I get livid when I hear things like this. The government is exploiting a tragedy here in order to pass another law to inhibit our freedoms.
Precisely. Such attempts to exploit a crisis degrade the ability to excersize effective leadership during the next crisis. Just as an army with a corrupt and cowardly officer corps cannot fight effectively no matter how many high-tech toys it issues, a nation with a cynical and exploitative political leadership cannot pull through a crisis no matter how many high-tech police tools it fields.
Senator Gregg, Osama bin Laden and the Taliban thank you for your service to their cause.
But that's just a minor detail, it wasn't the point I was trying to make.
On the contrary; it's fundamental. Someone who doesn't have the relationship between liberty and safety correct can't intelligently talk of how to "balance" them, any more than someone who doesn't understand Ohm's Law can make sense of a Wheatstone bridge.
Would they have noticed, considering the transponders on all the planes were switched off.
Why was that possible? Is there any sensible reason why the transponder has an OFF switch (or is sufficiently accessible from inside the cockpit to make sabotage possible)?
Re:It's been said before...
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 2
A terrorist may well have killed, injured, or taken a hostage before a plain-clothed security officer could act.
And your point is...? Any of those things could happen whether or not the security officer wears a red Classic Trek shirt, er, uniform.
Re:It's been said before...
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 3, Funny
Whether or not the sky marshalls should be in plain clothes is a matter of debate. I suggest that having them uniformed, and in plain sight would act as a deterent and prevent loss of life.
Maybe the uniforms should have "Knock Me Out And Take My Gun" printed on the back.
No, definitely plainclothes.
Re:Hope for a united coalition
on
More On Tragedy
·
· Score: 1
We fought the philosophy of National Socialism and won
Nope; it's still there -- just look in the mirror.
Re:All major ISPs being served warrants now!
on
More On Tragedy
·
· Score: 2
If they're properly obtaining and serving warrants, and not attempting to stretch them into fishing expeditions, no problem.
That said, we need to be on the alert for attempts by politicians and bureaucrats to exploit the dead to push their latest wish list. Besides the evils contained in the wish lists themselves, such attempts undermine support for legitimate government action against terrorists and other criminals. Those who pull such stunts are, therefore, allies of the terrorists as well as enemies of the Constitution.
I'd prefer something that floods the cabin with a gas that knocks everyone unconcious in a hurry.
Too bad that a knockout gas that is reasonably safe (for the general population including infants, asthmatics, etc) and reasonably effective (against a fit, adrenalin-pumped enemy) does not exist.
Re:Ground War in Afghanistan
on
More On Tragedy
·
· Score: 2
The saudis would require PROOF of aghani government involvement (as would the international courts) and that means GOVERNMENT documents linking the government to the plot
Nope. Unless some surprising (i.e. pointing anywhere except straight at Osama bin Laden) evidence surfaces, then the Afghani regime either hands him over or they've got themselves a war. The stated policy of the US, which is clearly backed by the civilized world, is that no distinction will be made between the perpetrators and those who harbor them.
Re:Airport security and non-metallic handguns
on
More On Tragedy
·
· Score: 2
Maybe Israel will reconsider its policy in the Middle-East. Maybe they'll allow a Palestinian state to be created. Maybe they'll reconsider a policy of targeted elimination that has been creating martyrs and orphans willing to die by the truckload.
Maybe monkeys will fly out of my butt. Israel just got a stack of Get Out Of Jail Free cards on these issues.
Now, I have read reports saying that the terrorists threatened pilots with knives. It seems a pretty unreliable means to curb pilots and attendants into submission.
Knives are sufficient to control people who assume that their best option is to co-operate and wait it out. That has been the case with the traditional "fly this plane to Point X and have $10,000,000 and a getaway car waiting there" hijackings.
Even if the passengers do decide to fight it out against knife-armed hijackers (much more likely now -- the default assumption has shifted to "you're going to die anyway unless somebody does something"), it can still be done if enough terrorists can get aboard.
The more workable solutions I've seen proposed are:
1. Armed protectors (add some Sky Marshalls and/or allow passengers with CCW permits to carry on board).
This has the obvious advantage of making it easier to overpower hijackers, and the obvious risk that the hijackers might identify and overpower the armed protector and take his gun for their own use.
2. Strict separation of the cockpit from the cabin.
This prevents hijackers from gaining control of the plane and using it as a missile. It requires some redesign (a tougher inside door or two separate outside doors, separate galley and restroom facilities, cockpit seats for the backup crew on long flights).
3. "Panic Button" lockout of the controls, followed by a landing under autopilot or remote control.
Is autopilot up to the task of safely landing a passenger jet? (I rather doubt it, but am not an expert in the area.) A remote control would introduce a risk that it could be hacked and used to crash a plane without the need to get on board or commit suicide (this could be countered by hard-wired insurance that the remote control could not be activated from anywhere but the cockpit).
Alternatively, a lockout might be of limited scope (i.e. automatically proceed to the nearest airport and circle, not descending below a certain altitude without a proper external confirmation signal).
Re:The most likely suspect for the attack
on
More On Tragedy
·
· Score: 1
The mostly likely suspect for these attacks would have to be, or at the very least include, American nationals.
Nonsense. There are two basic types of terrorist kooks in the US. The type that gets its lips tired reading The Turner Diaries would have hit the UN building, not the WTC. The type that gets its lips tired reading The Unabomber Manifesto is more attached to small-scale terrorism such as tree-spiking.
The problem is that there is resistance to the Taliban in Afghanistan. If we go and bomb everything, we will be most likely bombing innocent people in the process.
Well, then, if they won't give up their trash, take out their infrastructure to the point where a troop of Cub Scouts could overthrow what's left of the Taliban armed forces. That would hurt the guilty where they live (especially when the resistance got hold of them) and be beneficial or at worst neutral toward the innocent bystanders.
The day we sacrifice our liberties in the name of "security" is the day that the terrorists' goals will have been achieved.
A friend of mine opined that this will either pull the country together, or tear it apart.
Any politician or pundit who attempts to exploit the dead in the service of an anti-freedom agenda is pushing the nation through Door #2, and is -- no lesser word will do -- a traitor.
If the evidence continues to build in the direction it has been pointing, the government of Afghanistan should be given 24 hours to decide whether it wants to be on the side of the community of law-abiding nations and hand bin Laden & Co. over to the US for trial, or whether it wants war.
Their choice, and their responsibility, not ours.
Re:You think this is war? I'LL show you War!
on
Our New Pearl Harbor
·
· Score: 2
We rebuilt Japan because we had a few fists full of shame from murdering more civilians than a few airplanes could ever kill.
Let's get real, folks -- we rebuilt Japan for the same reason we rebuilt Western Europe: to aid our side in the Cold War.
Until complicity and conspiracy to violate the Constitution becomes a criminal act, laws like this will continue to be proposed, passed, and implimented.
Actually, it is, under 18 USC 241 (as well as a civil offense under 42 USC 1983). Congresscritters simply consider themselves above the law.
why does Congress keep passing laws like the DMCA? Answer: because they can get away with it!
Which is why it will continue until politicians who violate the Constitution are treated like anybody else who violates a major law -- i.e. the go to prison.
Re:And the monsters recoil in fear...
on
eBay Beats DMCA
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
EBay asked Hendrickson to submit a sworn, written statement Hendrickson refused, saying his general complaints should have been good enough.
Translation: I can't go to jail for perjury if I lie when making "general complaints".
I thought this is supposed to be a place for professionals and serious hobbiests to use rational thought
think about how hypocritical it is to mod down a message and yet be oh so passionate about freedom of speech
Er, which is it? Are we supposed to use rational thought, or are we supposed to squeal "censorship" when somebody applies an unfavorable editorial judgment?
Personally, I think the best part of the article was the masterful self-control displayed by Lars Lindberg Christensen, who responded to the reporter's mind-numbingly stupid question by reassuring him that there's "no apparent danger" that the earth would be hit by this asteroid and waited until the reporter had left the room before convulsing in derisive laughter.
This reminds me of the press conference after Mickey Mantle's liver transplant. One of the doctors mentioned that the same donor had also provided a half-dozen other organs.
One of the reporters asked if it would be possible to speak with this donor.
The doctor managed to summon enough composure to respond with the zinger, "You're a sports reporter, aren't you?"
Slashdot Mirror
Precisely. Such attempts to exploit a crisis degrade the ability to excersize effective leadership during the next crisis. Just as an army with a corrupt and cowardly officer corps cannot fight effectively no matter how many high-tech toys it issues, a nation with a cynical and exploitative political leadership cannot pull through a crisis no matter how many high-tech police tools it fields.
Senator Gregg, Osama bin Laden and the Taliban thank you for your service to their cause.
On the contrary; it's fundamental. Someone who doesn't have the relationship between liberty and safety correct can't intelligently talk of how to "balance" them, any more than someone who doesn't understand Ohm's Law can make sense of a Wheatstone bridge.
OK... yep, it still says:
and it's still contrary to the facts of history, which show that the absence of rights is associated with danger, not safety.on one end of the spectrum we can have zero rights and have our safety assured
Did they teach any history classes where you went to school?
Totalitarian governments are still three orders of magnitude ahead of terrorists in the death-toll game.
Would they have noticed, considering the transponders on all the planes were switched off.
Why was that possible? Is there any sensible reason why the transponder has an OFF switch (or is sufficiently accessible from inside the cockpit to make sabotage possible)?
And your point is...? Any of those things could happen whether or not the security officer wears a red Classic Trek shirt, er, uniform.
Maybe the uniforms should have "Knock Me Out And Take My Gun" printed on the back.
No, definitely plainclothes.
Nope; it's still there -- just look in the mirror.
If they're properly obtaining and serving warrants, and not attempting to stretch them into fishing expeditions, no problem.
That said, we need to be on the alert for attempts by politicians and bureaucrats to exploit the dead to push their latest wish list. Besides the evils contained in the wish lists themselves, such attempts undermine support for legitimate government action against terrorists and other criminals. Those who pull such stunts are, therefore, allies of the terrorists as well as enemies of the Constitution.
Too bad that a knockout gas that is reasonably safe (for the general population including infants, asthmatics, etc) and reasonably effective (against a fit, adrenalin-pumped enemy) does not exist.
Nope. Unless some surprising (i.e. pointing anywhere except straight at Osama bin Laden) evidence surfaces, then the Afghani regime either hands him over or they've got themselves a war. The stated policy of the US, which is clearly backed by the civilized world, is that no distinction will be made between the perpetrators and those who harbor them.
Maybe monkeys will fly out of my butt. Israel just got a stack of Get Out Of Jail Free cards on these issues.
Now, I have read reports saying that the terrorists threatened pilots with knives. It seems a pretty unreliable means to curb pilots and attendants into submission.
Knives are sufficient to control people who assume that their best option is to co-operate and wait it out. That has been the case with the traditional "fly this plane to Point X and have $10,000,000 and a getaway car waiting there" hijackings.
Even if the passengers do decide to fight it out against knife-armed hijackers (much more likely now -- the default assumption has shifted to "you're going to die anyway unless somebody does something"), it can still be done if enough terrorists can get aboard.
The more workable solutions I've seen proposed are:
Nonsense. There are two basic types of terrorist kooks in the US. The type that gets its lips tired reading The Turner Diaries would have hit the UN building, not the WTC. The type that gets its lips tired reading The Unabomber Manifesto is more attached to small-scale terrorism such as tree-spiking.
Well, then, if they won't give up their trash, take out their infrastructure to the point where a troop of Cub Scouts could overthrow what's left of the Taliban armed forces. That would hurt the guilty where they live (especially when the resistance got hold of them) and be beneficial or at worst neutral toward the innocent bystanders.
A friend of mine opined that this will either pull the country together, or tear it apart.
Any politician or pundit who attempts to exploit the dead in the service of an anti-freedom agenda is pushing the nation through Door #2, and is -- no lesser word will do -- a traitor.
Their choice, and their responsibility, not ours.
Let's get real, folks -- we rebuilt Japan for the same reason we rebuilt Western Europe: to aid our side in the Cold War.
Actually, it is, under 18 USC 241 (as well as a civil offense under 42 USC 1983). Congresscritters simply consider themselves above the law.
Which is why it will continue until politicians who violate the Constitution are treated like anybody else who violates a major law -- i.e. the go to prison.
Translation: I can't go to jail for perjury if I lie when making "general complaints".
Where's the "-1: Self-Indulgent Posing" option?
think about how hypocritical it is to mod down a message and yet be oh so passionate about freedom of speech
Er, which is it? Are we supposed to use rational thought, or are we supposed to squeal "censorship" when somebody applies an unfavorable editorial judgment?
This reminds me of the press conference after Mickey Mantle's liver transplant. One of the doctors mentioned that the same donor had also provided a half-dozen other organs.
One of the reporters asked if it would be possible to speak with this donor.
The doctor managed to summon enough composure to respond with the zinger, "You're a sports reporter, aren't you?"
I am not familiar with the clause in the Constitution that exempts people with whom you do not empathize.
From what I've heard, Bill Clinton did not have sex with that woman Monica Lewinsky and Gary Condit is a dedicated family man.