Surely the pics alone might push them down a path of bad decisions and impulse control problems.
Like video games make people into murderers, or how 'normal' porn turns people into rapists. It seems ridiculously unlikely to me that porn of any sort could have such an effect on a person.
Really? I somewhat doubt this is true in all but a minority of cases. The fact that you don't have porn doesn't mean you're going to go rape someone. Is everyone secretly a rapist or something? Pedophiles are not necessarily child molesters, and vice versa.
At least when it comes to the public school system, I'd recommend almost completely scrapping the standardized testing system, which would at least make it less likely that teachers would teach to the test, though it wouldn't fix the problems completely. The reason we have this system in place right now is because it's easier and less costly than the alternatives people have already come up with, and because many people seem to be under the delusion that rote memorization alone is education.
If only real life was so easy that the answers you seek were basically spelled out right in front of you, as they are on these poorly-designed tests. I say again, if your tests can be easily defeated by a calculator, then I think there's a very high probability that it does nothing else than test people's memories, which almost always produces a bunch of rote memorization monkeys who are mediocre at best.
That is not a "bad analogy," at least not to me. The point is, I don't think you should be cowering in fear just because there's a 0.000000000000000000001% chance that a terrorist could blow up a plane while you're on it, while at the same time saying absolutely nothing about all the other risks you take. I don't know if you're cowering in fear, but I for one am not worried at all about someone suddenly managing to blow up a plane.
Even if the plane just randomly blew up, I'd say that's much better than having nearly everyone's freedoms violated by government thugs.
Or could it be that it is simply part of the learning process?
Well, that depends. There are some things you may need to memorize. I doubt anyone would dispute this. The problem is, math isn't a rote memorization game, despite the fact that so many people treat it that way.
There are very, very few occasions where I would advise someone to engage in mindless repetition; it usually accomplishes nothing, makes the subject matter easily forgettable, and leaves people with an insufficient understanding of the material.
You quote Einstein in your sig -- look at everything he accomplished without even a basic calculator.
He was an actual innovator, not a mere rote memorization genius.
What kind of test is defeated by a mere calculator? A poorly designed one. If your college/university/school is giving you such tests, you may want to consider the possibility that it's simply abysmal.
If a math test can be easily defeated by a mere calculator, I don't think it's a test that tests for anything important, anyway. Math is not just a rote memorization exercise, but sadly, many (including schools and colleges) treat it that way. It's sad, but I think most tests are so poorly made.
How do passengers fight back against explosives again?
You're more likely to die in a car accident than to someone blowing up a plane. Someone could blow up a bus. Someone could blow up a train. Someone could blow up any number of things, including the airport, as someone else noted.
What's naive is your blind trust in the government. I find it so naive that it disgusts me throughly.
What 'rights' are you violating making a search.
Your privacy, and it also violates the fourth amendment; those are the obvious violations. Where in the US constitution does it give the government the power to molest people who want to get on a plane? Nowhere.
I don't want to be harassed by worthless government (or private) thugs just because I want to get on a plane.
There are ways to make a proper search
You can't violate everyone's rights just because some people may be terrorists. I don't even think you can selectively violate people's rights. Just leave people alone.
people have been doing it for years, it's an accepted method of protection.
I don't care how long it has been around or how accepted it is; I think it's absolutely immoral and disgusting. If you cared about freedom at all, I dare say you'd feel the same way.
Go and do even a modicum of international air travel then imagine what it would be like if there were no checks.
I think freedom is more important than security to anyone with a brain. With that said, the terrorist bogeymen are largely nonexistent; you've been duped.
While I abhor the reports for TSA (I won't fly to the USA because of this nonsense) and I agree that most of the way the checks are done by them is 'theatre', having professionally trained, and accountable 'agents' (or whatever you want to call them) making appropriate searches at borders of countries is sensible.
I disagree that randomly searching people can ever be appropriate or sensible. Freedom is simply more important to me than your or my ability to feel safe.
We do not have such shrill protestations (at least as far as I can tell) in Europe
That sounds like a problem to me.
where frankly many of those countries have had a far more thorough search regimen than the USA
Perhaps you should try to understand what I'm saying before you spew forth such things. A fork is wildly different from technology that will, in all likelihood, be used to aid in the violation of people's rights; history tells me it's an inevitability.
I also did not suggest a ban on the technology itself. I would not mind severely limiting the government's use of it, though.
We shouldn't fear potential abuse
I think that's an absolutely absurd statement. When talking about whether a government should have a certain power or not, I think it is very important to take into account how likely it is to abuse that power, how easy it is to abuse it, and how much it could be used to infringe upon people's liberties.
We should fear a lack of moderation and oversight.
We've all already seen how the government's oversight works; it simply doesn't.
The catch of course is that if someone decides to use nuclear weapons against us and we're unprepared and fail as a nation
I don't suggest that we get rid of all of our defenses, or even our nukes, nor do I suggest that we shouldn't pay attention.
then there won't be a whole lot of "freedom and ideals" left.
But if those freedoms and ideals are discarded for safety, then the government (and perhaps the people) is cowardly and unprincipled. Dying for freedom is fine by me.
Freedom is good, but it requires that you remain free (and alive) to enjoy it.
"Give me liberty or give me death." Sounds like a good idea to me.
Rough men (and now women) stand ready to do violence on your behalf so that you may sleep well at night (and post on Slashdot!).
But whether they actually commit acts of violence on the government's (not necessarily on my behalf) behalf in order to defend the nation also depends on whether or not there's an enemy that actually could take us down.
Who would you like to become the world police then?
Slashdot Mirror
I don't see the difference.
Surely the pics alone might push them down a path of bad decisions and impulse control problems.
Like video games make people into murderers, or how 'normal' porn turns people into rapists. It seems ridiculously unlikely to me that porn of any sort could have such an effect on a person.
Really? I somewhat doubt this is true in all but a minority of cases. The fact that you don't have porn doesn't mean you're going to go rape someone. Is everyone secretly a rapist or something? Pedophiles are not necessarily child molesters, and vice versa.
What disturbs me is that there are people who claim kiddy porn increases abuse rates and then are aghast at the idea pornography increases rape rates.
That's the 'for the children' crowd for you. When it comes to them (and similar groups), nothing surprises me.
This is why viewing such images is illegal and must be stopped
Because people believe in voodoo? I find such censorship and prosecutions to be futile, and more of an eyesore than the actual images themselves.
At least when it comes to the public school system, I'd recommend almost completely scrapping the standardized testing system, which would at least make it less likely that teachers would teach to the test, though it wouldn't fix the problems completely. The reason we have this system in place right now is because it's easier and less costly than the alternatives people have already come up with, and because many people seem to be under the delusion that rote memorization alone is education.
Tests lead to real life
If only real life was so easy that the answers you seek were basically spelled out right in front of you, as they are on these poorly-designed tests. I say again, if your tests can be easily defeated by a calculator, then I think there's a very high probability that it does nothing else than test people's memories, which almost always produces a bunch of rote memorization monkeys who are mediocre at best.
These are standardised tests.
And they're also complete garbage, as usual.
Well, it's certainly on the way to one.
They'd probably still harass you. Would that violate your rights? Yes. Do governments care? No.
That is not a "bad analogy," at least not to me. The point is, I don't think you should be cowering in fear just because there's a 0.000000000000000000001% chance that a terrorist could blow up a plane while you're on it, while at the same time saying absolutely nothing about all the other risks you take. I don't know if you're cowering in fear, but I for one am not worried at all about someone suddenly managing to blow up a plane.
Even if the plane just randomly blew up, I'd say that's much better than having nearly everyone's freedoms violated by government thugs.
Or could it be that it is simply part of the learning process?
Well, that depends. There are some things you may need to memorize. I doubt anyone would dispute this. The problem is, math isn't a rote memorization game, despite the fact that so many people treat it that way.
There are very, very few occasions where I would advise someone to engage in mindless repetition; it usually accomplishes nothing, makes the subject matter easily forgettable, and leaves people with an insufficient understanding of the material.
You quote Einstein in your sig -- look at everything he accomplished without even a basic calculator.
He was an actual innovator, not a mere rote memorization genius.
Again, if your tests just test for rote memorization, chances are you're not attending a very good school to begin with.
What kind of test is defeated by a mere calculator? A poorly designed one. If your college/university/school is giving you such tests, you may want to consider the possibility that it's simply abysmal.
If a math test can be easily defeated by a mere calculator, I don't think it's a test that tests for anything important, anyway. Math is not just a rote memorization exercise, but sadly, many (including schools and colleges) treat it that way. It's sad, but I think most tests are so poorly made.
In that case they have achieved 'terrorism' anyway.
Such a thing wouldn't be very effective to begin with if people weren't so irrational about it.
Of course it is trivially solved by disallowing booze
All these 'solutions' sound disgusting to me.
It suited what the airlines thought they could get away with using the smallest possible expenditure.
Good, I say. More hassle-free than the government thugs.
The problem is nearly nonexistent, anyway. I'll take the 'risk.'
How do passengers fight back against explosives again?
You're more likely to die in a car accident than to someone blowing up a plane. Someone could blow up a bus. Someone could blow up a train. Someone could blow up any number of things, including the airport, as someone else noted.
The problem is almost nonexistent.
None in the US, it seems.
and we'll have assholes like Evan to thank for it.
The people who are actually violating your rights? They have absolutely nothing to do with any of that!
Again, a popular opinion but again, naive.
What's naive is your blind trust in the government. I find it so naive that it disgusts me throughly.
What 'rights' are you violating making a search.
Your privacy, and it also violates the fourth amendment; those are the obvious violations. Where in the US constitution does it give the government the power to molest people who want to get on a plane? Nowhere.
I don't want to be harassed by worthless government (or private) thugs just because I want to get on a plane.
There are ways to make a proper search
You can't violate everyone's rights just because some people may be terrorists. I don't even think you can selectively violate people's rights. Just leave people alone.
people have been doing it for years, it's an accepted method of protection.
I don't care how long it has been around or how accepted it is; I think it's absolutely immoral and disgusting. If you cared about freedom at all, I dare say you'd feel the same way.
Go and do even a modicum of international air travel then imagine what it would be like if there were no checks.
I think freedom is more important than security to anyone with a brain. With that said, the terrorist bogeymen are largely nonexistent; you've been duped.
While I abhor the reports for TSA (I won't fly to the USA because of this nonsense) and I agree that most of the way the checks are done by them is 'theatre', having professionally trained, and accountable 'agents' (or whatever you want to call them) making appropriate searches at borders of countries is sensible.
I disagree that randomly searching people can ever be appropriate or sensible. Freedom is simply more important to me than your or my ability to feel safe.
We do not have such shrill protestations (at least as far as I can tell) in Europe
That sounds like a problem to me.
where frankly many of those countries have had a far more thorough search regimen than the USA
Yeah, definitely sounds like a problem.
Even while cumbersome I much prefer sitting in an airplane where people had to pass a check than one without.
You much prefer having people's rights violated? The land of the free and the home of the brave indeed.
The questions with any tech are whether it's abuses outweigh the uses.
I don't think the technology itself should be banned, but as I said, the government's use of it will be the real problem.
You could say the same thing about a fork
Perhaps you should try to understand what I'm saying before you spew forth such things. A fork is wildly different from technology that will, in all likelihood, be used to aid in the violation of people's rights; history tells me it's an inevitability.
I also did not suggest a ban on the technology itself. I would not mind severely limiting the government's use of it, though.
We shouldn't fear potential abuse
I think that's an absolutely absurd statement. When talking about whether a government should have a certain power or not, I think it is very important to take into account how likely it is to abuse that power, how easy it is to abuse it, and how much it could be used to infringe upon people's liberties.
We should fear a lack of moderation and oversight.
We've all already seen how the government's oversight works; it simply doesn't.
The catch of course is that if someone decides to use nuclear weapons against us and we're unprepared and fail as a nation
I don't suggest that we get rid of all of our defenses, or even our nukes, nor do I suggest that we shouldn't pay attention.
then there won't be a whole lot of "freedom and ideals" left.
But if those freedoms and ideals are discarded for safety, then the government (and perhaps the people) is cowardly and unprincipled. Dying for freedom is fine by me.
Freedom is good, but it requires that you remain free (and alive) to enjoy it.
"Give me liberty or give me death." Sounds like a good idea to me.
Rough men (and now women) stand ready to do violence on your behalf so that you may sleep well at night (and post on Slashdot!).
But whether they actually commit acts of violence on the government's (not necessarily on my behalf) behalf in order to defend the nation also depends on whether or not there's an enemy that actually could take us down.
Who would you like to become the world police then?
Since you asked about my preferences, no one.