behind a pay wall. I can't even begin to have an opinion about that.
Out of curosity, do you have an account on that site or are you just citing some random shit you found off google that supports your bias?
Because... I rather suspect you're not a subscriber to Crikey... which makes your citation of that article quite pathetic and does much to actually back up my position.
That you're claiming to be a peer review expert... if true... would further strengthen my position. I really don't know what you think you're doing. This whole intellectual integrity thing seems to be very alien to you.
can you give me an example of a home school kid infecting anyone because of lack of vaccines? I haven't seen that outside of political screes.
The issue is not fucking home schoolers. This kid wasn't a home schooler was he? The issue is schools not requiring the vaccines for admission.
Half the nasty viral and bacterial outbreaks I've seen in the last few years hit the border states. THAT should be a clue to you. People crossing the border and not going through immigration or quarantine are going to have all sorts of fucking diseases.
And whatever your attitude is on immigration, I think we can agree from a medical best practices stand point... that that is actually a bigger problem than the relatively tiny portion of the population that home schools and really I can't see any evidence that they've caused an outbreak... ever.
I'm trying to be nice here... but I'm sort of annoyed that you went with such a biased narrative and entirely ignored other issues that actually much larger.
In the case of the article, I would point out that this happened in SPAIN... not Norway. Are you aware what is happening in southern Europe these days? Huge illegal immigration from Africa. People just show up in boats by the thousands... no quarantine... no papers... no vaccinations... just show up and mix into the population.
What could possibly go wrong?
Again, have any opinion on the immigration situation you want. From a viral and bacterial and paracitic vector stand point... you can't disagree with me. I have science on my side here. Fact. It is as much an issue as taking a dump and them without washing your hands going to perform surgery.
But again... by all means... show me some examples of home schoolers spreading disease in the community. I'd like to see a case of it. And a couple incidents aren't going to be evidence of a pattern. Everyone spreads diseases. Even the vaccinated kids. The issue is their lack of vaccinations causing a disproportionate health risk? I doubt you can show evidence to that effect.
We can't afford to be political and tribalistic when diseases come into the picture. They don't care what your politics are... A fascist, a communist, an anarchist, a socialist, a capitalist... to a disease they're all just people. It doesn't care what you believe.
If your system were worth rat semen, it would have nailed his ass to the wall. He published something like 200 plus papers and nearly all of them were bullshit.
You caught NONE of it for years. They passed peer review.
It wasn't peer review that outed him. It was other scientists OUTSIDE of your peer review process questioning it.
Your peer review process FAILED.
Over.
And over.
And over.
And over again.
And you sit here chest thumping yourself telling me how much of an expert you are and how stupid I am for not recognizing how good your fucking failure of system is... Fucking absurd.
You are not immune from criticism. You do not belong to some holy priesthood that can say whatever the fuck it wants without having to go through some sort of audit by people OUTSIDE your order. Guys like me... we get a say. We always have. No one gives a shit how many PhDs you have or where you get to park your car. You make a bullshit claim with bullshit logic and bullshit evidence and it is going to get called bullshit.
And responding to that with "DO you know who I am!?" is itself merely more evidence of corruption on your part. You sound like that sports reporter that screamed at the parking attendant for giving her a big parking fee. She screamed at this woman in the booth saying " do you know who I am?! I'll have your job!"... you are merely embarrassing yourself. That you think you can negate criticism by name dropping and title dropping is pathetic.
You are an expert because you know things and because when push comes to shove you can back it up. Not because you got some fucking title. And no, you haven't demonstrated either knowledge or been able to back up anything. You just allude to your knowledge and experience like that is something that should mean something on the internet.
That all of what I'm saying to you is baffling to you isn't good. The governor of Illinois had the same reaction when told it was illegal to sell a senate seat for cash. He was baffled that anyone thought that was wrong. Utterly confused. You can listen to interviews and press statements from him and he had no idea that he couldn't sell a US Federal Senate seat. He's in federal prison I think.
How did he get that idea? Because he spent his entire career in a systematically corrupt institution.
This is the thing with corrupt people. They don't think they're corrupt. They have this "everyone's doing it" attitude and so they don't see the problem.
You don't see the problem. You are offended that I would suggest there is a corruption problem.
From what you're telling me, you're probably too close to this to see the problem. You've confused "everyone is doing it" with "this is ethical".
I have a million different loopholes i can use to defeat your legal argument. That was my point.
The entire constitution is largely null and void at this point. Its been bypassed too many times.
You have the first amendment unless you happen to offend someone.
You have the second amendment unless you frighten me.
You have forth amendment except when the government says they really want to check you and find getting a warrant to be inconvienent.
You have the fifth amendment unless the government finds the legal process to be a hassle.
You have the sixth amendment unless the government wants to keep the trial secret for some reason and the right to speedy trial unless the government wants to grind you into submission with legal fees.
You have the seven amendment unless the government threatens you with extreme threats and forces you into a plea bargain.
You have the Eighth amendment unless the government wants to make an example of you or unless they want to intimidate you into that plea bargain.
You have the ninth amendment which... basically everyone totally ignores.
And then you have the tenth amendment unless the feds bribe or extort the state into a federal program... offering the carrot of billions of dollars in aid and the stick of cut funding and your people still being taxed to pay for a federal program they can't benefit from.
Tell me about your rights under the law. You have none. The system doesn't care. The people get the government they deserve.
Most americans are ignorant peasants and they've got a government that treats them as such. Were they anything but that... this wouldn't have happened.
Citizens do not permit the government to take away their rights. The american people did.
So... now that we understand what century we live in and how the system really works... tell me again why I can't do that?
If you wanted to really assert your rights... you'd have to do so more robustly than that. And your peers are such sheep that they're more interested in blending into the herd than they are stepping out and demanding anything.
Don't get me wrong. I wish this weren't the way things were. But they are this way. This is reality. This is today. The NSA spying powers just go renewed again. A clear violation of 4th amendment protections... no one cares.
As to doing a better job then we have in the past, what would you change to make this transition more pleasant? I must stress... you can't stop it. I would further encourage you to not even try to slow it down. All that will do is put our society at a competitive disadvantage, trigger more outsourcing, off shoring, and generally mean that our economy enjoys less of a competitive advantage on the other side of this change. Think about it like transitioning into the industrial revolution. If you went through it slower and spent more time with your agriculture you'd be at a competitive disadvantage when you finally got out of it and found all your market competitors had been in the industrial revolution for ages. Don't slow it down. You'll just hurt the children of the people you want to help. However, saving some people from the consequences is not unreasonable. A certain amount of welfare to soften the blow is acceptable so long as that is what we're actually doing with the welfare. If we're just giving people an excuse to check out and not do anything then that's obviously not a great idea.
As to haves abusing have nots... two issues: First, you have to deal with what constitutes abuse? If I own a factory and I want to hire people to work in my factory... and there is way more labor in the area than I can possibly use. Lets say people are just begging me to hire them. What do I do? Do I hire more people at a lower rate? Do I tell them that even though maybe they're starving I can't help them? Do I let their children work in my factory so I can afford to feed, cloth, and educate them? A lot of what people think of as abuse in these situations are actually just the best options in generally shitty situations.
Is that exploitation?
The second issue is that redistributive policies often backfire in that they disrupt markets and industries to such an extent that the net utility of the industry to the economy and workers etc is REDUCED.
We have a lot of examples of businesses that however allegedly exploitative were providing jobs to people. And then when hammered by the government to change policies they sometimes just shut down. Look at Detroit as an example of a place mothered to death. Had Detroit been left alone, it would be a more prosperous place today. It has been given per capita and per square mile more aid then any other part of the country. And that aid and regulation... destroyed it.
The city is addicted to aid. It can't survive without it. And before it was a NET producer. It went from being one of the wealthiest cities in the US to being literally the poorest. Because they don't just fail to make money. They COST money. Their net income is NEGATIVE. That's worse than poor.
I'm just saying... Be careful. There are a lot of government programs that mean well and destroy everything. If your objective is to help people, make sure that you put helping people above ideology. My ideology for example doesn't like welfare period. But I'm willing to deal with it in measured and reasonable amounts because I don't want to hurt people. I do care. I really do. I care a lot in fact. And that caring overwhelms my ideological biases to permit the welfare. But you have to do these things to help people. ACTUALLY help them. Not merely intend to do so. The theory is useless if it doesn't work.
And no ideology is perfect. We have to be a bit humble about how much we know and how much we can predict. A moderate path that keeps our options open is the best way to go. We can always ramp up welfare if we need to later. But if we fuck up the economy it will be very hard to fix it later.
As to the welfare tangent, did you have any further commentary?
As to the pilot having his gun taken from him... we need to clarify where and how that happens.
If the gun is being taken while the pilot is off the airplane, I can come up with a lot of really easy ways to make the gun useless off the plane.
If we're talking about the gun being taken from the pilot WHILE he is on the plane... I don't see that because you'd have to get into the cabin to do that.
So what is your concern? Off the plane or on the plane? If you can get into the pilot's cabin to take his gun then you're already too close.
As to electrified clothing... if they get close enough to touch me, I'm calling that a total failure.
As to depressurizing the cabin and forcing the hijacker to sit in a seat sucking oxygen... that's a good point. I'd still recommend the defense training and the taser.
As to the training, glad we agree. As to the weapon... you can come up with reasons why people shouldn't have ice cream or reasons why alternating tuesdays should have people standing out side balancing on their hands. Coming up with reasons for things doesn't mean they're good reasons.
In your case, you're saying having a weapons there might create problems. Sure. Giving your passangers sodas can cause problems too. the issue is do they actually matter?
First, you have the gun be controlled by the pilot when he boards and debarks. The gun does not stay on the plane. It goes with the pilot.
Second, as the to the TSA regs being useless if the pilot can bring a gun through... bullshit. The pilot would have dispensation to do that and you the passanger would not. Air marshals take guns through the TSA lines on to those planes. Or at least I dont' think anyone would really argue the TSA was useless if they flashed their badge and did it.
Third, as to the pilot focusing on the plane and not on the gun. The issue is that the pilot could hurt people on the plane if he jukes the plane all over the place. Lets say there is someone at the door and they some how snuck a pocket blow torch onto the plane. What are you going to do? Juke around? Good luck with that especially if they just hold on back there. You have to keep in mind that in tight spaces you're not that vulnerable to being shook up because you're not going very far in any direction. YOu can wedge yourself into that entry way and just work on the door.
Now what? I'm saying... give the pilot something say "here's Johnny!" to the would be hijacker.
You're worried about the bullets going through the plane and hurting people... again... subsonic rounds are not going to do that. I suggested subsonic rounds. They have less powder in them, the don't go as fast.
If this bothers you... let me suggest at the very least, a taser. A good one. Something you could make the guy really ride the lightning with... is that acceptable? I want some sort of stand off supremacy weapon that a pilot could use to stop an attacker cold.
We're going to have to agree to disagree on most of this...
As to strain load sensors, most of those are not actually additional sensors but simply a deeper analysis of the servo operation.
That is, if I push a servo, I should get a certain kind of motion out of it. If I get something more or less than that, that could indicate a problem. I play around with servos all the time and you can tell from the read out if they're not moving as quickly as you'd expect. It is right there. No additional sensors required.
You probably already know this but humor me... a servo is the combination of a potentiometer and a motor. As the servo rotates, the voltage changes which tells you what the servo is doing. If the a servo moves forward and the return says it has stopped even though you're still putting power into it... then that means something caused the servo to stop. And that pretty much means something got in the way of it. So you can see without any additional sensors when something gets in the way of a robot arm.
My understanding is that nearly all the sensors in a robot arm are literally just that. And those are the bare minimum sensors for the robot arm to work at all. Because without that it couldn't even tell what it was doing.
And who is going to fix that problem when it happens? A person.
Sure... and how does any of that actually contradict anything I've said?
To the point of TSA monitoring other things... sure, but you don't need to have the same security for a bus that you do for a plane. So... a no fly list is not a no bus list.
You might still log where so and so went but you don't really care if they take a bus or not.
As to government employees abusing their power... you see that at the IRS as well... want to abolish that? IRS Audits people all the time on specious grounds. I believe the FBI raided a factory because the owner donated to the "wrong" politician.
This sort of thing is typical.
Unless you're advocating for small government with very tightly enforced restrictions on what it does... I don't find this argument against the TSA to be especially credible.
All things in moderation. You want enough calluses to not be weak but not so many your fingers don't bend.
The test is whether my callusness leads to laziness or an inability to think clearly.
If I continue to think clearly... if I have no loss in ability to reason and judge, then my calluses are merely armor.
I have a real pet peve about people that are squeamish in my society.
How many girls do you know eating their chicken breast dinners could have snapped the neck of that chicken? Is that callus to be able to do that? Any farm girl could and would do it without thinking twice about it. SNAP... and on with the next task.
We accept morally and ethically the need to kill the creature. We know what we're buying in the store when we buy those packaged bags of flesh. But when so many are brought to the moment they can't handle... emotionally... the trauma of snapping the chicken's neck.
That is weakness. Not because you should be happy to kill a creature but because your real issue is doing it yourself. Coming face to face with it and dealing with it. That speaks of an unrealistic and overly shelted mind that can't handle basic facts of life.
And so often in many of these issues you're dealing with people just like that. People that as Jack Nickleson said... "can't handle the truth". Certain things work a certain way and have to work a certain way.
Some things have a price. You want this? It costs that... and that could be human life. Your freedoms for example. They cost a human sacrifice. Blood poured into a goblet and drunk by the gods. You pay the price or there are consequences.
In this case we're talking about the rise of automation. It is going to happen. Like the rising Sun in the east. It will happen. And it will set in the west. It will happen. If that causes problems for you then lets talk about how we can make those problems more bearable for you. I am not so callus that I don't appricate that people have problems and might need help.
HOWEVER... It will happen. And if you don't adapt to that situation... somehow... you're a dead man. Now many your adaptation is to get welfare. I don't know. That is up to you. And again, ask for help if you need it. We'll see what we can do about it. But don't ask for the Sun to not rise in the East. It will. It is going to happen.
that isn't me being callus... that is me telling you the truth.
So much of politics is con artists lying to stupid children. The con artists want power and the stupid children want to be told pleasant lies. So the con artists will tell you that if you vote for them they'll stop the sun from rising in the east for you. Sure they will.
And when they fail to make the impossible happen they'll blame their failure on the rival political party. They'll tell you that if it weren't for the OTHER they'd have been able to make the sun not rise in the east and set in the west.
And the stupid children get mad and curse the OTHER... they hate them. Damn the other for stopping the con men from making the impossible not happen.
It is painful watching these idiots. You can't stop it.
Don't try. It is totally pointless. It is happening and in time it will even be good... great even... wonderful.
But in the short term some people are going to get ground up and destroyed. I can't stop that.
I didn't set the wheel spinning... I just know where it is going to roll.
And why do the Israelis have competence and we do not?
I frankly think the lack of competence is because too many of our organizations are hamstrung by people with conflicted agendas. If you were trying to do the thing you said you want to do then you'd be competent when you did it. What happens so often is that what people want to do and what they say they want to do are two different things.
So when they fail to do what they said they wanted to do, look at what they might have wanted to do instead. Often as not, they actually succeeded in doing what they wanted to do but not what they said they wanted to do.
The reason the Israelis succeed at this sort of thing is because they actually want to succeed at it. Many of the people in the US tasked with similar responsibilities do not. They have conflicted agendas.
That conflict is the problem.
As to your prerequist that i can't do the one thing I want to base my entire security system on...
If I can't profile which is my primary suggestion, then I don't think you can keep the airplanes safe.
I mean, what am I supposed to do? check everyone's anus with a tooth brush? Make sure it is nice and clean up there? I could jam a bomb up my ass and blow a plane up that way. Your scanners aren't going to stop that.
If I can smuggle drugs and cell phones into a prison. Make weapons in a prison... then how are you going to stop people from bringing that stuff on the plane? I really dont' think you can.
So my suggestion is to try less hard to stop things and instead stop people.
I think people are easier to track and easier to identify than are random shit people can jam up their butts.
As to profiling not working, I guess the Israelis are full of shit then.
Or you've made a false assumption somewhere along the way. Care to explore that or just go with the theory that the Israelis that deal with terrorism on a regular basis and yet have very secure airports haven't figured this out?
Bitch please.
As to paying passengers... I'll accept lower taxes as my payment thanks.
Your modular argument doesn't work because swapping out modules is going to be more expensive then retaining a small repair crew on site to fix things.
You're going to dig your heels in here and basically contradict me. I'm not impressed with that. So let me preempt that by saying... present a credible argument?
Because if the robot costs 2 million dollars and it has... lets say 20 modules in it, then the robot's cost being a sum of its parts, each of those modules might be too pricy to just pull out of the machine and junk.
Furthermore automating that whole process of having a separate robot run around and deactivate a robot and pull a module out and replace that module with something else... it is more automation than is going to make sense for a long time.
As to the notion that a robot must be autonomous to be a robot at all... perhaps but factory robots are almost never autonomous. They are often not only without any decision making but they typically only have servo based sensors. That is... they know where the arm is in space and what each of its motors are doing. But they are unaware of what is around them. Most of these robots will weld a human being to the metal if the human gets in the way of the welder. It won't stop. And they don't need to be aware because they exist in very controlled environments where everything is very predictable.
So they're not autonomous right now. I don't know what will happen in the future. But I don't see why they need to be.
The government owns the airports. So... go to a private airfield and charter a private plane. You'd be surprised by how little security you go through if you do that. They don't check anything.
As to preventable diseases... what do you think we should be doing that we're not doing? Love to hear... honestly and truly.:)
As to it being more expensive, you're forgetting the value of actually keeping track of that information a more accessible way. We could use that for a lot of other things. And there are side projects doing the same thing already in a more half assed way. We could roll it all together which should reduce the cost.
As to the TSA being incompetent, not any more than any other government agency. They're all equally incompetent.
The TSA's real problem is that their priorities are wrong. Security is not their primary priority. The illusion of security is their primary job. Just looking like they're doing something is what they actually do. Hold them to empirical standards and set everything up in a goal oriented way to obtain actual security and they'll be just fine.
I hesitate to link to other sources because you're likely going to say they're not credible. Even though those are the sources that have the technical information that actually show how it works and that it not only was done but could be done again RIGHT NOW.
What would it achieve? No worse than what we have no with overall superior efficiency of the existing transport network.
My idea is superior to what we have now. That's all.
Don't let perfect be the enemy of the good. Something doesn't have to be perfect to be a good idea just because there is another system that is possibly better that NO ONE is going to implement.
1. The point is to track people and give the TSA some real control over who is even allowed to buy a ticket.
2. As to pilots flying something into a building etc... whatever dude. If you think the pilot isn't dangerous then I don't know what to tell you. The second pilot/flight attendant in the cockpit reduces risk but the pilot is quite dangerous if he wants to do something nasty.
3. Yes it did happen. He pushed the throttle forward on one of the engines three times during the flight. Very slightly. Not enough that the pilot even noticed. Just enough to test it.
As to better security versus airgap... in what way is an airgap not better security? Obviously it is... you're presuming to know specifically what I'd recommend when I didn't get specific enough for you to correct me by suggesting an airgap.
I actually would prefer these systems be airgapped. Ask me next time instead of making an ass out of yourself and assuming.;)
You stop terrorists by first knowing who is getting on the planes in the first place. This is how Israel secures its airports. They know who you are before you even show up at the airport. They have multiple layers of people that are trained to spot suspicious behavior and act upon it.
The second thing you do is give the plane an ability to defend itself when it is attacked. Let us just assume the terrorists get on the plane with whatever. What is the plane going to do to defend itself. I refer to the passengers, the flight attendants, the pilots, etc. What can they do to shut it down when it happens?
The funniest thing that has come out of 9/11 is that the government was actually totally useless and that people... just people are far more useful. Because what is actually stopping terrorist attacks is that you cannot take over a plane like they did on 9/11 anymore. What allowed that to happen was that passengers didn't know what the terrorists were going to do. They thought the plane was going to Cuba or something. They didn't know they were going to be murdered en mass to murder thousands of other people. If you tried to do 9/11 today... the passengers would rip the terrorists apart. No government agency required.
The TSA is at most stopping Richard Reed type attacks where someone just wants to blow the plane up. But you can't fly those planes into anything anymore because the passengers will just kill you.
Here is my solution:
1. Require a special ID to use commercial airplanes. The ID would require that you are on a list and they know who you are... transport on the system is not a right. If you're a suspicious person then the system might just say "take a bus". By all means open the system up to due process so if you think you're on a ban list then you can fight that in court. The system might also flag certain people out for more security when they show up at the security gate. So you'd still get to be on the plane but you personally would be going through extra security because the system doesn't trust you.
2. Give flight attendants and pilots some defense training. That includes possibly giving them weapons. I have no problem for example with the pilot having a gun. If he can fly the plane into a mountain then he can be have a machine gun for all I care. He's fully capable of killing everyone on the plane as well as whomever is on the ground when the plane strikes. So give him a gun. If you want it to be one of those subsonic jobs that don't penetrate very far, that is fine. But lets not pretend the pilot can't kill everyone. He can.
3. Upgrade the computer security on those planes. You shouldn't be able to control the auto pilot through the entertainment network accessed by wifi. That was fucking pathetic.
4. The actual gate security can probably go back to what it was before 9/11 with the addition of checking special IDs and subjecting people to additional security if they're on a list. The vast majority of people would have much less to worry about.
Things that would cause someone to get flagged... non-citizens might be inherently less trustworthy. Various age brackets and genders... if you're an old woman then you're just less likely to be a problem. That sort of thing. Of course this should link to the FBI and the NSA and the CIA so that if any of those groups had an issue with someone, then they could independently flag someone for the TSA.
My objective here is to keep as many people safe as possible while maintaining the effiency of the transport network. Some people might say "this will lead to profiling and profiling is wrong"... profiling is a basic aspect of criminal investigation and intelligence work. Ever see Silence of the Lambs? It was about an FBI serial killer PROFILER. Profiling is fine so long as it isn't stupid. Profiling on the basis of race for example is stupid especially when that is the only variable. It can BE a variable so long as there is a reason for it. I'm not sure what reason you could use to justify it... but I'm open
a typo doesn't invalidate my position. And the fact that you understood what I meant undermines your insult.
The reality is that your point didn't make sense PERIOD. Where as my commentary on it contained a typo. Congrats. Your petty attempt to redeem yourself has only underlined your inherent flaws.
Then when I want to delete my account, I'll just change the key to something random and forget it. Facebook can warehouse an unreadable profile forever at that point.
Slashdot Mirror
Far less so then it was the last time.
And there is not point pearl clutching over it because it is going to happen.
Put down the fucking pearls and hold on to your hat. We're in for some chop. It will suck for some and then it will get better... a lot better.
behind a pay wall. I can't even begin to have an opinion about that.
Out of curosity, do you have an account on that site or are you just citing some random shit you found off google that supports your bias?
Because... I rather suspect you're not a subscriber to Crikey... which makes your citation of that article quite pathetic and does much to actually back up my position.
That you're claiming to be a peer review expert... if true... would further strengthen my position. I really don't know what you think you're doing. This whole intellectual integrity thing seems to be very alien to you.
That's just baseless posturing on your part. You can't verify any of that.
I could as credibly claim to be the queen of france.
can you give me an example of a home school kid infecting anyone because of lack of vaccines? I haven't seen that outside of political screes.
The issue is not fucking home schoolers. This kid wasn't a home schooler was he? The issue is schools not requiring the vaccines for admission.
Half the nasty viral and bacterial outbreaks I've seen in the last few years hit the border states. THAT should be a clue to you. People crossing the border and not going through immigration or quarantine are going to have all sorts of fucking diseases.
And whatever your attitude is on immigration, I think we can agree from a medical best practices stand point... that that is actually a bigger problem than the relatively tiny portion of the population that home schools and really I can't see any evidence that they've caused an outbreak... ever.
I'm trying to be nice here... but I'm sort of annoyed that you went with such a biased narrative and entirely ignored other issues that actually much larger.
In the case of the article, I would point out that this happened in SPAIN... not Norway. Are you aware what is happening in southern Europe these days? Huge illegal immigration from Africa. People just show up in boats by the thousands... no quarantine... no papers... no vaccinations... just show up and mix into the population.
What could possibly go wrong?
Again, have any opinion on the immigration situation you want. From a viral and bacterial and paracitic vector stand point... you can't disagree with me. I have science on my side here. Fact. It is as much an issue as taking a dump and them without washing your hands going to perform surgery.
But again... by all means... show me some examples of home schoolers spreading disease in the community. I'd like to see a case of it. And a couple incidents aren't going to be evidence of a pattern. Everyone spreads diseases. Even the vaccinated kids. The issue is their lack of vaccinations causing a disproportionate health risk? I doubt you can show evidence to that effect.
We can't afford to be political and tribalistic when diseases come into the picture. They don't care what your politics are... A fascist, a communist, an anarchist, a socialist, a capitalist... to a disease they're all just people. It doesn't care what you believe.
Why is this rocket science. Next issue.
HOW MANY YEARS DID HE GET AWAY WITH IT?
If your system were worth rat semen, it would have nailed his ass to the wall. He published something like 200 plus papers and nearly all of them were bullshit.
You caught NONE of it for years. They passed peer review.
It wasn't peer review that outed him. It was other scientists OUTSIDE of your peer review process questioning it.
Your peer review process FAILED.
Over.
And over.
And over.
And over again.
And you sit here chest thumping yourself telling me how much of an expert you are and how stupid I am for not recognizing how good your fucking failure of system is... Fucking absurd.
You are not immune from criticism. You do not belong to some holy priesthood that can say whatever the fuck it wants without having to go through some sort of audit by people OUTSIDE your order. Guys like me... we get a say. We always have. No one gives a shit how many PhDs you have or where you get to park your car. You make a bullshit claim with bullshit logic and bullshit evidence and it is going to get called bullshit.
And responding to that with "DO you know who I am!?" is itself merely more evidence of corruption on your part. You sound like that sports reporter that screamed at the parking attendant for giving her a big parking fee. She screamed at this woman in the booth saying " do you know who I am?! I'll have your job!"... you are merely embarrassing yourself. That you think you can negate criticism by name dropping and title dropping is pathetic.
You are an expert because you know things and because when push comes to shove you can back it up. Not because you got some fucking title. And no, you haven't demonstrated either knowledge or been able to back up anything. You just allude to your knowledge and experience like that is something that should mean something on the internet.
That all of what I'm saying to you is baffling to you isn't good. The governor of Illinois had the same reaction when told it was illegal to sell a senate seat for cash. He was baffled that anyone thought that was wrong. Utterly confused. You can listen to interviews and press statements from him and he had no idea that he couldn't sell a US Federal Senate seat. He's in federal prison I think.
How did he get that idea? Because he spent his entire career in a systematically corrupt institution.
This is the thing with corrupt people. They don't think they're corrupt. They have this "everyone's doing it" attitude and so they don't see the problem.
You don't see the problem. You are offended that I would suggest there is a corruption problem.
From what you're telling me, you're probably too close to this to see the problem. You've confused "everyone is doing it" with "this is ethical".
I have a million different loopholes i can use to defeat your legal argument. That was my point.
The entire constitution is largely null and void at this point. Its been bypassed too many times.
You have the first amendment unless you happen to offend someone.
You have the second amendment unless you frighten me.
You have forth amendment except when the government says they really want to check you and find getting a warrant to be inconvienent.
You have the fifth amendment unless the government finds the legal process to be a hassle.
You have the sixth amendment unless the government wants to keep the trial secret for some reason and the right to speedy trial unless the government wants to grind you into submission with legal fees.
You have the seven amendment unless the government threatens you with extreme threats and forces you into a plea bargain.
You have the Eighth amendment unless the government wants to make an example of you or unless they want to intimidate you into that plea bargain.
You have the ninth amendment which... basically everyone totally ignores.
And then you have the tenth amendment unless the feds bribe or extort the state into a federal program... offering the carrot of billions of dollars in aid and the stick of cut funding and your people still being taxed to pay for a federal program they can't benefit from.
Tell me about your rights under the law. You have none. The system doesn't care. The people get the government they deserve.
Most americans are ignorant peasants and they've got a government that treats them as such. Were they anything but that... this wouldn't have happened.
Citizens do not permit the government to take away their rights. The american people did.
So... now that we understand what century we live in and how the system really works... tell me again why I can't do that?
If you wanted to really assert your rights... you'd have to do so more robustly than that. And your peers are such sheep that they're more interested in blending into the herd than they are stepping out and demanding anything.
Don't get me wrong. I wish this weren't the way things were. But they are this way. This is reality. This is today. The NSA spying powers just go renewed again. A clear violation of 4th amendment protections... no one cares.
*grins*
Oh it isn't. *smiles*
Was there something else? Something... substantive? Or was "that" all you had?
As to doing a better job then we have in the past, what would you change to make this transition more pleasant? I must stress... you can't stop it. I would further encourage you to not even try to slow it down. All that will do is put our society at a competitive disadvantage, trigger more outsourcing, off shoring, and generally mean that our economy enjoys less of a competitive advantage on the other side of this change. Think about it like transitioning into the industrial revolution. If you went through it slower and spent more time with your agriculture you'd be at a competitive disadvantage when you finally got out of it and found all your market competitors had been in the industrial revolution for ages. Don't slow it down. You'll just hurt the children of the people you want to help. However, saving some people from the consequences is not unreasonable. A certain amount of welfare to soften the blow is acceptable so long as that is what we're actually doing with the welfare. If we're just giving people an excuse to check out and not do anything then that's obviously not a great idea.
As to haves abusing have nots... two issues:
First, you have to deal with what constitutes abuse? If I own a factory and I want to hire people to work in my factory... and there is way more labor in the area than I can possibly use. Lets say people are just begging me to hire them. What do I do? Do I hire more people at a lower rate? Do I tell them that even though maybe they're starving I can't help them? Do I let their children work in my factory so I can afford to feed, cloth, and educate them? A lot of what people think of as abuse in these situations are actually just the best options in generally shitty situations.
Is that exploitation?
The second issue is that redistributive policies often backfire in that they disrupt markets and industries to such an extent that the net utility of the industry to the economy and workers etc is REDUCED.
We have a lot of examples of businesses that however allegedly exploitative were providing jobs to people. And then when hammered by the government to change policies they sometimes just shut down. Look at Detroit as an example of a place mothered to death. Had Detroit been left alone, it would be a more prosperous place today. It has been given per capita and per square mile more aid then any other part of the country. And that aid and regulation... destroyed it.
The city is addicted to aid. It can't survive without it. And before it was a NET producer. It went from being one of the wealthiest cities in the US to being literally the poorest. Because they don't just fail to make money. They COST money. Their net income is NEGATIVE. That's worse than poor.
I'm just saying... Be careful. There are a lot of government programs that mean well and destroy everything. If your objective is to help people, make sure that you put helping people above ideology. My ideology for example doesn't like welfare period. But I'm willing to deal with it in measured and reasonable amounts because I don't want to hurt people. I do care. I really do. I care a lot in fact. And that caring overwhelms my ideological biases to permit the welfare. But you have to do these things to help people. ACTUALLY help them. Not merely intend to do so. The theory is useless if it doesn't work.
And no ideology is perfect. We have to be a bit humble about how much we know and how much we can predict. A moderate path that keeps our options open is the best way to go. We can always ramp up welfare if we need to later. But if we fuck up the economy it will be very hard to fix it later.
As to the welfare tangent, did you have any further commentary?
No it isn't.
If you come into my house, I have a right to search you before I let you into my house.
If I have an airplane, I have a right to search you if I want before I let you on the plane.
And beyond that, searching people as part of customs is basic at this point.
I don't know what you think you're talking about but you don't know US law.
As to the pilot having his gun taken from him... we need to clarify where and how that happens.
If the gun is being taken while the pilot is off the airplane, I can come up with a lot of really easy ways to make the gun useless off the plane.
If we're talking about the gun being taken from the pilot WHILE he is on the plane... I don't see that because you'd have to get into the cabin to do that.
So what is your concern? Off the plane or on the plane? If you can get into the pilot's cabin to take his gun then you're already too close.
As to electrified clothing... if they get close enough to touch me, I'm calling that a total failure.
As to depressurizing the cabin and forcing the hijacker to sit in a seat sucking oxygen... that's a good point. I'd still recommend the defense training and the taser.
As to the training, glad we agree.
As to the weapon... you can come up with reasons why people shouldn't have ice cream or reasons why alternating tuesdays should have people standing out side balancing on their hands. Coming up with reasons for things doesn't mean they're good reasons.
In your case, you're saying having a weapons there might create problems. Sure. Giving your passangers sodas can cause problems too. the issue is do they actually matter?
First, you have the gun be controlled by the pilot when he boards and debarks. The gun does not stay on the plane. It goes with the pilot.
Second, as the to the TSA regs being useless if the pilot can bring a gun through... bullshit. The pilot would have dispensation to do that and you the passanger would not. Air marshals take guns through the TSA lines on to those planes. Or at least I dont' think anyone would really argue the TSA was useless if they flashed their badge and did it.
Third, as to the pilot focusing on the plane and not on the gun. The issue is that the pilot could hurt people on the plane if he jukes the plane all over the place. Lets say there is someone at the door and they some how snuck a pocket blow torch onto the plane. What are you going to do? Juke around? Good luck with that especially if they just hold on back there. You have to keep in mind that in tight spaces you're not that vulnerable to being shook up because you're not going very far in any direction. YOu can wedge yourself into that entry way and just work on the door.
Now what? I'm saying... give the pilot something say "here's Johnny!" to the would be hijacker.
You're worried about the bullets going through the plane and hurting people... again... subsonic rounds are not going to do that. I suggested subsonic rounds. They have less powder in them, the don't go as fast.
If this bothers you... let me suggest at the very least, a taser. A good one. Something you could make the guy really ride the lightning with... is that acceptable? I want some sort of stand off supremacy weapon that a pilot could use to stop an attacker cold.
We're going to have to agree to disagree on most of this...
As to strain load sensors, most of those are not actually additional sensors but simply a deeper analysis of the servo operation.
That is, if I push a servo, I should get a certain kind of motion out of it. If I get something more or less than that, that could indicate a problem. I play around with servos all the time and you can tell from the read out if they're not moving as quickly as you'd expect. It is right there. No additional sensors required.
You probably already know this but humor me... a servo is the combination of a potentiometer and a motor. As the servo rotates, the voltage changes which tells you what the servo is doing. If the a servo moves forward and the return says it has stopped even though you're still putting power into it... then that means something caused the servo to stop. And that pretty much means something got in the way of it. So you can see without any additional sensors when something gets in the way of a robot arm.
My understanding is that nearly all the sensors in a robot arm are literally just that. And those are the bare minimum sensors for the robot arm to work at all. Because without that it couldn't even tell what it was doing.
And who is going to fix that problem when it happens? A person.
Just saying.
Sure... and how does any of that actually contradict anything I've said?
To the point of TSA monitoring other things... sure, but you don't need to have the same security for a bus that you do for a plane. So... a no fly list is not a no bus list.
You might still log where so and so went but you don't really care if they take a bus or not.
As to government employees abusing their power... you see that at the IRS as well... want to abolish that? IRS Audits people all the time on specious grounds. I believe the FBI raided a factory because the owner donated to the "wrong" politician.
This sort of thing is typical.
Unless you're advocating for small government with very tightly enforced restrictions on what it does... I don't find this argument against the TSA to be especially credible.
All things in moderation. You want enough calluses to not be weak but not so many your fingers don't bend.
The test is whether my callusness leads to laziness or an inability to think clearly.
If I continue to think clearly... if I have no loss in ability to reason and judge, then my calluses are merely armor.
I have a real pet peve about people that are squeamish in my society.
How many girls do you know eating their chicken breast dinners could have snapped the neck of that chicken? Is that callus to be able to do that? Any farm girl could and would do it without thinking twice about it. SNAP... and on with the next task.
We accept morally and ethically the need to kill the creature. We know what we're buying in the store when we buy those packaged bags of flesh. But when so many are brought to the moment they can't handle... emotionally... the trauma of snapping the chicken's neck.
That is weakness. Not because you should be happy to kill a creature but because your real issue is doing it yourself. Coming face to face with it and dealing with it. That speaks of an unrealistic and overly shelted mind that can't handle basic facts of life.
And so often in many of these issues you're dealing with people just like that. People that as Jack Nickleson said... "can't handle the truth". Certain things work a certain way and have to work a certain way.
Some things have a price. You want this? It costs that... and that could be human life. Your freedoms for example. They cost a human sacrifice. Blood poured into a goblet and drunk by the gods. You pay the price or there are consequences.
In this case we're talking about the rise of automation. It is going to happen. Like the rising Sun in the east. It will happen. And it will set in the west. It will happen. If that causes problems for you then lets talk about how we can make those problems more bearable for you. I am not so callus that I don't appricate that people have problems and might need help.
HOWEVER... It will happen. And if you don't adapt to that situation... somehow... you're a dead man. Now many your adaptation is to get welfare. I don't know. That is up to you. And again, ask for help if you need it. We'll see what we can do about it. But don't ask for the Sun to not rise in the East. It will. It is going to happen.
that isn't me being callus... that is me telling you the truth.
So much of politics is con artists lying to stupid children. The con artists want power and the stupid children want to be told pleasant lies. So the con artists will tell you that if you vote for them they'll stop the sun from rising in the east for you. Sure they will.
And when they fail to make the impossible happen they'll blame their failure on the rival political party. They'll tell you that if it weren't for the OTHER they'd have been able to make the sun not rise in the east and set in the west.
And the stupid children get mad and curse the OTHER... they hate them. Damn the other for stopping the con men from making the impossible not happen.
It is painful watching these idiots. You can't stop it.
Don't try. It is totally pointless. It is happening and in time it will even be good... great even... wonderful.
But in the short term some people are going to get ground up and destroyed. I can't stop that.
I didn't set the wheel spinning... I just know where it is going to roll.
And why do the Israelis have competence and we do not?
I frankly think the lack of competence is because too many of our organizations are hamstrung by people with conflicted agendas. If you were trying to do the thing you said you want to do then you'd be competent when you did it. What happens so often is that what people want to do and what they say they want to do are two different things.
So when they fail to do what they said they wanted to do, look at what they might have wanted to do instead. Often as not, they actually succeeded in doing what they wanted to do but not what they said they wanted to do.
The reason the Israelis succeed at this sort of thing is because they actually want to succeed at it. Many of the people in the US tasked with similar responsibilities do not. They have conflicted agendas.
That conflict is the problem.
As to your prerequist that i can't do the one thing I want to base my entire security system on...
If I can't profile which is my primary suggestion, then I don't think you can keep the airplanes safe.
I mean, what am I supposed to do? check everyone's anus with a tooth brush? Make sure it is nice and clean up there? I could jam a bomb up my ass and blow a plane up that way. Your scanners aren't going to stop that.
If I can smuggle drugs and cell phones into a prison. Make weapons in a prison... then how are you going to stop people from bringing that stuff on the plane? I really dont' think you can.
So my suggestion is to try less hard to stop things and instead stop people.
I think people are easier to track and easier to identify than are random shit people can jam up their butts.
It is defense in depth.
As to profiling not working, I guess the Israelis are full of shit then.
Or you've made a false assumption somewhere along the way. Care to explore that or just go with the theory that the Israelis that deal with terrorism on a regular basis and yet have very secure airports haven't figured this out?
Bitch please.
As to paying passengers... I'll accept lower taxes as my payment thanks.
Your modular argument doesn't work because swapping out modules is going to be more expensive then retaining a small repair crew on site to fix things.
You're going to dig your heels in here and basically contradict me. I'm not impressed with that. So let me preempt that by saying... present a credible argument?
Because if the robot costs 2 million dollars and it has... lets say 20 modules in it, then the robot's cost being a sum of its parts, each of those modules might be too pricy to just pull out of the machine and junk.
Furthermore automating that whole process of having a separate robot run around and deactivate a robot and pull a module out and replace that module with something else... it is more automation than is going to make sense for a long time.
As to the notion that a robot must be autonomous to be a robot at all... perhaps but factory robots are almost never autonomous. They are often not only without any decision making but they typically only have servo based sensors. That is... they know where the arm is in space and what each of its motors are doing. But they are unaware of what is around them. Most of these robots will weld a human being to the metal if the human gets in the way of the welder. It won't stop. And they don't need to be aware because they exist in very controlled environments where everything is very predictable.
So they're not autonomous right now. I don't know what will happen in the future. But I don't see why they need to be.
The government owns the airports. So... go to a private airfield and charter a private plane. You'd be surprised by how little security you go through if you do that. They don't check anything.
As to preventable diseases... what do you think we should be doing that we're not doing? Love to hear... honestly and truly. :)
As to it being more expensive, you're forgetting the value of actually keeping track of that information a more accessible way. We could use that for a lot of other things. And there are side projects doing the same thing already in a more half assed way. We could roll it all together which should reduce the cost.
As to the TSA being incompetent, not any more than any other government agency. They're all equally incompetent.
The TSA's real problem is that their priorities are wrong. Security is not their primary priority. The illusion of security is their primary job. Just looking like they're doing something is what they actually do. Hold them to empirical standards and set everything up in a goal oriented way to obtain actual security and they'll be just fine.
As to chris roberts... come on:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/...
I hesitate to link to other sources because you're likely going to say they're not credible. Even though those are the sources that have the technical information that actually show how it works and that it not only was done but could be done again RIGHT NOW.
As to assumptions... ask more questions.
What would it achieve? No worse than what we have no with overall superior efficiency of the existing transport network.
My idea is superior to what we have now. That's all.
Don't let perfect be the enemy of the good. Something doesn't have to be perfect to be a good idea just because there is another system that is possibly better that NO ONE is going to implement.
1. The point is to track people and give the TSA some real control over who is even allowed to buy a ticket.
2. As to pilots flying something into a building etc... whatever dude. If you think the pilot isn't dangerous then I don't know what to tell you. The second pilot/flight attendant in the cockpit reduces risk but the pilot is quite dangerous if he wants to do something nasty.
3. Yes it did happen. He pushed the throttle forward on one of the engines three times during the flight. Very slightly. Not enough that the pilot even noticed. Just enough to test it.
As to better security versus airgap... in what way is an airgap not better security? Obviously it is... you're presuming to know specifically what I'd recommend when I didn't get specific enough for you to correct me by suggesting an airgap.
I actually would prefer these systems be airgapped. Ask me next time instead of making an ass out of yourself and assuming. ;)
You stop terrorists by first knowing who is getting on the planes in the first place. This is how Israel secures its airports. They know who you are before you even show up at the airport. They have multiple layers of people that are trained to spot suspicious behavior and act upon it.
The second thing you do is give the plane an ability to defend itself when it is attacked. Let us just assume the terrorists get on the plane with whatever. What is the plane going to do to defend itself. I refer to the passengers, the flight attendants, the pilots, etc. What can they do to shut it down when it happens?
The funniest thing that has come out of 9/11 is that the government was actually totally useless and that people... just people are far more useful. Because what is actually stopping terrorist attacks is that you cannot take over a plane like they did on 9/11 anymore. What allowed that to happen was that passengers didn't know what the terrorists were going to do. They thought the plane was going to Cuba or something. They didn't know they were going to be murdered en mass to murder thousands of other people. If you tried to do 9/11 today... the passengers would rip the terrorists apart. No government agency required.
The TSA is at most stopping Richard Reed type attacks where someone just wants to blow the plane up. But you can't fly those planes into anything anymore because the passengers will just kill you.
Here is my solution:
1. Require a special ID to use commercial airplanes. The ID would require that you are on a list and they know who you are... transport on the system is not a right. If you're a suspicious person then the system might just say "take a bus". By all means open the system up to due process so if you think you're on a ban list then you can fight that in court. The system might also flag certain people out for more security when they show up at the security gate. So you'd still get to be on the plane but you personally would be going through extra security because the system doesn't trust you.
2. Give flight attendants and pilots some defense training. That includes possibly giving them weapons. I have no problem for example with the pilot having a gun. If he can fly the plane into a mountain then he can be have a machine gun for all I care. He's fully capable of killing everyone on the plane as well as whomever is on the ground when the plane strikes. So give him a gun. If you want it to be one of those subsonic jobs that don't penetrate very far, that is fine. But lets not pretend the pilot can't kill everyone. He can.
3. Upgrade the computer security on those planes. You shouldn't be able to control the auto pilot through the entertainment network accessed by wifi. That was fucking pathetic.
4. The actual gate security can probably go back to what it was before 9/11 with the addition of checking special IDs and subjecting people to additional security if they're on a list. The vast majority of people would have much less to worry about.
Things that would cause someone to get flagged... non-citizens might be inherently less trustworthy. Various age brackets and genders... if you're an old woman then you're just less likely to be a problem. That sort of thing. Of course this should link to the FBI and the NSA and the CIA so that if any of those groups had an issue with someone, then they could independently flag someone for the TSA.
My objective here is to keep as many people safe as possible while maintaining the effiency of the transport network. Some people might say "this will lead to profiling and profiling is wrong"... profiling is a basic aspect of criminal investigation and intelligence work. Ever see Silence of the Lambs? It was about an FBI serial killer PROFILER. Profiling is fine so long as it isn't stupid. Profiling on the basis of race for example is stupid especially when that is the only variable. It can BE a variable so long as there is a reason for it. I'm not sure what reason you could use to justify it... but I'm open
a typo doesn't invalidate my position. And the fact that you understood what I meant undermines your insult.
The reality is that your point didn't make sense PERIOD. Where as my commentary on it contained a typo. Congrats. Your petty attempt to redeem yourself has only underlined your inherent flaws.
Then when I want to delete my account, I'll just change the key to something random and forget it. Facebook can warehouse an unreadable profile forever at that point.