Officially NATO was founded as a way to be prepared for when Germany rises again and starts anotger world war.
Also officially, Soviet Russia applied for membership, and was denied. Shortly after, Germany itself became a member of this alliance against themselves.
And they pay for their own weapons. So far there has been only one NATO member who has ever been tardy with their payments (and it's not Germany).
If you have time and calories to spare, you don't do nothing. You develop arts, science, technology. You find ways to make life more enjoyable. And you end up with even more time and calories to spare.
reinforced cockpit doors and passengers willing to resist have been the only two demonstrable improvements since 9/11. I know you just said there were no improvements, but surely we can agree on those two?
We can agree that those are the changes with the most impact.
I'd say they have not made things safer, but actually less safe. For the cockpit doors, I refer to the pilot who intentionally crashed his plane with nobody able to stop him because of that new door. As for actively resisting would-be hijackers, you have linked to two articles in which it seemed to have made a difference for the better. I would say that even if that is true, that would be the exception rather than the rule. There has been an increase in planes that vanished or exploded for unknown reasons.
I agree that the expansion of the Air Marshal system after 9/11 has NOT made things safer. There are apparently now thousands of Air Marshals in service, which seems pointless to me.
I think so, too.
Regarding my use of “Islamic”, I double-checked myself in a number of online dictionaries and grammar guides in response to what you wrote. So far as I can tell, “Muslim” would’ve worked just as well since I was talking about men, but “Islamic” broadly appears to be considered just as acceptable (when used as an adjective) when referring to something related to Islam or its adherents.
If that is acceptable now, then my dictionaries are out of date. It just seems wrong to me, like when someone says "Islamism" instead of Islam. We don't call Christianity "Christianism" either. Unless that has also changed recently. (It would be consistent with Buddhism and Hinduism, at least.) Maybe it is now acceptable to call Christians Christianists. I should check.
Other countries have been carrying guns onto planes since before 9/11 as well, which the linked article specifically mentioned some examples of.
Pakistan 1976 and Austria 1981. Of the others with a specific date given none was before 2001.
And most of those hijackings weren’t being done by Americans. Most of them were being done by terrorist organizations (by the 1980s, predominately Islamic extremists) in an effort to gain funding for their organizations.
I should probably look into the history of airplane hijackings in the USA. I didn't even know there was one.
Apparently you are talking about the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. (By the way: The adjective is "Muslim", not "Islamic", although taking hostages for money is not fundamentally a religious thing.)
it sounds like you’ve run out of ideas and are simply throwing petty insults after having your initial statement and subsequent rationalizations proven wrong.
Where have I thrown insults, petty or otherwise?
My initial and still only point is that the measures taken after 2001 did not make commercial air flights any safer, but had the opposite effect. Where would I need to come up with ideas to run out of on that?
The only thing you did prove me wrong on is the assumption that air marshals were one of those measures. An error on my part that I have conceded.
they weren’t even on 0.1% of domestic flights on any given day. After 9/11, that number increased by several orders of magnitude
Social media is not broadcast media. I'm not worried about too much regulation there. Let them have it.
They tried to regulate and even govern the internet before. They never could. And almost all of them still don't understand why.
Some newspapers tried to take on Google with new legislation. It turned out that they need Google, but Google doesn't need them. So that backfired spectacularly.
So what if they regulate Facebook into obsolescense? Nobody will lose anything over it. Except for the politicians that rely on Facebook to mobilise their voters. Not even Facebook will lose anything. They already own WhatsApp and Instagram.
And there have been companies in the past that tried to affect open discourse on the internet more invasively than Facebook ever could. They don't exist anymore. They ran out of customers.
There was a time when there was an outrage over the availability of pornography on the internet. There was a time when music downloads where painted as the end of civilisation. There was a time when unsolicited bulk e-mail (but not unsolicted postal bulk mail) was made illegal.
Let them regulate. Consumer rights are a good thing. And for anything else I am not worried.
So what do you propose? That you get a fee for presenting yourself as a customer?
People go to car salesmen when they want to buy a car. I don't see where a car salesman would lose customers that way.
Car manufacturers lost a lot of customers almost ten years ago. No amount of data mining could have prevented that. And no ad campaign either. People didn't spend their money elsewhere. They didn't spend it at all. Often because they didn't have any spending money.
Now, if you were to split a percentage for a successful business deal among all the people whose data had to be collected to find the customer, how many people who turned out not to be worth targeting would you have to split it with?
Just teach school children how to set up their own Amazon, Facebook, Google, or whatever. It probably won't remove the oligopoly, but it will get it into people's heads that anything anyone can do on the internet, anyone can do on the internet, and nobody is at the mercy of any domain for anything.
Your data is not that valuable. It's the aggregate that gives it value. Split that, and you are still left with nothing.
And the value is in the savings that targeted advertising makes possible. It is difficult to put an exact number on that.
Unless your data really is that valuaable, in which case it would be stupid to encourage the theft of your own identity, or whatever exploit gives your data value.
With search engines it is still a network effect: The more people use it, the more feedback it gets on the relevance of its results, improving its usefulness.
A free exchange of ideas sounds good. But it stops at lies. Journalists and advertisers are not allowed to propagate lies. (Exceptions may apply. And lies by ommission seem to be acceptable.) Now that even news agencies get their info off Twitbook, it is easier than ever to spread lies with impunity.
But there are reasons why lies are not welcome in this marketplace of ideas. We cannot hold everyone publishing on a public forum to the same standard as professional journalists and advertisers, for purely practical reasons.
But do we want this "free marketplace of of ideas" to become an arena about whose lies are less implausible? Then we may just as well forego journalism altogether and go back to church. Or succumb to the brainwashing of "scripted reality" and of "entertainment" shows emulating the presentation styles of news shows.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't fool yourself. It has never been solid.
Security-wise you used to get worms before the setup for the installer was ready.
Officially NATO was founded as a way to be prepared for when Germany rises again and starts anotger world war.
Also officially, Soviet Russia applied for membership, and was denied. Shortly after, Germany itself became a member of this alliance against themselves.
And they pay for their own weapons. So far there has been only one NATO member who has ever been tardy with their payments (and it's not Germany).
You tell me why you have this alliance.
It is already happening. Chinese companies are inveyting heavily in infrastructure and education in several low--cost African countries.
Explain swimming pools, fun runners, voolleyball, and dancing then.
If you have time and calories to spare, you don't do nothing. You develop arts, science, technology. You find ways to make life more enjoyable. And you end up with even more time and calories to spare.
What you describe is the use of technology. What you omit is its development.
reinforced cockpit doors and passengers willing to resist have been the only two demonstrable improvements since 9/11. I know you just said there were no improvements, but surely we can agree on those two?
We can agree that those are the changes with the most impact.
I'd say they have not made things safer, but actually less safe.
For the cockpit doors, I refer to the pilot who intentionally crashed his plane with nobody able to stop him because of that new door.
As for actively resisting would-be hijackers, you have linked to two articles in which it seemed to have made a difference for the better. I would say that even if that is true, that would be the exception rather than the rule. There has been an increase in planes that vanished or exploded for unknown reasons.
I agree that the expansion of the Air Marshal system after 9/11 has NOT made things safer. There are apparently now thousands of Air Marshals in service, which seems pointless to me.
I think so, too.
Regarding my use of “Islamic”, I double-checked myself in a number of online dictionaries and grammar guides in response to what you wrote. So far as I can tell, “Muslim” would’ve worked just as well since I was talking about men, but “Islamic” broadly appears to be considered just as acceptable (when used as an adjective) when referring to something related to Islam or its adherents.
If that is acceptable now, then my dictionaries are out of date.
It just seems wrong to me, like when someone says "Islamism" instead of Islam. We don't call Christianity "Christianism" either. Unless that has also changed recently. (It would be consistent with Buddhism and Hinduism, at least.)
Maybe it is now acceptable to call Christians Christianists. I should check.
Other countries have been carrying guns onto planes since before 9/11 as well, which the linked article specifically mentioned some examples of.
Pakistan 1976 and Austria 1981. Of the others with a specific date given none was before 2001.
And most of those hijackings weren’t being done by Americans. Most of them were being done by terrorist organizations (by the 1980s, predominately Islamic extremists) in an effort to gain funding for their organizations.
I should probably look into the history of airplane hijackings in the USA. I didn't even know there was one.
Apparently you are talking about the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.
(By the way: The adjective is "Muslim", not "Islamic", although taking hostages for money is not fundamentally a religious thing.)
it sounds like you’ve run out of ideas and are simply throwing petty insults after having your initial statement and subsequent rationalizations proven wrong.
Where have I thrown insults, petty or otherwise?
My initial and still only point is that the measures taken after 2001 did not make commercial air flights any safer, but had the opposite effect.
Where would I need to come up with ideas to run out of on that?
The only thing you did prove me wrong on is the assumption that air marshals were one of those measures.
An error on my part that I have conceded.
they weren’t even on 0.1% of domestic flights on any given day. After 9/11, that number increased by several orders of magnitude
Maybe I wasn't wrong?
Either way, it doesn't change the point.
the air marshals were founded in 1962, have been carrying guns onto planes since 1962
I did not know that.
I had no idea Americans were so desperate in the early 1960s to get to Cuba that they hijacked planes for that purpose.
In the rest of the world they only started to appear with the new millennium. I didn't know that America had been ahead of the curve by four decades.
He didn't say it, but I thought it was implied with the changes he mentioned, in particular the passengers being encouraged to actively resist.
Aren't air marshals passengers?
Social media is not broadcast media. I'm not worried about too much regulation there. Let them have it.
They tried to regulate and even govern the internet before. They never could.
And almost all of them still don't understand why.
Some newspapers tried to take on Google with new legislation.
It turned out that they need Google, but Google doesn't need them.
So that backfired spectacularly.
So what if they regulate Facebook into obsolescense?
Nobody will lose anything over it.
Except for the politicians that rely on Facebook to mobilise their voters.
Not even Facebook will lose anything. They already own WhatsApp and Instagram.
And there have been companies in the past that tried to affect open discourse on the internet more invasively than Facebook ever could.
They don't exist anymore.
They ran out of customers.
There was a time when there was an outrage over the availability of pornography on the internet.
There was a time when music downloads where painted as the end of civilisation.
There was a time when unsolicited bulk e-mail (but not unsolicted postal bulk mail) was made illegal.
Let them regulate. Consumer rights are a good thing. And for anything else I am not worried.
So what do you propose? That you get a fee for presenting yourself as a customer?
People go to car salesmen when they want to buy a car. I don't see where a car salesman would lose customers that way.
Car manufacturers lost a lot of customers almost ten years ago. No amount of data mining could have prevented that.
And no ad campaign either. People didn't spend their money elsewhere. They didn't spend it at all. Often because they didn't have any spending money.
Now, if you were to split a percentage for a successful business deal among all the people whose data had to be collected to find the customer, how many people who turned out not to be worth targeting would you have to split it with?
In 2012, a single data broker called Datacoup was spending $8/month per social media account.
What happened to them?
And of everone else.
So they can look for correlations.
That means they need the data of a lot of people, with as many factors to correlate and control for as they can get.
Because "nobody ever bought a PC just to get on the internet."
Are the materials that were used for last century's space suits even manufactured still?
Why are American troops in Syria?
Russia was asked for help by the elected Syrian government.
Just teach school children how to set up their own Amazon, Facebook, Google, or whatever. It probably won't remove the oligopoly, but it will get it into people's heads that anything anyone can do on the internet, anyone can do on the internet, and nobody is at the mercy of any domain for anything.
Your data is not that valuable. It's the aggregate that gives it value. Split that, and you are still left with nothing.
And the value is in the savings that targeted advertising makes possible. It is difficult to put an exact number on that.
Unless your data really is that valuaable, in which case it would be stupid to encourage the theft of your own identity, or whatever exploit gives your data value.
What does it matter if someone is a bot?
Didn't the EU do just that?
With search engines it is still a network effect: The more people use it, the more feedback it gets on the relevance of its results, improving its usefulness.
A free exchange of ideas sounds good. But it stops at lies. Journalists and advertisers are not allowed to propagate lies. (Exceptions may apply. And lies by ommission seem to be acceptable.) Now that even news agencies get their info off Twitbook, it is easier than ever to spread lies with impunity.
But there are reasons why lies are not welcome in this marketplace of ideas. We cannot hold everyone publishing on a public forum to the same standard as professional journalists and advertisers, for purely practical reasons.
But do we want this "free marketplace of of ideas" to become an arena about whose lies are less implausible? Then we may just as well forego journalism altogether and go back to church. Or succumb to the brainwashing of "scripted reality" and of "entertainment" shows emulating the presentation styles of news shows.
True. He didn't mention them.
What I wrote was:
The two changes made immediately after 9/11 which had the biggest effect on airline safety was...
I did NOT assert that airline travel was safer after 9/11 than before.
If you are saying that those things have made air travel less safe, then I would agree with you.
And the rest has been a waste of money.
That I also agree with.