Agreed, but it might be that terrorist will decide that security measures on planes are too tough and will focus on other targets? From the TSA's standpoint, their mission is accomplished. I know, it's a stretch, but obviously "people caught" is too rough a measure. The sad fact is that we can't have a good enough measure for the effectiveness of security measures because of the scarcity of the attacks. In Israel we had periods of many terrorists attacks, so when we saw a drop in them, we knew that all the different approaches to the problem (intelligence, army and Shin Bet operations, enhanced security) all contributed. Since terrorist attacks on planes are rare, it's hard (and even impossible) to assess the effectiveness of TSA's measures.
You should really try to understand the meaning of "lose-lose situation". It does not mean that the person working there is a loser. And I wasn't talking about the minimum-wage person working at the boarding gates, but about the people at the head of the TSA that need to both protect the people whilst not disturbing them in the least. How's that for a nice balancing act?
I agree that there are more troublesome procedures than "locking the door", but it was just an example for something that does not appear to have any direct benefit, can annoy (some) people and only with the knowledge we have now do we understand its importance. I was just illustrating the point that the OP's request for a "list of terrorist captured by the TSA" is not a useful benchmark for the effectiveness of a procedure, because, as you pointed out, the "lock the door" directive is very helpful while not catching any terrorist.
People, just because you do not agree with a post, does not mean it is Flamebait. On the contrary, while I do not completely agree with the parent's post, he does have a point: The new regulations would have been approved much easily on October 2001. Remember, while we love to hate the TSA, they have a terrible job: If something happens, then they did not do enough and someone gets the boot; If nothing happens, then they harass the passengers needlessly. It's a lose-lose situation.
Although I am against the full-body scanner and more "intimate" pat-downs, your argument does nothing to strengthen our case. Suppose that on Sep. 8th, 2001 a new directive would have gone out telling all the pilots to lock the cockpit door at all times (during the flight, obviously). Would any terrorist be caught by such a measure? Would we see any benefit from it directly? Would people raise hell over it?* OTOH, in retrospect, we know that such a directive would have prevented a major terrorist attack that still affects our life today. Who is more of a hero, the person who catches a terrorist in the middle of an attack (AKA Rambo) or the unknown official that wrote directives that prevented the terrorist attack in the first place? Or to put it differently: Smart is someone who gets out of trouble; Wise is someone who does not get into trouble in the first place. I know, if we give up freedom for temporary security, etc. etc... And I agree with that sentiment, I just don't agree that "list of terrorists caught by TSA to date" is a useful endpoint.
* - BTW, the answers to these questions are no, no and yes, respectively.
Maybe. For me Luck is what I can otherwise call Randomness. Since even with the best calculation that we may have in the future, there will still be an element of randomness, there will always be room for "Luck". I can call it uncertainty, if you prefer it that way.
As I told someone else in this thread, to absolutely and 100% accurately predict the fall of a dice, you have to take into account every atom in the universe (see my example of the pool table). I find it hard to believe you would someday have a computer able to calculate that (and with only 640KB!:) ). Just look at the three-body problem. We still can't solve the gravitational relationships between 3 objects. Even if possible, you should probably take into account also any minuscule force exerted by Quantum particles, which are completely random. Although they may have a small effect, they still add a measure of incertainty to the calculation.
Agreed, but somehow during all my studies I never saw one doctor that included "Luck" as one of the causes of cancer. It seems they are afraid to include it. They prefer to believe in a false world where everything is potentially predictable. I believe that even in a thousand years, after finding all the causes of cancer, we would still have a significant portion (20%, 40%, 50%?) that will be subscribed to chance.
If you re-read my pool table example, you would understand that even with a completely accurate robot arm, repeated throws of a dice would give you different results, because the operator/a nearby car/the moon/Alpha Centauri just moved a bit during the time between throws.
I take a dice and throw it in the air. Even if I give you the starting terms and the exact forces used to throw the cube, you still cannot, with 100% absolute certainty, tell me what number it will land on. Even with everything known, there are things we cannot calculate. I remember an example from Nassim Nicholas Taleb's book, "The Black Swan". If you hit a ball on a pool table, it is very easy to predict the outcome of the first collision. At about the 5th collision (IIRC, I don't have the book at hand), the mechanics of the collision are affected by the gravitational pull of someone standing near the table. A few more collisions, and the outcome is dependent on every mass in the universe. Given that, can you really predict the outcome of throwing a dice? Can you predict with 100% certainty if someone will have cancer, which type and at what age? We cannot predict everything, even if all the variables are taken into account. This uncertainty is what we call Luck.
You do understand I was talking in general terms? I'm sure I missed many more factors, but the basic idea still stands: It's more than one factor taking all the blame and luck/chance/statistics has a major part in it, in addition to the calculatable factors.
I always thought the nature-nurture debate is a bit stupid. Seems to be part of the trend to find The Cause of everything. When you do cancer research you try to find what is the cause of cancer: Is it bad genes, environmental toxins or unhealthy lifestyle. It sometimes seems that scientists (esp. in the life-sciences) forget that it can be a combinations of the above together with the special magic ingredient called "Luck" (or bad luck). The same is with the nature-nurture debate. They seem to ignore the most logical explanation: That a personal trait (behavior, for example) is the result of the individual's genetic makeup, environmental influences (e.g. education) and some element of luck. Even identical twins raised in exactly the same conditions have a great possibility to come out different. Since the body functions due to chemical processes that are inheritly statistical, there has to be a certain measure of incertainty - even if all the genetic and environmental factors are accounted for.
So the nature-nurture is just being turned into a petty argument over the relative influence of each factor: Is it 40% nature, 50% nurture and 10% blind luck or some other combination of the above.
If the contaminated material is a building block of organic life (e.g. amino acids) then what you proposed is correct. However, the use of the word 'teratogen' is incorrect. Teratogen means (in the strict sense of the word) a material that can cause birth defects, the best known example is Thalidomide. A teratogen is not a material that is being "incorporated into the next generation" A compound can be teratogenic without being radioactive. On the flip side, a radioactive material can be of low enough intensity so it does not cause birth defects and only will cause problems after a long exposure, for example cancer. It can also be of strong enough intensity to cause fetal death long before defect can arise. The Goldilocks material will be just right...
You think the old ways should be changed? Change the law. Don't go breaking existing laws. If I think taxes should be obsolete, do I stop paying them? No, I do what I can to change the laws so that taxes are abolished, or at least lowered. I also pirate movies, esp. porn, but I don't go around pretending it is OK. It is illegal and as long as the laws don't change, they have the right to sue whomever downloaded the movie illegally. We are living in a society. As such, we are bounded by rules. If you don't like the rules, move somewhere else. You can't have the benefits of society without the costs.
I agree that religion was the source of much killing and suffering throughout history. OTOH, you have to differentiate between two kinds of religion. 1) The personal belief of someone - This I do not object to. If someone wants to believe in God (or whatever he may call it), so be it. Some people derive security in the belief of a higher power watching over them. As long as it is their personal belief and they do not try to coerce anyone else, may they have fun eating Kosher all their life. 2) The religious institutes - I believe most of your anger/hatred/bad feelings are directed towards them. Usually the source of all the bad things done is the name of religion stemmed from the religious institutes. In a way religion in itself can be a good thing. If you look through the Bible (I am familiar with the Old Testament, but I think it is also true of the New Testament) it is actually a collection of stories (may we call them myths) with rules about how to be a good person; just look at the Ten Commandments. I sure wish everyone would act according to them. I would venture a guess that you do not harbor so much bad feelings against Buddhists and Hindus - Their religion is mostly personal, with the organizations mostly operating for internal order and not external "conquests".
And you know what? If someone believes that "niggers" are bad and inferior, but keeps his belief to himself and doesn't hurt other people because of those beliefs, let him have his fun. The moment he joins some institute (e.g. KKK), that's when the problems start. You want to direct your anger in a productive direction? I think you should try to push for the limitation of religious institutes' power. Make them just a way for people with the same beliefs to meet and not a way to coordinate actions against people with other beliefs. Don't attack the solitary person who derives security from religion. Its their right.
Well, you do understand we are both on the same side? What you said is just semantics (in this context - in discussions with Creationalists, you have a point). I agree that accepting scientific notions has no relation with belief. OTOH, it was just the most straightforward way to write the sentence. No reference to blind-faith intended.
I had a hard time deciding between replying to you or using my mod points to mod you Toll. You see, I also believe in evolution, science and all the other things you said. I also do not believe in God and believe Creationalism is stupid. But, I, apparently, have one thing you do not: Manners. The parent wrote his beliefs in a polite, respecting manner. He did not say: "Stupid evolutionalists! Can't you see that GOD is with me?" He was stating his beliefs while respecting ours. The least you could do was respond in kind and not use words like: "idiots", "scum", "i truely wish you were all dead", etc.
I know that spelling!=grammar, but still, you would expect someone who is pedantic about a person's grammar to at least go over his post and make sure there are no spelling mistakes.
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed, but it might be that terrorist will decide that security measures on planes are too tough and will focus on other targets? From the TSA's standpoint, their mission is accomplished.
I know, it's a stretch, but obviously "people caught" is too rough a measure. The sad fact is that we can't have a good enough measure for the effectiveness of security measures because of the scarcity of the attacks.
In Israel we had periods of many terrorists attacks, so when we saw a drop in them, we knew that all the different approaches to the problem (intelligence, army and Shin Bet operations, enhanced security) all contributed.
Since terrorist attacks on planes are rare, it's hard (and even impossible) to assess the effectiveness of TSA's measures.
You should really try to understand the meaning of "lose-lose situation". It does not mean that the person working there is a loser. And I wasn't talking about the minimum-wage person working at the boarding gates, but about the people at the head of the TSA that need to both protect the people whilst not disturbing them in the least. How's that for a nice balancing act?
I agree that there are more troublesome procedures than "locking the door", but it was just an example for something that does not appear to have any direct benefit, can annoy (some) people and only with the knowledge we have now do we understand its importance. I was just illustrating the point that the OP's request for a "list of terrorist captured by the TSA" is not a useful benchmark for the effectiveness of a procedure, because, as you pointed out, the "lock the door" directive is very helpful while not catching any terrorist.
People, just because you do not agree with a post, does not mean it is Flamebait. On the contrary, while I do not completely agree with the parent's post, he does have a point: The new regulations would have been approved much easily on October 2001.
Remember, while we love to hate the TSA, they have a terrible job: If something happens, then they did not do enough and someone gets the boot; If nothing happens, then they harass the passengers needlessly. It's a lose-lose situation.
Although I am against the full-body scanner and more "intimate" pat-downs, your argument does nothing to strengthen our case. Suppose that on Sep. 8th, 2001 a new directive would have gone out telling all the pilots to lock the cockpit door at all times (during the flight, obviously). Would any terrorist be caught by such a measure? Would we see any benefit from it directly? Would people raise hell over it?* OTOH, in retrospect, we know that such a directive would have prevented a major terrorist attack that still affects our life today.
Who is more of a hero, the person who catches a terrorist in the middle of an attack (AKA Rambo) or the unknown official that wrote directives that prevented the terrorist attack in the first place? Or to put it differently: Smart is someone who gets out of trouble; Wise is someone who does not get into trouble in the first place.
I know, if we give up freedom for temporary security, etc. etc... And I agree with that sentiment, I just don't agree that "list of terrorists caught by TSA to date" is a useful endpoint.
* - BTW, the answers to these questions are no, no and yes, respectively.
Maybe. For me Luck is what I can otherwise call Randomness. Since even with the best calculation that we may have in the future, there will still be an element of randomness, there will always be room for "Luck". I can call it uncertainty, if you prefer it that way.
FBI agents are cool! When I get out of my basement I wanna be a FBI agent.
As I told someone else in this thread, to absolutely and 100% accurately predict the fall of a dice, you have to take into account every atom in the universe (see my example of the pool table). I find it hard to believe you would someday have a computer able to calculate that (and with only 640KB! :) ). Just look at the three-body problem. We still can't solve the gravitational relationships between 3 objects.
Even if possible, you should probably take into account also any minuscule force exerted by Quantum particles, which are completely random. Although they may have a small effect, they still add a measure of incertainty to the calculation.
Agreed, but somehow during all my studies I never saw one doctor that included "Luck" as one of the causes of cancer. It seems they are afraid to include it. They prefer to believe in a false world where everything is potentially predictable. I believe that even in a thousand years, after finding all the causes of cancer, we would still have a significant portion (20%, 40%, 50%?) that will be subscribed to chance.
If you re-read my pool table example, you would understand that even with a completely accurate robot arm, repeated throws of a dice would give you different results, because the operator/a nearby car/the moon/Alpha Centauri just moved a bit during the time between throws.
I take a dice and throw it in the air. Even if I give you the starting terms and the exact forces used to throw the cube, you still cannot, with 100% absolute certainty, tell me what number it will land on. Even with everything known, there are things we cannot calculate.
I remember an example from Nassim Nicholas Taleb's book, "The Black Swan". If you hit a ball on a pool table, it is very easy to predict the outcome of the first collision. At about the 5th collision (IIRC, I don't have the book at hand), the mechanics of the collision are affected by the gravitational pull of someone standing near the table. A few more collisions, and the outcome is dependent on every mass in the universe. Given that, can you really predict the outcome of throwing a dice? Can you predict with 100% certainty if someone will have cancer, which type and at what age? We cannot predict everything, even if all the variables are taken into account. This uncertainty is what we call Luck.
You do understand I was talking in general terms? I'm sure I missed many more factors, but the basic idea still stands: It's more than one factor taking all the blame and luck/chance/statistics has a major part in it, in addition to the calculatable factors.
I always thought the nature-nurture debate is a bit stupid. Seems to be part of the trend to find The Cause of everything. When you do cancer research you try to find what is the cause of cancer: Is it bad genes, environmental toxins or unhealthy lifestyle. It sometimes seems that scientists (esp. in the life-sciences) forget that it can be a combinations of the above together with the special magic ingredient called "Luck" (or bad luck).
The same is with the nature-nurture debate. They seem to ignore the most logical explanation: That a personal trait (behavior, for example) is the result of the individual's genetic makeup, environmental influences (e.g. education) and some element of luck. Even identical twins raised in exactly the same conditions have a great possibility to come out different. Since the body functions due to chemical processes that are inheritly statistical, there has to be a certain measure of incertainty - even if all the genetic and environmental factors are accounted for.
So the nature-nurture is just being turned into a petty argument over the relative influence of each factor: Is it 40% nature, 50% nurture and 10% blind luck or some other combination of the above.
Am not!
If the contaminated material is a building block of organic life (e.g. amino acids) then what you proposed is correct. However, the use of the word 'teratogen' is incorrect. Teratogen means (in the strict sense of the word) a material that can cause birth defects, the best known example is Thalidomide. A teratogen is not a material that is being "incorporated into the next generation"
A compound can be teratogenic without being radioactive. On the flip side, a radioactive material can be of low enough intensity so it does not cause birth defects and only will cause problems after a long exposure, for example cancer. It can also be of strong enough intensity to cause fetal death long before defect can arise. The Goldilocks material will be just right...
You think the old ways should be changed? Change the law. Don't go breaking existing laws. If I think taxes should be obsolete, do I stop paying them? No, I do what I can to change the laws so that taxes are abolished, or at least lowered.
I also pirate movies, esp. porn, but I don't go around pretending it is OK. It is illegal and as long as the laws don't change, they have the right to sue whomever downloaded the movie illegally.
We are living in a society. As such, we are bounded by rules. If you don't like the rules, move somewhere else. You can't have the benefits of society without the costs.
Great post. One of the best I've read. I ask your permission to link to it in my sig. It will come in handy in many future Slashdot discussions.
It can only done in sailboat. Just find a tall enough waterfall.
I agree that religion was the source of much killing and suffering throughout history. OTOH, you have to differentiate between two kinds of religion.
1) The personal belief of someone - This I do not object to. If someone wants to believe in God (or whatever he may call it), so be it. Some people derive security in the belief of a higher power watching over them. As long as it is their personal belief and they do not try to coerce anyone else, may they have fun eating Kosher all their life.
2) The religious institutes - I believe most of your anger/hatred/bad feelings are directed towards them. Usually the source of all the bad things done is the name of religion stemmed from the religious institutes.
In a way religion in itself can be a good thing. If you look through the Bible (I am familiar with the Old Testament, but I think it is also true of the New Testament) it is actually a collection of stories (may we call them myths) with rules about how to be a good person; just look at the Ten Commandments. I sure wish everyone would act according to them.
I would venture a guess that you do not harbor so much bad feelings against Buddhists and Hindus - Their religion is mostly personal, with the organizations mostly operating for internal order and not external "conquests".
And you know what? If someone believes that "niggers" are bad and inferior, but keeps his belief to himself and doesn't hurt other people because of those beliefs, let him have his fun. The moment he joins some institute (e.g. KKK), that's when the problems start.
You want to direct your anger in a productive direction? I think you should try to push for the limitation of religious institutes' power. Make them just a way for people with the same beliefs to meet and not a way to coordinate actions against people with other beliefs.
Don't attack the solitary person who derives security from religion. Its their right.
Well, you do understand we are both on the same side? What you said is just semantics (in this context - in discussions with Creationalists, you have a point).
I agree that accepting scientific notions has no relation with belief. OTOH, it was just the most straightforward way to write the sentence. No reference to blind-faith intended.
So you propose a crusade against religion in the name of science? I will refrain from answering you as it does not become me.
I had a hard time deciding between replying to you or using my mod points to mod you Toll.
You see, I also believe in evolution, science and all the other things you said. I also do not believe in God and believe Creationalism is stupid. But, I, apparently, have one thing you do not: Manners.
The parent wrote his beliefs in a polite, respecting manner. He did not say: "Stupid evolutionalists! Can't you see that GOD is with me?" He was stating his beliefs while respecting ours. The least you could do was respond in kind and not use words like: "idiots", "scum", "i truely wish you were all dead", etc.
4. ???
5. Profit?
Now we know what happened to Puff the Magic Dragon.
I know that spelling!=grammar, but still, you would expect someone who is pedantic about a person's grammar to at least go over his post and make sure there are no spelling mistakes.