISTS!"
I would counter that by comparing economic damage as well as deaths. I bet if you tally up the economic damage done in TEH TERRAISTS attacks, it would probably not be insignificant.
But beyond that you are sort of proving Bruce's point. Because *you* don't understand the security measures we as a nation are taking against global terrorism, and how those measures benefit us (or do not), you are resorting to belittling them (OMG ITS TEH TERRAISTS!), and assigning them less importance than something else you are more familiar with. Irony, thy name is Slashdot Commenter.
"How much money and how much trouble have we expended to go after terrorists? But how few people have they killed? It won't please anyone, but if we spent that money fighting something ordinary, say heart disease (#1 killer, last I knew), we might actually save more lives."
Maybe the money and trouble we've spent on fighting terrorism so far is precisely what keeps them from killing alot more people. More directly, how do you know what effect, good or bad, people taking their shoes off in airport security lines has on air security? Just because the TSA doesn't report its results directly to you? For all we know (you and I both) taking shoes off may have prevented hundreds of bombs from being smuggled aboard airplanes.
Just because it doesn't make sense to you personally doesn't mean its not worthwhile to do. Which I suppose is part of Bruce's actual point.
Also, you are setting up something of a false dichotomy. There is no reason why we can't spend a lot of money and trouble on fighting both terrorism AND heart disease, as well as Cancer, jaywalkers, speeders, people with too much back hair, etc. etc.
Oh, I agree with you. But this article like many others before it were not in response to mindless american chauvinistic patriotism, but on the contrary, it seemed specially written to start off a fresh round of america bashing (Look! America sucks because they can't even buy mp4 watches there LOL), and many commenters readily took up the call to arms. I also agree with you that there are countless ideas we can potentially look to Europe as an example of. Cell phone tech/lifestyle integration and public transportation springs to mind quite readily.
Its not the point that you can or cannot get these items. The point is, this article is yet another opportunity for the Sour Grapes "America Sucks" people to come on out in droves and comment about how their country in Europe or wherever is sooooooo very much better than america because (pick one) they can get mp4 watches/they have solved poverty and hunger/nobody in their country has ever even heard of guns let alone would own one/they abolished police states millenia ago/they invented interstellar travel/whatever is fashionable to complain about America this week.