The question asked was "can we prevent terrorism?" Your response.. "Carried to its logical conclusion, we'd all have to board planes naked (you could strangle someone with the elastic band from your underwear!), or even restrained (hands are weapons too!) in order to prevent terrorist actions on planes.".. is the answer to "will we " not "can we."
We most certainly can. This will only happen, however, when people realize that they don't have a right to fly and that if they don't want to go through progressively more intrusive screening processes, there is always the train, boats or automobiles.
Of course, the best way to deal with terrorists is to wipe out the population centers of every country that supports terrorism any time a terrorist act occurs. Note that I said EVERY country. One single terrorist act could result in twenty countries being targeted.
Once again, this course of action brings up the question, "can we stop terrorism" when the real question should be "will we?"
I'm honestly still trying to figure out how any state court system has the jurisdiction to supress our federal Constitution's right to freedom of speech???
I find it laughably ironic that a completely liberal-biased rag like the New York Times is calling for search engines to be neutral. Something about the pot calling the kettle black comes to mind or is it "people who live in glass houses should not throw stones?"
Slashdot Mirror
The question asked was "can we prevent terrorism?" Your response .. "Carried to its logical conclusion, we'd all have to board planes naked (you could strangle someone with the elastic band from your underwear!), or even restrained (hands are weapons too!) in order to prevent terrorist actions on planes." .. is the answer to "will we " not "can we."
We most certainly can. This will only happen, however, when people realize that they don't have a right to fly and that if they don't want to go through progressively more intrusive screening processes, there is always the train, boats or automobiles.
Of course, the best way to deal with terrorists is to wipe out the population centers of every country that supports terrorism any time a terrorist act occurs. Note that I said EVERY country. One single terrorist act could result in twenty countries being targeted.
Once again, this course of action brings up the question, "can we stop terrorism" when the real question should be "will we?"
I'm honestly still trying to figure out how any state court system has the jurisdiction to supress our federal Constitution's right to freedom of speech???
I find it laughably ironic that a completely liberal-biased rag like the New York Times is calling for search engines to be neutral. Something about the pot calling the kettle black comes to mind or is it "people who live in glass houses should not throw stones?"