That's odd, I was fairly sure that bin Laden's beliefs prevented him from keeping his money in banks, because they pay interest and interest is evil. I guess if he can pervert Islam into blowing up buildings with planes, he can have his money in a bank... but that does seem very uncharacteristic of him.
I liked the vague familiarity of the "Country Doctor" and the Vulcan Science Officer.
I liked the spaceship that "felt" like a spaceship instead of a luxury hotel.
I liked the feeling of an impatient humanity that was well conveyed.
I liked the new translator chic who looks like she can scream better than Chekov could (and that says a lot).
I do wonder why the exposed crew didn't have to decon their "private areas," or will they just be sick in a few weeks as a result of their modesty. (No, UPN didn't have to show it but I would have liked them to have implied it at least.)
Exclusive: Crackers Prepare Retaliation for Tues. Terrorist Attacks
www.govtech.net/news/features/news_feature.phtml ?d ocid=3030000000002974
(take out the extra space between d and o)
Crackers Prepare Retaliation for Tues. Terrorist Attacks
www.newsbytes.com/news/01/170117.html
These stories from last week are probably what brought about this PSA.
My advice is that as many people in the hacker community that can, should help out the old.gov people in winning this 1st war of the 21st century and/or help out the less technically inclined NGO's doing disaster response in NY and DC. It is the patriotic thing to do. It is the right thing to do, and that should be enough reason.
Many of these.gov groups are the same ones that have misunderstood and/or demonized technology and the hacking community in the past. So what. It's still the right thing to do to pitch in and help, even if you don't like some of the people who will be on the team. If hackers are magnanimous here, then maybe some of those old political adversaries could be educated and shown that hackers are not criminals (those would be crackers). This could be an opportunity to win the "hearts and minds" of some local.gov people in addition to the ones we'll be fighting for in Afghanistan, the Sudan, and Iraq.
But don't just take this opportunity to show.gov how patriotic and productive the hacking community is. Ask Dr. Gerald Bull about the hazards of doing favors for the gov't in secret. Joe and Jane Sixpack need to be won over as well. Buy a book on public relations for small organizations; befriend a reporter; do a little of that social engineering to make sure that when the media is talking about what groups are doing what to help out, they mention your work as well. I am not suggesting that PR should take priority over actually helping out, but rather that with a little extra effort this is an opportunity to kill two birds with one stone. An opportunity that may not come again soon.
And besides, even if no one but you ever knows what you did... donating time and effort to help the war efforts and/or disaster victims is still the right thing to do.
Why not combine the Universal ID with a cell phone, radio, credit card and PDA. It would be incredibly useful. You could even put one of those Personal Area Networks into it so that you could exchange business cards with people when you shook hands, every car you sat in could know exactly how to adjust your seat, and advertisers could know whether to show you beer commercials with scantily clad women or advertisements for feminine hygiene products.
The only problem I see is that we would likely have another intelligence failure like the recent attacks, which were made easier by an over reliance by the intel community on spy satellites and not having enough on human agents who can do traditional spying. The gov't would get so used to just tracking people's activities, communications, and money trail from the little spy chips built into the Universal ID that any terrorist who thought to communicate through snail mail or dead drops, aquire critical items through barter or theft, and write his "to do list" on a pad of paper could build up a considerable network and still remain "under the radar" of a Law Enforcement/Intelligence community that got too lazy to do traditional detective and intelligence work.
The most commonly used form of ID in this country seems to be the driver's license. People ask to see it at a lot of places that have nothing to do with driving. My local video store won't rent you a movie unless you have one. What is the connection between being able to drive a car and operate a VCR? The reason it is used like that is that most people already have one, and so they are a convenient form of ID that also has your photograph to allow the clerk to verify that it is actually you. I know people who have a driver's license even though they don't drive, just to use as an ID. A lot of states (maybe all) offer the option of getting a generic driver's license style ID that is only valid for identification purposes. That way people who cannot pass the requirements to get a driver's license can still conveniently purchase beer, cash checks, rent a rug cleaner, etc. Still, I have known a few adults that don't have either a driver's license or a state photo ID. They weren't anarchists, they just didn't need it. They used public transportation to get to work and they paid for almost everything in cash, so they never felt motivated to spend an afternoon standing in line at the DMV to get something they didn't need. Such people very much are the exception these days, but it isn't illegal to not have a photo ID. The driver's license seems to be an excellent example of an optional license that is nonetheless almost universal because of its usefulness.
What can we learn from this that could be applied to a Federal ID? Perhaps the ID could be purely optional. People could get one if they wanted a secure ID. To make it popular, the government should also make it so that the ID grants the user permission to do something useful or fun, so that way a lot of people would sign up for one. Even combining all current Federal IDs (like pilot's licenses) into one would probably not have enough users to make the ID popular for identification. Another permit (or permits) need to be invented and added in to increase the IDs popularity further. A federal driver's license wouldn't work unless it was easier to get than a state one, and I don't like that idea because we have enough people who can't drive on the roads already. Making it so you need an ID to do anything that you currently don't need an ID for (like air travel) is going to meet political resistance (perhaps deservedly) from whatever lobbying group engages in that activity, so for the Federal ID to make it into law the activity should be something that you can't do now, but that a large enough group of people might want to do to kick start the use of the ID as a form of identification.
But the whole point of doing this exercise is to reduce terrorism (isn't it?). And many people here have rightly pointed out that a better ID system would not have prevented this recent act of terrorism. The passengers were not wanted felons. The FBI was suspicious of some of them, but we don't restrict people's air travel whenever they are under suspicion by some federal agency of maybe being associated nefarious activities. Even the knives they used on the plane were, from all accounts, small enough that they were not restricted items, and could have been carried onto the plane in plain sight of the security guards (I used to legally fly with my pocket knife all the time, I would just put it in the little tray as I went through the detector and no security guard even hesitated to hand it back to me on the other side because it was small enough to be permitted on the plane). Is it possible to have a federal ID that is optional, provides the user with permission to engage in some new activity, and would also somehow reduce the likelihood of terrorism? Yes. Make it a federal concealed carry weapons permit. I still wouldn't let anyone carry a gun on a plane unless they had taken the FAA's (supposedly very difficult) course on the use of firearms in an aircraft, but that could be an option like having a commercial or motorcycle rating on your driver's license. Who would want to go through the time and expense of training for and passing the FAA course just so they could carry a pistol* on an airliner? Well, after recent events, I think a lot of pilots and commercial aircrew would like to have that option. Don't forget the first thing the terrorists did was apparently to slit a stewardess's throat, so a lot of flight attendants are no doubt feeling very nervous and unlike the rest of us aircrews spend a lot of time in the air so their chances of being hijacked are much better. A lot of people would still get the regular (non airplane rated) version of the permit to allow them to carry a pistol in any state. Body guards (or "executive protection specialists") are an example of a profession that could greatly benefit from such a permit (so much so that it is amazing that one does not exist already) and whose presence deters terrorism. Salesmen or other business travelers who have to travel between multiple states, and may have to travel through dangerous neighborhoods or carry valuable items would likely flock to such a permit. Former police officers**, DA's, and other people who may make dangerous enemies would want one, as would people who have been victims of violent crimes and/or rape before and now feel the need to be able to protect themselves, and a lot of the normal everyday citizens who now get state carry permits because for whatever reason they want to be able to defend themselves from attack. Of course the permit would be in addition to, not in replacement of, the current state concealed carry licenses, otherwise the proposal would be plagued by state vs. federal jurisdiction turf wars (and rightly so) and would never get out of the courts.
Of course the permit should require a thorough FBI background check in order to limit the chances of a terrorist or criminal being able to get one. As long as the FBI had the attention of such a proactive chunk of the population, they could even take that opportunity to provide a little education on what unusual or suspicious behavior might indicate a terrorist cell or impending terrorist activity, give them the appropriate contact information (maybe a federal crime hotline printed on the card somewhere?), and ask people to give the Bureau a call if they notice anything. Sure that doesn't technically have a lot to do with carrying a gun, but that would be a good opportunity for the FBI to increase its chances of getting a useful tip; and, hey, what does donating organs have to do with driving a car? Even if a terrorist did get a federal carry permit, it is likely that a LOT more upstanding citizens would have one as well. Without such a license, the terrorist would still carry his weapon (a terrorist who won't break the law is not very effective), but the odds of a law abiding citizen that could offer resistance to the terrorist having one is much smaller.
Before anyone starts a gun-control argument over this, I would like to point out that this is not something that most states don't already have. The problem is that different states have different reciprocosity agreements with other states so that most state concealed carry permits are valid in some, but not all, other states and will accept some, but not all, permits form other states... resulting in a confusing hodge-podge of conditions. A federal permit would clear up the red tape by providing a universal standard simplifying the bureaucratic mess that currently exists. Also, the background check and qualifications could be made more difficult (at the risk of making the ID less universal) to further reduce the chances of criminals or irresponsible people from getting one. Surely only the most extreme gun control proponent would want to prevent even someone like a bodyguard, or an ex-DA who has prosecuted organized criminals, or the administrator of a medical facility that has received death threats from anti-abortion groups from being permitted to carry a weapon for self defense. The gun control politicking could be saved for when it came time to figure out how tough the standards should be for getting one. If you can think of a different optional federal permit or license that a Federal ID could be based on (espeically if it would actually reduce terrorism), then by all means suggest away. I admit, after all, that even if you combine a federal carry permit, pilot's license, and other federal ID's together, it still may not have the "critical mass" of users to replace the ubiquitous driver's license.
* Before this restarts the "what does a bullet do to a pressurized aircraft?" argument, the FAA obviously covers what type of ammunition can be used in an aircraft and what areas of the plane are vulnerable to gunfire.
** I'm sure that the police in a lot of areas would show turn a blind eye to an ex-cop who was illegally carrying a weapon because he was worried about being recognized by criminals but a such favoritism might not be universal, like the license would be.
"shoppers have to disclose more information at malls to buy a watch than they do to get on an airplane."
Where the #@!! does this guy shop? If I want to buy a watch, the only information a HAVE to give the store is "I want to buy this watch" and that I have enough cash to pay for it. Sure, some people choose to use a credit card and give more information, but they don't "have to." Just because privacy is a little more inconvinient these days, doesn't mean it is impossible or illegal.
Yes, a combat bomber can be compared to a civilian airliner for this purpose.
The semi-monocoque construction of such strategic bombers is the same type of construction used in civilian airliners, as are the materials used.
Because the bomber was expected to take fire, and it was a 1st generation pressurized design, it did probably have a greater factor of safety in the thickness of the skin and structure. This would have made it harder to penetrate the skin, but once penetrated the crack propogation characteristics should be similar enough for our purposes. On the other hand, modern airliners are designed with multiple load paths specifically to make them more tolerant of damage and less likely to fail catastrophically. So if a crack from a penetration did propogate it would likely have done MORE damage to the old bomber than to a new airliner. The modern airliner is probably also manufactured to a higher quality standard than the old bombers, so that too would make the airliner actually more tolerant of damage than the bomber.
"Most guns used in crimes are stolen from the legal owners"
I have not heard any information on the source of guns used in crime, so I will have to take your word for that. If criminals could not steal guns from people, I guess they'd have to get them from somewhere else. Maybe they could smuggle them into the country hidden in the tons of cocaine they already smuggle.
"most people end up getting shot with their own hand gun"
That is such a ridiculous statement that I don't even feel the need to disprove it. Even assuming you meant to say "most hand gun owners" or "most murder victims" instead of "most people" that is still a fantastic claim, and I would like to know the source (and methods) for where this bizarre statement comes from.
"Show us one example in the news where some crime was thwarted because someone had a hand gun"
O.K. I'll try to make it something local (to me) and recent. The Fayetteville Observer has reported two such incidents so far this year that I can think of. One was Spiro Poulos's pizza shop robbery (1/17/01) and the other was Rastus Hudson up in Dunn (6/26/01). You asked for ONE, so I'll just relate the story of Mr. Hudson because it illustrates my point about guns giving the weak or elderly a chance to fight back against stronger opponents.
-- begin quote --
A Dunn, NC, man and his wife were awakened about 2am by the sounds of someone beating on their back door. Two armed men then kicked in the front door and entered the living room. The suspects allegedly threatened to kill the homeowners. "I begged them not to kill us," said Rastus Hudson, 61. "I told them I'd give them anything we had." Under the pretense of retrieving his wallet, Hudson pulled his handgun from under a mattress and started firing, trying to scare the men away. They did not leave until Hudson shot one of the home invaders in the shoulder. Maj. Steve West of the Harnett County Sheriff's Dept. said that Hudon "has the right to protect his home and his family."
-- end quote --
That is as reported in The Fayetteville Observer of 6/21/1. Any typos are probably my mistakes in transcribing the quote. I'm sure some people will say that it is entirely possible that the invaders would have upheld Hudson's plea not to kill them; but we'll never know for sure. We do know that they left after Hudson used his firearm to protect his home and family. This is what I was talking about when I mentioned that guns allow people to be "masters of their own destiny." Up until Mr. Hudson pulled the gun out and used it his fate was in the hands of his assailants. They were in a position to show mercy or not. By taking action, Mr. Hudson put his own destiny in his hands. There was no doubt still a chance that he could die when he reached for that gun, but he choose to meet his fate standing and fighting instead of hoping others would show him mercy. A lot of people like the feeling of being able defend themselves, even into their old age. Like I said, power over your own destiny is an intoxicating feeling. That is why a lot of people like to own guns; even if they couldn't explain it that simply.
"And don't give me the line that the Constitution says we can own guns... because unless you are part of a "well organized militia" i.e. the National Guard, or Police, you have no right to own a gun!"
So nice to see that you don't think I have a right to own firearms. Fortunately you aren't Emperor of the World, so unless you have an army marching into my town soon I can pretty much ignore your opinions of what my rights are and aren't. For the record, the constitution says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." I am a people. (The grammar checker had a fit with that sentence.) So, even though it does mention the necessity of a militia, it does not say that only the militia can keep and bear arms. Of course it doesn't matter what I think (unless I am willing to rebel against the gov't for it, which I have no plans to do so... that is a very expensive hobby that I have no interest in). It doesn't matter what anybody thinks other than the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has not ruled directly on this issue, and both sides of the debate have avoided pushing The Court to do so (if they ever did rule definitively, it would put both the pro and anti gun lobbyists out of a job). The Supreme Court has specifically mentioned the right to keep and bear arms as being an "individual right" and not a "state right" in majority decisions; but it did not specifically refer to the 2nd amendment when doing so, so it is possible that these references could be construed to refer to the many state constitutions which give their citizens the right to keep and bear arms. The closest any ruling has come to addressing this issue was U.S. vs. Miller back in the 30s. Unfortunately that was a very confusing and contradictory ruling that actually misquotes other cases (you don't have to take my word for it, you can wade through the decision yourself at www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/wbardwel/publi c/nfalist/miller.txt, watch out in case/. puts a space between the i and c in public). As a result both sides of the argument cite U.S. vs. Miller to support their position. If the existing Supreme Court did have to rule definitively on the issue, it would probably fall on the "academic" side of the issue and declare it an individual right... but that is by no means certain. In any regard I think it unlikely that the current Court will ever have to make such a ruling because it is in both pro and anti-gun lobbyists best interests to keep the issue in their hands and fight small battles over minor issues than it is to gamble everything on one big decision and then have to live with it (and find other work) whatever is decided.
""well organized militia" i.e. the National Guard, or Police"
Obviously you don't understand what a militia is. The police are NOT a militia unit, although some individual policemen may be in the militia. The National Guard can be construed as militia... until they are federalized. Technically I am in the militia (as are almost all able bodied men in the United States, I forget the age cutoff right now but I think it is 17 to 67 or something like that), but that is mostly an academic point and even in light of recent attacks I cannot foresee Congress calling on the general militia to fight a war in my lifetime. Just to be philosophically consistent I do wish that Congress would make the symbolic gesture of passing an updated Militia Act that extends it to able bodied women as well (only women in unfederalized national guard units are included now), since we did give them the right to vote and all. There ARE real "organized militia" units still in existence. I'm not talking about "special militias" that are not affiliated with any government or even the National Guard. I mean real state militias whose officers are appointed by state governors. For example the Tennessee State Guard still exists and consists of a light infantry division (my home state didn't earn the nickname "Volunteers" for nothing). The organization traces its roots back to the Revolutionary War; Tennessee State Guardsmen crossed the Appalachian Mountains to fight the British in North Carolina, culminating in the Victory of King's Mountain in 1780. Most recently the State Guard was activated from 1941 to 1947 to guard dams, bridges, and other vital sites in the state from sabotage when the federal government nationalized the state's National Guard units (the State Guard cannot be nationalized). They were reorganized and changed to the Tennessee Defense Force in 1985, but I guess that didn't sound as cool so they have recently been renamed the Tennessee State Guard again. More information on them is available at: http://home.att.net/~dcannon.tenn/TNSG.html . Many other states have their own state militia units but since I was raised in TN, I know its history best.
"Good on the politicians for having the nerve to do so. After all, it makes life easier for the police."
And the Gestapo, and the KGB, and the Ministry of Love... Sure, there are some very vocal anti-gun organizations in American, but generally we love our guns over here; just watch our movies and you'll see what I mean. Why? Well, part of it is no doubt just cultural and some people don't even think about it. Part of it is that we are a free people, and we have grown to like that feeling. By saying "free" I don't mean that a bunch of people in the gov't have decided that they will "let us have freedom," because in that case your freedoms are based on the trustworthiness of your gov't*. No, I mean that we are free in the sense that the gov't doesn't "let us have" anything; we dictate to the gov't what we want, because unlike most industrial nations most people (even in the gov't) believe that "we the people" could kick the government's @$$ if it were necessary. "We the people" are masters of our destiny and are free because we say so, not because of the good nature of some generals or politicians. I don't know if most pro-gun people would explain it that way, but I think deep down we like the feeling of being masters of our own destiny; the feeling is intoxicating. If the historians are right in saying that over the long term a government will only be stable when the distribution of political power and military power are along the same lines (otherwise the group with the military power could eventually realize that they can "veto" all the other groups with force), then there are very few nations that can claim to be "naturally democratic." We are one of them, and people don't want to it up.
It isn't that we don't care about the kids who get shot any less than other nations; but we also think about the kids two, three, or maybe even ten generations from now when America may be beset by some horrible political or military crisis that we cannot even imagine yet. We don't want that future generation of Americans to be defenseless before their oppressors or invaders because we in this generation wanted to feel safer.
Unfortunately oppression is not likely to come as in Red Dawn, or by some president just announcing "screw this democracy thing, I'm going to be King!" It will come subtly. It will tell the people that they would be much safer if society would just restrict the power of the individual. Cryptography, firearms, etc. are dangerous and we should get rid of them "for the safety of the children." In reality, by the time the brown-shirts and the Gestapo show up and we realize what we have done it will be too late. Hopefully that will not happen here.
Also, firearms are generally democratic. With them an 80 year old person in a wheelchair or a dainty 100lb. woman is capable of killing the strongest attacker. In a primitive society, the strong may have power over the weak. But the gun is an invention that is relatively inexpensive, fairly easy to learn to operate, and will "level the playing field" between the weak and the strong. As the saying goes "God made man, but Samuel Colt made them equal." It is nice to know that even though you are not Steven Segal or Chuck Norris you do have the capacity to defend yourself and your family from attack, and don't have to wait on someone from the alarm company or the police dept. to come help you (very important in rural areas where that can be a long wait). That feeling, too, is intoxicating and people naturally don't want to give it up.
Sure, I suppose there might be a few pro-gun people who simply base their position on the argument that the number of people who's lives are saved by having guns is larger than the number of people killed by having one, but I have never met one. The vast majority of us believe in that oft quoted (on this site) Ben Franklin saying about the dangers of trading freedom for a little, temporary security. We know instinctively what Mao had to teach his followers: Power flows from the barrel of a gun. "We the people" have tasted power. We like it. And we are loath to give it up. Is that bad? I'll leave that for you do decide for yourself. I'm sure there are some people who would argue it is.
"but just arming everybody with more and more guns seems to be increasing the problem rather than solving it."
SEEMS is the operative word here. If it were just guns, then places like Switzerland (another free nation) would be killing fields; but they aren't. If gun control worked then places in American that do have strict gun control, like Washington D.C., would have less violent crime, not more. Your opinion that guns SEEM to be the problem is probably about as informed a decision as 72% of the nation thinking that "back doors" on encryption technology would prevent terrorist attacks. In reality, proving the exact effect of gun ownership and gun concealed carry permits on crime is a statistical exercise that is a little more complicated than forming opinions and vague feelings from what you see on the evening news. If you are serious enough in your "feelings" on guns that you want to take away people's ability to defend themselves; I suggest you do a little reading on the subject. My recommendations would be Guns : Who Should Have Them? by David B. Kopel (a fairly moderate but pro-gun conclusion) and More Guns, Less Crime : Understanding Crime and Gun-Control Laws (Studies in Law and Economics (Chicago, Ill.).) by John R., Jr. Lott (you can guess his conclusion from the title). Perhaps some anti-gun people could suggest books that interpret things differently so you could hear both sides of the argument about just how much security we are giving up for that liberty and power I mentioned earlier.
*On such big issues, most politicans are actually trustworthy. Most politicians (in this nation at least) would not set themselves up to be King even if they could. Most.
No, the Comet jetliners did NOT explode due to explosive decompression. That doesn't even make sense; it is sort of like saying a match burns because it combusts.
What happened with the Comet was a result of crack propagation and stress concentration.
Stress concentration (for those who don't already know) is a phenomenon that occurs when you have a discontinuity in a load bearing structure. Imagine a plate with a hole in it which is under load. The area of the plate away from the hole has a fairly constant stress that can be calculated with your "ideal" equations. As you get near the hole, however, the stress in the material increases; it is as if the hole literally concentrates the stress into that area, hence the name "stress concentration." The smaller the radius of the hole, the greater the stress concentration. In order to keep the stress in the material low, engineers will design things so that they have as large a radius as possible anywhere the geometry changes. Square corners are avoided, because at a perfectly sharp corner you have an infinitely small radius and therefore an infinite stress concentration. Take a look at the rounded corners and stress reliefs on some items around your home or office. The material around a sharp corner will fail under almost any load. At the point of cracks or tears you also have one of these "near infinite" stress concentrations. That is how the little sharp cut at the "tear here" location of potato chip bags and ketchup packets works.
Well, the engineers who made the Comet put in square windows, with those wonderful stress concentrators in the corners. As the aircraft was pressurized and depressurized it stressed the material and in the area around the corners of the window the stress was highly concentrated and the material failed... it cracked. And the crack is also as stress concentrator, so the crack grew with every cycle of pressurization and depressurization until the structural integrity of the airplane was compromised and the force caused by the pressure difference between the inside and outside of the aircraft "unzipped" it like someone opening a bag of chips. Cracks in aircraft structures still cause problems, but it doesn't cause the airplane to "explode" like something out of the movies. One or two sections of the skin may be peeled off, and the airplane decompresses "suddenly" (which is why it is called explosive) but the airplane doesn't just detonate. Some of you may remember back in the 1980s this happened at the intersection of a structural support and skin to a 737 headed to Hawaii and it lost 18 ft. of skin (and a flight attendant).
Could a bullet hole cause similar rapid crack propagation and sudden decompression? Not a clean one, the radius is too big. I suppose little star cracks could exist around the hole that could propagate, in theory; but I doubt the damage would ever be worse than that experienced by the aforementioned 737. I am familiar with aircraft conceptual design, but am not an expert on aircraft survivability so IANAEOAS, however I have never heard of any survivability enhancement programs that focus on preventing structural failure from projectile or fragmentation damage to the skin of pressurized aircraft. Structural failure is one of the rarest causes of military aircraft loss(fuel and propulsion systems are the big problems), and is not usually a high priority on increasing aircraft damage tolerance. Civilian aircraft structures are not sufficiently different to negate the usefulness of this historical data. Of the 34 modern airliners that were subjected to in-flight bombings, 56% survived; of those only 10 crashed because of structural failure. If anyone is interested in the effects of aircraft pressurization on enhancing damage can take a look at http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/aircraft/21.pdf. It is significant, but not what I suspect most people would imagine. My best guess, is that any shot which punctures the skin will cause pressure loss. It would take a lucky shot in an older aircraft to unzip a portion of the skin, even then aircraft would likely not be lost. A modern airliner with multiple load paths would be even harder to "unzip," maybe impossible without multiple penetrations. As I said, though IANAEOAS, so if anyone does have specialized knowledge to the contrary I'd certainly like to see it. If no one does have any data or specilized knowledge in this area that contradicts this, then lets please stop rehashing this "bullets vs. aircraft" debate. Of course the smart thing would just be to use frangible bullets that won't penetrate.
Re:dont you know freedom=anarchy and anarchy is ch
on
Mozilla Relicensing
·
· Score: 2
Yes, that is stuipid. They should just lower the taxes on aviation fuel (that they raised when airlines started making a lot of money back in the 80s but foolishly forget to use some of that profit as congressional campaign contributions).
How do you know that this is not going to be just? If the current administration was only interested in venting frustrations or appeasing the voter's desire to 'get even' then don't you think they would have been dropping bombs on Kabul within the 1st 48hrs? Obviously they are more concerned about "getting this right" than you seem to be giving them credit for. Wait and see what our response is before you complain about it.
Hmmm, this is obviously a problem. Some foreigner passengers seem uncomfortable with the idea of normal citizens and flight attendants being given guns. Domestic airlines have been hit hard enough as it is; we can't have them losing passengers to foriegn airlines. That just won't do...
Perhaps to make the foreigners feel more comfortable, we should add a pair of little tin badges in the panel and have part of the fine print on everyone's boarding pass instantly deputize (or conscript) them in the event that the captain presses the "terrorism" button that releases access to the guns. That way they can feel all warm and fuzzy inside as the passenger compartment fills with lead and shrapnel. Hey, it is no more insane than some of the fine print on software licenses...
The passenger would have to be very drunk to say, "I'll shoot ya" to a stewardess who is carrying a submachine gun. Excuse me... I meant to say "flight attendant." And if they are given submachine guns, I'd recommend that you call them that, too (or whatever non-sexist designation they prefer).
Also, the proposed humorous flight announcement clearly indicated that access to the guns would only be released in the event of a skyjacking.
Ditch the semi-autos and give the passengers revolvers. Revolvers are simpler to operate, so the safety brief could be much shorter. They are mechanically simpler, so less preventive maintenance would have to be done on them (i.e. cheaper for the airlines = lower ticket prices). The immediate action drills for revolvers are much simpler as well. The passengers wouldn't have to worry about failure to feed (a problem not uncommon with inexperienced shooters who might "limp wrist" the gun) or failure to extract. Failures to fire are corrected simply by pulling the trigger again, which is probably going to be the passenger's natural response. Semi-Autos are sexy and great for serious shooters, but for inexperienced shooters (or anyone who doesn't like to do preventive maintenance) revolvers are a better choice for self-defense.
I also think the safety briefing should include a warning to only use the airline-approved frangible ammunition for the guns; otherwise some idiot with a few FMJ rounds in his pocket is likely to stick them in the gun and decompress the plane during the firefight. Other than that, I think that is a good briefing.
I have now on my desk a copy of a document prepared by a leading think-tank over a decade ago detailing our nation's vulnerabilities to terrorism and what should be done about it. In the wake of last week's tragedy I took the document out of its file and read it again with new eyes. Last week's attack could have been much worse. Thank God the people who wrote that document are on our side. It is a shame we didn't listen to them.
If you are feeling bad about the role encryption plays in allowing terrorists to act freely, perhaps some excerpts from this document will ease your mind and open your eyes to the usefulness of encryption systems in combating terrorism. Also keep in mind that this was written in the mid 1980s. I apologize in advance for not giving proper credit to the authors, but I'm sure that they understand why.
-- begin quote --
Adulteration, the accidental or deliberate injection of undesired material into a network, can cause serious problems. Accidental diversion of unintended liquids into a pipeline system, like accidental switching of a train onto the wrong track, sometimes leads to disastrous results......Perhaps the most insidious form of adulteration is the accidental or deliberate entry of false data into a computer network because until the problem is detected incorrect decisions are made and once the problem is discovered user confidence in the system is shaken...... identifying false information is a critical function that can be seriously complicated by adversaries' use of deception.
...
Leakage from networks is at least...... But again, the most insidious form of the problem is associated with communications: tapping networks is a primary source of illicit information both in the business world and in foreign intelligence...... so that communications and database security is of significant importance.
...
MEASURES FOR RISK REDUCTION
Robustness
protective enclosures
solid construction
guards
deterrent laws
human engineering to reduce errors
operator training and practice
ENCRYPTION OF INFORMATION (emphasis added)
Ruggedness
redundancy
excess capacity
backup systems
error correcting coding for communications
emergency response teams
crisis training
alarm systems
automatic diagnosis systems
emergency subsystems
preplanned triage
public or customer emergency instruction arrangements
Resiliency
stores of critical spares
emergency recovery teams
training of recovery actions
insurance
procedures for sharing abnormal resource costs
pre-established plans for implementing improvements rather than return to status quo ante
-- end quote --
The measures listed above were to be encouraged in PRIVATE organizations and amoung the general public. I have reproduced the entire list because unlike the rest of the report it should be shared amoung as many people as possible, especially in business. As you can see public use of encryption is on this list.
It is important that businesses, and other organizations, be able to encrypt data securely so that critical vulnerabilities and response plans cannot fall into the hands of terrorists. It is important that businesses be able to encrypt and digitally sign communications so that false data or false orders cannot be transmitted that will cause their facilities to be damaged or an inappropriate action taken that could jeopardize lives and infrastructure. People need to be able to encrypt data and communications so that they will be less susceptible to blackmail (supposedly "no organization is secure from an operative who finds a well-placed secretary that is having an illicit affair") or assassination by terrorists.
Encryption is a powerful tool. It is as useful for protection from terror as it is the commission of terror. We cannot prevent the terrorists from having access to these tools; so we must seek to learn to use them better ourselves, and to make sure that they are in the hands of "the right people." With the ever-increasing reliance on data collected and sent over electronic networks in the making of critical decisions by all sectors of society, failure to use encryption and digital signature technology could be very bad.
The above comments were orignally made by me a few days ago to someone who had done encryption work and was now questioning whether our current privacy/security ratio would or should be changed. I apologize for using recycled electrons, but I thought the comments were equally applicable to this Slashdot story because they show the role that encryption can play in protecting people from terrorism (and espionage and vandalism and organized crime...) and I am leaving for a meeting so I don't have time to rewrite them.
I have now on my desk a copy of a document prepared over a decade ago detailing our nation's vulnerabilities to terrorism and what should be done about it. It is rare both in the sense that not many groups had the foresight to have put together such a thorough analysis so far in advance; and because while the document was not classified, not many copies were made (for obvious reasons). In the wake of last week's tragedy I took the document out of its file and read it again with new eyes. Last week's attack could have been much worse. Thank God the people who wrote that document are on our side. It is a shame we didn't listen to them.
If you are feeling bad about the role encryption plays in allowing terrorists to act freely, perhaps some excerpts from this document will ease your mind and open your eyes to the usefulness of encryption systems in combating terrorism. Also keep in mind that this was written in the mid 1980s. I apologize in advance for not giving proper credit to the authors, but I'm sure that they understand why.
-- begin quote --
Adulteration, the accidental or deliberate injection of undesired material into a network, can cause serious problems. Accidental diversion of unintended liquids into a pipeline system, like accidental switching of a train onto the wrong track, sometimes leads to disastrous results......Perhaps the most insidious form of adulteration is the accidental or deliberate entry of false data into a computer network because until the problem is detected incorrect decisions are made and once the problem is discovered user confidence in the system is shaken...... identifying false information is a critical function that can be seriously complicated by adversaries' use of deception.
...
Leakage from networks is at least...... But again, the most insidious form of the problem is associated with communications: tapping networks is a primary source of illicit information both in the business world and in foreign intelligence...... so that communications and database security is of significant importance.
...
MEASURES FOR RISK REDUCTION
Robustness
protective enclosures
solid construction
guards
deterrent laws
human engineering to reduce errors
operator training and practice
ENCRYPTION OF INFORMATION (emphasis added)
Ruggedness
redundancy
excess capacity
backup systems
error correcting coding for communications
emergency response teams
crisis training
alarm systems
automatic diagnosis systems
emergency subsystems
preplanned triage
public or customer emergency instruction arrangements
Resiliency
stores of critical spares
emergency recovery teams
training of recovery actions
insurance
procedures for sharing abnormal resource costs
pre-established plans for implementing improvements rather than return to status quo ante
-- end quote --
The measures listed above were to be encouraged in PRIVATE organizations and amoung the general public. I have reproduced the entire list because unlike the rest of the report it should be shared amoung as many people as possible, especially in business. As you can see public use of encryption is on this list.
It is important that businesses be able to encrypt data securely so that critical vulnerabilities and response plans cannot fall into the hands of terrorists. It is important that businesses be able to encrypt and digitally sign communications so that false data or false orders cannot be transmitted that will cause their facilities to be damaged or an inappropriate action taken that could jeopardize lives and infrastructure. People need to be able to encrypt data and communications so that they will be less susceptible to blackmail (supposedly "no organization is secure from an operative who catches a secretary who is having an illicit affair") or assassination by terrorists.
Encryption is a powerful tool. It is as useful for protection from terror as it is the commission of terror. We cannot prevent the terrorists from having access to these tools; so we must seek to learn to use them better ourselves, and to make sure that they are in the hands of "the right people." With the ever-increasing reliance on data collected and sent over electronic networks in the making of critical decisions by all sectors of society, failure to use encryption and digital signature technology could be very bad.
If you think you are free, I suggest you try denouncing communism. Maybe get a bunch of your buddies together and try to peacefully assemble and request a redress of your grievances... Tienamen Square would be a good spot for that. See how free you are then.
"Also firing a weapon on an airplane is VERY stupid, you are most likly going to create a hole and decompress the air"
Frangible bullets can be used inside aircraft at altitude with very little risk of decompression.
Even without weapons, I agree that any hijacker on a US plane will probably be swarmed by passengers (either out of bravery, or fear that the USAF would shoot the plane down) during the initial stages of trying to secure the aircraft. In such close quarters a swarm attack is very effective against even a trained and armed opponent.
We are the convenient enemy that the Taliban and their ilk uses to justify their atrocities.
They cannot keep their stations with an educated and economically strong populace, which modernization will surely bring. They know this, and so to prevent the development of a modern Afghanistan they ruthlessly oppress their people. In order to justify this, they need an enemy. Someone that is seemingly close enough to be a threat but also far enough away so that it can remain vague. Someone who is strong enough not to ever go away, but also someone who still will not likely show up and take over. We are the perfect enemy; the Taliban's Emanuel Goldstein. Or we were. The Taliban and Al Qaeda miscalculated what they could get away with and now we are their worst nightmare.
1984 was great dystopian science fiction, but you don't need telescreens to have oppression. You want to see a dystopian society? Go to www.rawa.org and you can see video of one that works just as well with Stone Age technology.
We will not become Oceania. I have faith in the politicians, and the intelligence personnel, and the police, and the military that while they would tolerate some restrictions during a temporary crisis most all of them would not tolerate major permanent restrictions. But even if my faith in them is misplaced, it doesn't matter. We do, after all, have the 2nd Amendment along with the more popular ones like the 1st and 4th. A government is only stable in the long run, if its political and military power is distributed in similar fashions*. There are enough firearms in the United States for every adult in the nation to have one. This individual ownership of small arms no doubt leads to lethal accidents, and some argue that it leads to more violent crime... but it also insures that the ONLY form of government that will be stable (over the long term) in the United States is one that is supported by the general population. This does not protect against racism or religious oppression or any of the other evils that democracies can exhibit... but it does protect against totalitarianism.
If your argument is meant to suggest that we need a clearly defined victory condition for this war, then I do agree with that.
*Which is probably why the platform the Taliban espoused when gaining power was peace and security through disarmament. Except that they sought to disarm all the OTHER tribes, but not their own followers. If our gov't starts to spout similar ideas, then we should start to worry; but fortunately our current administration is very unlikely to do that considering the pivotal role the NRA and the rest of the "gun lobby" played in getting them in office.
Slashdot Mirror
That's odd, I was fairly sure that bin Laden's beliefs prevented him from keeping his money in banks, because they pay interest and interest is evil. I guess if he can pervert Islam into blowing up buildings with planes, he can have his money in a bank... but that does seem very uncharacteristic of him.
Quite Simply,
I loved it.
I thought the Theme Song was touching.
I liked the vague familiarity of the "Country Doctor" and the Vulcan Science Officer.
I liked the spaceship that "felt" like a spaceship instead of a luxury hotel.
I liked the feeling of an impatient humanity that was well conveyed.
I liked the new translator chic who looks like she can scream better than Chekov could (and that says a lot).
I do wonder why the exposed crew didn't have to decon their "private areas," or will they just be sick in a few weeks as a result of their modesty. (No, UPN didn't have to show it but I would have liked them to have implied it at least.)
Exclusive: Crackers Prepare Retaliation for Tues. Terrorist Attacksl ?d ocid=3030000000002974
www.govtech.net/news/features/news_feature.phtm
(take out the extra space between d and o)
Crackers Prepare Retaliation for Tues. Terrorist Attacks
www.newsbytes.com/news/01/170117.html
These stories from last week are probably what brought about this PSA.
My advice is that as many people in the hacker community that can, should help out the old .gov people in winning this 1st war of the 21st century and/or help out the less technically inclined NGO's doing disaster response in NY and DC. It is the patriotic thing to do. It is the right thing to do, and that should be enough reason.
.gov groups are the same ones that have misunderstood and/or demonized technology and the hacking community in the past. So what. It's still the right thing to do to pitch in and help, even if you don't like some of the people who will be on the team. If hackers are magnanimous here, then maybe some of those old political adversaries could be educated and shown that hackers are not criminals (those would be crackers). This could be an opportunity to win the "hearts and minds" of some local .gov people in addition to the ones we'll be fighting for in Afghanistan, the Sudan, and Iraq.
.gov how patriotic and productive the hacking community is. Ask Dr. Gerald Bull about the hazards of doing favors for the gov't in secret. Joe and Jane Sixpack need to be won over as well. Buy a book on public relations for small organizations; befriend a reporter; do a little of that social engineering to make sure that when the media is talking about what groups are doing what to help out, they mention your work as well. I am not suggesting that PR should take priority over actually helping out, but rather that with a little extra effort this is an opportunity to kill two birds with one stone. An opportunity that may not come again soon.
Many of these
But don't just take this opportunity to show
And besides, even if no one but you ever knows what you did... donating time and effort to help the war efforts and/or disaster victims is still the right thing to do.
Why not combine the Universal ID with a cell phone, radio, credit card and PDA. It would be incredibly useful. You could even put one of those Personal Area Networks into it so that you could exchange business cards with people when you shook hands, every car you sat in could know exactly how to adjust your seat, and advertisers could know whether to show you beer commercials with scantily clad women or advertisements for feminine hygiene products.
The only problem I see is that we would likely have another intelligence failure like the recent attacks, which were made easier by an over reliance by the intel community on spy satellites and not having enough on human agents who can do traditional spying. The gov't would get so used to just tracking people's activities, communications, and money trail from the little spy chips built into the Universal ID that any terrorist who thought to communicate through snail mail or dead drops, aquire critical items through barter or theft, and write his "to do list" on a pad of paper could build up a considerable network and still remain "under the radar" of a Law Enforcement/Intelligence community that got too lazy to do traditional detective and intelligence work.
The most commonly used form of ID in this country seems to be the driver's license. People ask to see it at a lot of places that have nothing to do with driving. My local video store won't rent you a movie unless you have one. What is the connection between being able to drive a car and operate a VCR? The reason it is used like that is that most people already have one, and so they are a convenient form of ID that also has your photograph to allow the clerk to verify that it is actually you. I know people who have a driver's license even though they don't drive, just to use as an ID. A lot of states (maybe all) offer the option of getting a generic driver's license style ID that is only valid for identification purposes. That way people who cannot pass the requirements to get a driver's license can still conveniently purchase beer, cash checks, rent a rug cleaner, etc. Still, I have known a few adults that don't have either a driver's license or a state photo ID. They weren't anarchists, they just didn't need it. They used public transportation to get to work and they paid for almost everything in cash, so they never felt motivated to spend an afternoon standing in line at the DMV to get something they didn't need. Such people very much are the exception these days, but it isn't illegal to not have a photo ID. The driver's license seems to be an excellent example of an optional license that is nonetheless almost universal because of its usefulness.
What can we learn from this that could be applied to a Federal ID? Perhaps the ID could be purely optional. People could get one if they wanted a secure ID. To make it popular, the government should also make it so that the ID grants the user permission to do something useful or fun, so that way a lot of people would sign up for one. Even combining all current Federal IDs (like pilot's licenses) into one would probably not have enough users to make the ID popular for identification. Another permit (or permits) need to be invented and added in to increase the IDs popularity further. A federal driver's license wouldn't work unless it was easier to get than a state one, and I don't like that idea because we have enough people who can't drive on the roads already. Making it so you need an ID to do anything that you currently don't need an ID for (like air travel) is going to meet political resistance (perhaps deservedly) from whatever lobbying group engages in that activity, so for the Federal ID to make it into law the activity should be something that you can't do now, but that a large enough group of people might want to do to kick start the use of the ID as a form of identification.
But the whole point of doing this exercise is to reduce terrorism (isn't it?). And many people here have rightly pointed out that a better ID system would not have prevented this recent act of terrorism. The passengers were not wanted felons. The FBI was suspicious of some of them, but we don't restrict people's air travel whenever they are under suspicion by some federal agency of maybe being associated nefarious activities. Even the knives they used on the plane were, from all accounts, small enough that they were not restricted items, and could have been carried onto the plane in plain sight of the security guards (I used to legally fly with my pocket knife all the time, I would just put it in the little tray as I went through the detector and no security guard even hesitated to hand it back to me on the other side because it was small enough to be permitted on the plane). Is it possible to have a federal ID that is optional, provides the user with permission to engage in some new activity, and would also somehow reduce the likelihood of terrorism? Yes. Make it a federal concealed carry weapons permit. I still wouldn't let anyone carry a gun on a plane unless they had taken the FAA's (supposedly very difficult) course on the use of firearms in an aircraft, but that could be an option like having a commercial or motorcycle rating on your driver's license. Who would want to go through the time and expense of training for and passing the FAA course just so they could carry a pistol* on an airliner? Well, after recent events, I think a lot of pilots and commercial aircrew would like to have that option. Don't forget the first thing the terrorists did was apparently to slit a stewardess's throat, so a lot of flight attendants are no doubt feeling very nervous and unlike the rest of us aircrews spend a lot of time in the air so their chances of being hijacked are much better. A lot of people would still get the regular (non airplane rated) version of the permit to allow them to carry a pistol in any state. Body guards (or "executive protection specialists") are an example of a profession that could greatly benefit from such a permit (so much so that it is amazing that one does not exist already) and whose presence deters terrorism. Salesmen or other business travelers who have to travel between multiple states, and may have to travel through dangerous neighborhoods or carry valuable items would likely flock to such a permit. Former police officers**, DA's, and other people who may make dangerous enemies would want one, as would people who have been victims of violent crimes and/or rape before and now feel the need to be able to protect themselves, and a lot of the normal everyday citizens who now get state carry permits because for whatever reason they want to be able to defend themselves from attack. Of course the permit would be in addition to, not in replacement of, the current state concealed carry licenses, otherwise the proposal would be plagued by state vs. federal jurisdiction turf wars (and rightly so) and would never get out of the courts.
Of course the permit should require a thorough FBI background check in order to limit the chances of a terrorist or criminal being able to get one. As long as the FBI had the attention of such a proactive chunk of the population, they could even take that opportunity to provide a little education on what unusual or suspicious behavior might indicate a terrorist cell or impending terrorist activity, give them the appropriate contact information (maybe a federal crime hotline printed on the card somewhere?), and ask people to give the Bureau a call if they notice anything. Sure that doesn't technically have a lot to do with carrying a gun, but that would be a good opportunity for the FBI to increase its chances of getting a useful tip; and, hey, what does donating organs have to do with driving a car? Even if a terrorist did get a federal carry permit, it is likely that a LOT more upstanding citizens would have one as well. Without such a license, the terrorist would still carry his weapon (a terrorist who won't break the law is not very effective), but the odds of a law abiding citizen that could offer resistance to the terrorist having one is much smaller.
Before anyone starts a gun-control argument over this, I would like to point out that this is not something that most states don't already have. The problem is that different states have different reciprocosity agreements with other states so that most state concealed carry permits are valid in some, but not all, other states and will accept some, but not all, permits form other states... resulting in a confusing hodge-podge of conditions. A federal permit would clear up the red tape by providing a universal standard simplifying the bureaucratic mess that currently exists. Also, the background check and qualifications could be made more difficult (at the risk of making the ID less universal) to further reduce the chances of criminals or irresponsible people from getting one. Surely only the most extreme gun control proponent would want to prevent even someone like a bodyguard, or an ex-DA who has prosecuted organized criminals, or the administrator of a medical facility that has received death threats from anti-abortion groups from being permitted to carry a weapon for self defense. The gun control politicking could be saved for when it came time to figure out how tough the standards should be for getting one. If you can think of a different optional federal permit or license that a Federal ID could be based on (espeically if it would actually reduce terrorism), then by all means suggest away. I admit, after all, that even if you combine a federal carry permit, pilot's license, and other federal ID's together, it still may not have the "critical mass" of users to replace the ubiquitous driver's license.
* Before this restarts the "what does a bullet do to a pressurized aircraft?" argument, the FAA obviously covers what type of ammunition can be used in an aircraft and what areas of the plane are vulnerable to gunfire.
** I'm sure that the police in a lot of areas would show turn a blind eye to an ex-cop who was illegally carrying a weapon because he was worried about being recognized by criminals but a such favoritism might not be universal, like the license would be.
"shoppers have to disclose more information at malls to buy a watch than they do to get on an airplane."
Where the #@!! does this guy shop? If I want to buy a watch, the only information a HAVE to give the store is "I want to buy this watch" and that I have enough cash to pay for it. Sure, some people choose to use a credit card and give more information, but they don't "have to." Just because privacy is a little more inconvinient these days, doesn't mean it is impossible or illegal.
Yes, a combat bomber can be compared to a civilian airliner for this purpose.
The semi-monocoque construction of such strategic bombers is the same type of construction used in civilian airliners, as are the materials used.
Because the bomber was expected to take fire, and it was a 1st generation pressurized design, it did probably have a greater factor of safety in the thickness of the skin and structure. This would have made it harder to penetrate the skin, but once penetrated the crack propogation characteristics should be similar enough for our purposes. On the other hand, modern airliners are designed with multiple load paths specifically to make them more tolerant of damage and less likely to fail catastrophically. So if a crack from a penetration did propogate it would likely have done MORE damage to the old bomber than to a new airliner. The modern airliner is probably also manufactured to a higher quality standard than the old bombers, so that too would make the airliner actually more tolerant of damage than the bomber.
"Most guns used in crimes are stolen from the legal owners"
... because unless you are part of a "well organized militia" i.e. the National Guard, or Police, you have no right to own a gun!"
/. puts a space between the i and c in public). As a result both sides of the argument cite U.S. vs. Miller to support their position. If the existing Supreme Court did have to rule definitively on the issue, it would probably fall on the "academic" side of the issue and declare it an individual right... but that is by no means certain. In any regard I think it unlikely that the current Court will ever have to make such a ruling because it is in both pro and anti-gun lobbyists best interests to keep the issue in their hands and fight small battles over minor issues than it is to gamble everything on one big decision and then have to live with it (and find other work) whatever is decided.
I have not heard any information on the source of guns used in crime, so I will have to take your word for that. If criminals could not steal guns from people, I guess they'd have to get them from somewhere else. Maybe they could smuggle them into the country hidden in the tons of cocaine they already smuggle.
"most people end up getting shot with their own hand gun"
That is such a ridiculous statement that I don't even feel the need to disprove it. Even assuming you meant to say "most hand gun owners" or "most murder victims" instead of "most people" that is still a fantastic claim, and I would like to know the source (and methods) for where this bizarre statement comes from.
"Show us one example in the news where some crime was thwarted because someone had a hand gun"
O.K. I'll try to make it something local (to me) and recent. The Fayetteville Observer has reported two such incidents so far this year that I can think of. One was Spiro Poulos's pizza shop robbery (1/17/01) and the other was Rastus Hudson up in Dunn (6/26/01). You asked for ONE, so I'll just relate the story of Mr. Hudson because it illustrates my point about guns giving the weak or elderly a chance to fight back against stronger opponents.
-- begin quote --
A Dunn, NC, man and his wife were awakened about 2am by the sounds of someone beating on their back door. Two armed men then kicked in the front door and entered the living room. The suspects allegedly threatened to kill the homeowners. "I begged them not to kill us," said Rastus Hudson, 61. "I told them I'd give them anything we had." Under the pretense of retrieving his wallet, Hudson pulled his handgun from under a mattress and started firing, trying to scare the men away. They did not leave until Hudson shot one of the home invaders in the shoulder. Maj. Steve West of the Harnett County Sheriff's Dept. said that Hudon "has the right to protect his home and his family."
-- end quote --
That is as reported in The Fayetteville Observer of 6/21/1. Any typos are probably my mistakes in transcribing the quote. I'm sure some people will say that it is entirely possible that the invaders would have upheld Hudson's plea not to kill them; but we'll never know for sure. We do know that they left after Hudson used his firearm to protect his home and family. This is what I was talking about when I mentioned that guns allow people to be "masters of their own destiny." Up until Mr. Hudson pulled the gun out and used it his fate was in the hands of his assailants. They were in a position to show mercy or not. By taking action, Mr. Hudson put his own destiny in his hands. There was no doubt still a chance that he could die when he reached for that gun, but he choose to meet his fate standing and fighting instead of hoping others would show him mercy. A lot of people like the feeling of being able defend themselves, even into their old age. Like I said, power over your own destiny is an intoxicating feeling. That is why a lot of people like to own guns; even if they couldn't explain it that simply.
"And don't give me the line that the Constitution says we can own guns
So nice to see that you don't think I have a right to own firearms. Fortunately you aren't Emperor of the World, so unless you have an army marching into my town soon I can pretty much ignore your opinions of what my rights are and aren't. For the record, the constitution says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." I am a people. (The grammar checker had a fit with that sentence.) So, even though it does mention the necessity of a militia, it does not say that only the militia can keep and bear arms. Of course it doesn't matter what I think (unless I am willing to rebel against the gov't for it, which I have no plans to do so... that is a very expensive hobby that I have no interest in). It doesn't matter what anybody thinks other than the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has not ruled directly on this issue, and both sides of the debate have avoided pushing The Court to do so (if they ever did rule definitively, it would put both the pro and anti gun lobbyists out of a job). The Supreme Court has specifically mentioned the right to keep and bear arms as being an "individual right" and not a "state right" in majority decisions; but it did not specifically refer to the 2nd amendment when doing so, so it is possible that these references could be construed to refer to the many state constitutions which give their citizens the right to keep and bear arms. The closest any ruling has come to addressing this issue was U.S. vs. Miller back in the 30s. Unfortunately that was a very confusing and contradictory ruling that actually misquotes other cases (you don't have to take my word for it, you can wade through the decision yourself at www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/wbardwel/publi c/nfalist/miller.txt, watch out in case
""well organized militia" i.e. the National Guard, or Police"
Obviously you don't understand what a militia is. The police are NOT a militia unit, although some individual policemen may be in the militia. The National Guard can be construed as militia... until they are federalized. Technically I am in the militia (as are almost all able bodied men in the United States, I forget the age cutoff right now but I think it is 17 to 67 or something like that), but that is mostly an academic point and even in light of recent attacks I cannot foresee Congress calling on the general militia to fight a war in my lifetime. Just to be philosophically consistent I do wish that Congress would make the symbolic gesture of passing an updated Militia Act that extends it to able bodied women as well (only women in unfederalized national guard units are included now), since we did give them the right to vote and all. There ARE real "organized militia" units still in existence. I'm not talking about "special militias" that are not affiliated with any government or even the National Guard. I mean real state militias whose officers are appointed by state governors. For example the Tennessee State Guard still exists and consists of a light infantry division (my home state didn't earn the nickname "Volunteers" for nothing). The organization traces its roots back to the Revolutionary War; Tennessee State Guardsmen crossed the Appalachian Mountains to fight the British in North Carolina, culminating in the Victory of King's Mountain in 1780. Most recently the State Guard was activated from 1941 to 1947 to guard dams, bridges, and other vital sites in the state from sabotage when the federal government nationalized the state's National Guard units (the State Guard cannot be nationalized). They were reorganized and changed to the Tennessee Defense Force in 1985, but I guess that didn't sound as cool so they have recently been renamed the Tennessee State Guard again. More information on them is available at: http://home.att.net/~dcannon.tenn/TNSG.html . Many other states have their own state militia units but since I was raised in TN, I know its history best.
"Good on the politicians for having the nerve to do so. After all, it makes life easier for the police."
And the Gestapo, and the KGB, and the Ministry of Love... Sure, there are some very vocal anti-gun organizations in American, but generally we love our guns over here; just watch our movies and you'll see what I mean. Why? Well, part of it is no doubt just cultural and some people don't even think about it. Part of it is that we are a free people, and we have grown to like that feeling. By saying "free" I don't mean that a bunch of people in the gov't have decided that they will "let us have freedom," because in that case your freedoms are based on the trustworthiness of your gov't*. No, I mean that we are free in the sense that the gov't doesn't "let us have" anything; we dictate to the gov't what we want, because unlike most industrial nations most people (even in the gov't) believe that "we the people" could kick the government's @$$ if it were necessary. "We the people" are masters of our destiny and are free because we say so, not because of the good nature of some generals or politicians. I don't know if most pro-gun people would explain it that way, but I think deep down we like the feeling of being masters of our own destiny; the feeling is intoxicating. If the historians are right in saying that over the long term a government will only be stable when the distribution of political power and military power are along the same lines (otherwise the group with the military power could eventually realize that they can "veto" all the other groups with force), then there are very few nations that can claim to be "naturally democratic." We are one of them, and people don't want to it up.
It isn't that we don't care about the kids who get shot any less than other nations; but we also think about the kids two, three, or maybe even ten generations from now when America may be beset by some horrible political or military crisis that we cannot even imagine yet. We don't want that future generation of Americans to be defenseless before their oppressors or invaders because we in this generation wanted to feel safer.
Unfortunately oppression is not likely to come as in Red Dawn, or by some president just announcing "screw this democracy thing, I'm going to be King!" It will come subtly. It will tell the people that they would be much safer if society would just restrict the power of the individual. Cryptography, firearms, etc. are dangerous and we should get rid of them "for the safety of the children." In reality, by the time the brown-shirts and the Gestapo show up and we realize what we have done it will be too late. Hopefully that will not happen here.
Also, firearms are generally democratic. With them an 80 year old person in a wheelchair or a dainty 100lb. woman is capable of killing the strongest attacker. In a primitive society, the strong may have power over the weak. But the gun is an invention that is relatively inexpensive, fairly easy to learn to operate, and will "level the playing field" between the weak and the strong. As the saying goes "God made man, but Samuel Colt made them equal." It is nice to know that even though you are not Steven Segal or Chuck Norris you do have the capacity to defend yourself and your family from attack, and don't have to wait on someone from the alarm company or the police dept. to come help you (very important in rural areas where that can be a long wait). That feeling, too, is intoxicating and people naturally don't want to give it up.
Sure, I suppose there might be a few pro-gun people who simply base their position on the argument that the number of people who's lives are saved by having guns is larger than the number of people killed by having one, but I have never met one. The vast majority of us believe in that oft quoted (on this site) Ben Franklin saying about the dangers of trading freedom for a little, temporary security. We know instinctively what Mao had to teach his followers: Power flows from the barrel of a gun. "We the people" have tasted power. We like it. And we are loath to give it up. Is that bad? I'll leave that for you do decide for yourself. I'm sure there are some people who would argue it is.
"but just arming everybody with more and more guns seems to be increasing the problem rather than solving it."
SEEMS is the operative word here. If it were just guns, then places like Switzerland (another free nation) would be killing fields; but they aren't. If gun control worked then places in American that do have strict gun control, like Washington D.C., would have less violent crime, not more. Your opinion that guns SEEM to be the problem is probably about as informed a decision as 72% of the nation thinking that "back doors" on encryption technology would prevent terrorist attacks. In reality, proving the exact effect of gun ownership and gun concealed carry permits on crime is a statistical exercise that is a little more complicated than forming opinions and vague feelings from what you see on the evening news. If you are serious enough in your "feelings" on guns that you want to take away people's ability to defend themselves; I suggest you do a little reading on the subject. My recommendations would be Guns : Who Should Have Them? by David B. Kopel (a fairly moderate but pro-gun conclusion) and More Guns, Less Crime : Understanding Crime and Gun-Control Laws (Studies in Law and Economics (Chicago, Ill.).) by John R., Jr. Lott (you can guess his conclusion from the title). Perhaps some anti-gun people could suggest books that interpret things differently so you could hear both sides of the argument about just how much security we are giving up for that liberty and power I mentioned earlier.
*On such big issues, most politicans are actually trustworthy. Most politicians (in this nation at least) would not set themselves up to be King even if they could. Most.
No, the Comet jetliners did NOT explode due to explosive decompression. That doesn't even make sense; it is sort of like saying a match burns because it combusts.
What happened with the Comet was a result of crack propagation and stress concentration.
Stress concentration (for those who don't already know) is a phenomenon that occurs when you have a discontinuity in a load bearing structure. Imagine a plate with a hole in it which is under load. The area of the plate away from the hole has a fairly constant stress that can be calculated with your "ideal" equations. As you get near the hole, however, the stress in the material increases; it is as if the hole literally concentrates the stress into that area, hence the name "stress concentration." The smaller the radius of the hole, the greater the stress concentration. In order to keep the stress in the material low, engineers will design things so that they have as large a radius as possible anywhere the geometry changes. Square corners are avoided, because at a perfectly sharp corner you have an infinitely small radius and therefore an infinite stress concentration. Take a look at the rounded corners and stress reliefs on some items around your home or office. The material around a sharp corner will fail under almost any load. At the point of cracks or tears you also have one of these "near infinite" stress concentrations. That is how the little sharp cut at the "tear here" location of potato chip bags and ketchup packets works.
Well, the engineers who made the Comet put in square windows, with those wonderful stress concentrators in the corners. As the aircraft was pressurized and depressurized it stressed the material and in the area around the corners of the window the stress was highly concentrated and the material failed... it cracked. And the crack is also as stress concentrator, so the crack grew with every cycle of pressurization and depressurization until the structural integrity of the airplane was compromised and the force caused by the pressure difference between the inside and outside of the aircraft "unzipped" it like someone opening a bag of chips. Cracks in aircraft structures still cause problems, but it doesn't cause the airplane to "explode" like something out of the movies. One or two sections of the skin may be peeled off, and the airplane decompresses "suddenly" (which is why it is called explosive) but the airplane doesn't just detonate. Some of you may remember back in the 1980s this happened at the intersection of a structural support and skin to a 737 headed to Hawaii and it lost 18 ft. of skin (and a flight attendant).
Could a bullet hole cause similar rapid crack propagation and sudden decompression? Not a clean one, the radius is too big. I suppose little star cracks could exist around the hole that could propagate, in theory; but I doubt the damage would ever be worse than that experienced by the aforementioned 737. I am familiar with aircraft conceptual design, but am not an expert on aircraft survivability so IANAEOAS, however I have never heard of any survivability enhancement programs that focus on preventing structural failure from projectile or fragmentation damage to the skin of pressurized aircraft. Structural failure is one of the rarest causes of military aircraft loss(fuel and propulsion systems are the big problems), and is not usually a high priority on increasing aircraft damage tolerance. Civilian aircraft structures are not sufficiently different to negate the usefulness of this historical data. Of the 34 modern airliners that were subjected to in-flight bombings, 56% survived; of those only 10 crashed because of structural failure. If anyone is interested in the effects of aircraft pressurization on enhancing damage can take a look at http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/aircraft/21.pdf. It is significant, but not what I suspect most people would imagine. My best guess, is that any shot which punctures the skin will cause pressure loss. It would take a lucky shot in an older aircraft to unzip a portion of the skin, even then aircraft would likely not be lost. A modern airliner with multiple load paths would be even harder to "unzip," maybe impossible without multiple penetrations. As I said, though IANAEOAS, so if anyone does have specialized knowledge to the contrary I'd certainly like to see it. If no one does have any data or specilized knowledge in this area that contradicts this, then lets please stop rehashing this "bullets vs. aircraft" debate. Of course the smart thing would just be to use frangible bullets that won't penetrate.
Yes, that is stuipid. They should just lower the taxes on aviation fuel (that they raised when airlines started making a lot of money back in the 80s but foolishly forget to use some of that profit as congressional campaign contributions).
How do you know that this is not going to be just? If the current administration was only interested in venting frustrations or appeasing the voter's desire to 'get even' then don't you think they would have been dropping bombs on Kabul within the 1st 48hrs? Obviously they are more concerned about "getting this right" than you seem to be giving them credit for. Wait and see what our response is before you complain about it.
Hmmm, this is obviously a problem. Some foreigner passengers seem uncomfortable with the idea of normal citizens and flight attendants being given guns. Domestic airlines have been hit hard enough as it is; we can't have them losing passengers to foriegn airlines. That just won't do...
Perhaps to make the foreigners feel more comfortable, we should add a pair of little tin badges in the panel and have part of the fine print on everyone's boarding pass instantly deputize (or conscript) them in the event that the captain presses the "terrorism" button that releases access to the guns. That way they can feel all warm and fuzzy inside as the passenger compartment fills with lead and shrapnel. Hey, it is no more insane than some of the fine print on software licenses...
The passenger would have to be very drunk to say, "I'll shoot ya" to a stewardess who is carrying a submachine gun. Excuse me... I meant to say "flight attendant." And if they are given submachine guns, I'd recommend that you call them that, too (or whatever non-sexist designation they prefer).
Also, the proposed humorous flight announcement clearly indicated that access to the guns would only be released in the event of a skyjacking.
Ditch the semi-autos and give the passengers revolvers. Revolvers are simpler to operate, so the safety brief could be much shorter. They are mechanically simpler, so less preventive maintenance would have to be done on them (i.e. cheaper for the airlines = lower ticket prices). The immediate action drills for revolvers are much simpler as well. The passengers wouldn't have to worry about failure to feed (a problem not uncommon with inexperienced shooters who might "limp wrist" the gun) or failure to extract. Failures to fire are corrected simply by pulling the trigger again, which is probably going to be the passenger's natural response. Semi-Autos are sexy and great for serious shooters, but for inexperienced shooters (or anyone who doesn't like to do preventive maintenance) revolvers are a better choice for self-defense.
I also think the safety briefing should include a warning to only use the airline-approved frangible ammunition for the guns; otherwise some idiot with a few FMJ rounds in his pocket is likely to stick them in the gun and decompress the plane during the firefight. Other than that, I think that is a good briefing.
I have now on my desk a copy of a document prepared by a leading think-tank over a decade ago detailing our nation's vulnerabilities to terrorism and what should be done about it. In the wake of last week's tragedy I took the document out of its file and read it again with new eyes. Last week's attack could have been much worse. Thank God the people who wrote that document are on our side. It is a shame we didn't listen to them.
...Perhaps the most insidious form of adulteration is the accidental or deliberate entry of false data into a computer network because until the problem is detected incorrect decisions are made and once the problem is discovered user confidence in the system is shaken... ... identifying false information is a critical function that can be seriously complicated by adversaries' use of deception.
... But again, the most insidious form of the problem is associated with communications: tapping networks is a primary source of illicit information both in the business world and in foreign intelligence... ... so that communications and database security is of significant importance.
If you are feeling bad about the role encryption plays in allowing terrorists to act freely, perhaps some excerpts from this document will ease your mind and open your eyes to the usefulness of encryption systems in combating terrorism. Also keep in mind that this was written in the mid 1980s. I apologize in advance for not giving proper credit to the authors, but I'm sure that they understand why.
-- begin quote --
Adulteration, the accidental or deliberate injection of undesired material into a network, can cause serious problems. Accidental diversion of unintended liquids into a pipeline system, like accidental switching of a train onto the wrong track, sometimes leads to disastrous results...
...
Leakage from networks is at least...
...
MEASURES FOR RISK REDUCTION
Robustness
protective enclosures
solid construction
guards
deterrent laws
human engineering to reduce errors
operator training and practice
ENCRYPTION OF INFORMATION (emphasis added)
Ruggedness
redundancy
excess capacity
backup systems
error correcting coding for communications
emergency response teams
crisis training
alarm systems
automatic diagnosis systems
emergency subsystems
preplanned triage
public or customer emergency instruction arrangements
Resiliency
stores of critical spares
emergency recovery teams
training of recovery actions
insurance
procedures for sharing abnormal resource costs
pre-established plans for implementing improvements rather than return to status quo ante
-- end quote --
The measures listed above were to be encouraged in PRIVATE organizations and amoung the general public. I have reproduced the entire list because unlike the rest of the report it should be shared amoung as many people as possible, especially in business. As you can see public use of encryption is on this list.
It is important that businesses, and other organizations, be able to encrypt data securely so that critical vulnerabilities and response plans cannot fall into the hands of terrorists. It is important that businesses be able to encrypt and digitally sign communications so that false data or false orders cannot be transmitted that will cause their facilities to be damaged or an inappropriate action taken that could jeopardize lives and infrastructure. People need to be able to encrypt data and communications so that they will be less susceptible to blackmail (supposedly "no organization is secure from an operative who finds a well-placed secretary that is having an illicit affair") or assassination by terrorists.
Encryption is a powerful tool. It is as useful for protection from terror as it is the commission of terror. We cannot prevent the terrorists from having access to these tools; so we must seek to learn to use them better ourselves, and to make sure that they are in the hands of "the right people." With the ever-increasing reliance on data collected and sent over electronic networks in the making of critical decisions by all sectors of society, failure to use encryption and digital signature technology could be very bad.
The above comments were orignally made by me a few days ago to someone who had done encryption work and was now questioning whether our current privacy/security ratio would or should be changed. I apologize for using recycled electrons, but I thought the comments were equally applicable to this Slashdot story because they show the role that encryption can play in protecting people from terrorism (and espionage and vandalism and organized crime...) and I am leaving for a meeting so I don't have time to rewrite them.
Am I the only one who thinks that superjumbo airliner Airbus wants to build suddenly seems like a bad idea?
I have now on my desk a copy of a document prepared over a decade ago detailing our nation's vulnerabilities to terrorism and what should be done about it. It is rare both in the sense that not many groups had the foresight to have put together such a thorough analysis so far in advance; and because while the document was not classified, not many copies were made (for obvious reasons). In the wake of last week's tragedy I took the document out of its file and read it again with new eyes. Last week's attack could have been much worse. Thank God the people who wrote that document are on our side. It is a shame we didn't listen to them.
...Perhaps the most insidious form of adulteration is the accidental or deliberate entry of false data into a computer network because until the problem is detected incorrect decisions are made and once the problem is discovered user confidence in the system is shaken... ... identifying false information is a critical function that can be seriously complicated by adversaries' use of deception.
... But again, the most insidious form of the problem is associated with communications: tapping networks is a primary source of illicit information both in the business world and in foreign intelligence... ... so that communications and database security is of significant importance.
If you are feeling bad about the role encryption plays in allowing terrorists to act freely, perhaps some excerpts from this document will ease your mind and open your eyes to the usefulness of encryption systems in combating terrorism. Also keep in mind that this was written in the mid 1980s. I apologize in advance for not giving proper credit to the authors, but I'm sure that they understand why.
-- begin quote --
Adulteration, the accidental or deliberate injection of undesired material into a network, can cause serious problems. Accidental diversion of unintended liquids into a pipeline system, like accidental switching of a train onto the wrong track, sometimes leads to disastrous results...
...
Leakage from networks is at least...
...
MEASURES FOR RISK REDUCTION
Robustness
protective enclosures
solid construction
guards
deterrent laws
human engineering to reduce errors
operator training and practice
ENCRYPTION OF INFORMATION (emphasis added)
Ruggedness
redundancy
excess capacity
backup systems
error correcting coding for communications
emergency response teams
crisis training
alarm systems
automatic diagnosis systems
emergency subsystems
preplanned triage
public or customer emergency instruction arrangements
Resiliency
stores of critical spares
emergency recovery teams
training of recovery actions
insurance
procedures for sharing abnormal resource costs
pre-established plans for implementing improvements rather than return to status quo ante
-- end quote --
The measures listed above were to be encouraged in PRIVATE organizations and amoung the general public. I have reproduced the entire list because unlike the rest of the report it should be shared amoung as many people as possible, especially in business. As you can see public use of encryption is on this list.
It is important that businesses be able to encrypt data securely so that critical vulnerabilities and response plans cannot fall into the hands of terrorists. It is important that businesses be able to encrypt and digitally sign communications so that false data or false orders cannot be transmitted that will cause their facilities to be damaged or an inappropriate action taken that could jeopardize lives and infrastructure. People need to be able to encrypt data and communications so that they will be less susceptible to blackmail (supposedly "no organization is secure from an operative who catches a secretary who is having an illicit affair") or assassination by terrorists.
Encryption is a powerful tool. It is as useful for protection from terror as it is the commission of terror. We cannot prevent the terrorists from having access to these tools; so we must seek to learn to use them better ourselves, and to make sure that they are in the hands of "the right people." With the ever-increasing reliance on data collected and sent over electronic networks in the making of critical decisions by all sectors of society, failure to use encryption and digital signature technology could be very bad.
If you think you are free, I suggest you try denouncing communism. Maybe get a bunch of your buddies together and try to peacefully assemble and request a redress of your grievances... Tienamen Square would be a good spot for that. See how free you are then.
FUCK COMMUNISM.
My God...
Is anyone watching David Letterman's show?
Dan Rather gave a very good interview, he cried twice. It is NOT your typical late nite fare.
"Also firing a weapon on an airplane is VERY stupid, you are most likly going to create a hole and decompress the air"
Frangible bullets can be used inside aircraft at altitude with very little risk of decompression.
Even without weapons, I agree that any hijacker on a US plane will probably be swarmed by passengers (either out of bravery, or fear that the USAF would shoot the plane down) during the initial stages of trying to secure the aircraft. In such close quarters a swarm attack is very effective against even a trained and armed opponent.
Have they banned ink pens yet? What about chopsticks? Either one can make an improvised lethal weapon on par with a boxcutter.
No, WE are "Emmanual Goldstein."
We are the convenient enemy that the Taliban and their ilk uses to justify their atrocities.
They cannot keep their stations with an educated and economically strong populace, which modernization will surely bring. They know this, and so to prevent the development of a modern Afghanistan they ruthlessly oppress their people. In order to justify this, they need an enemy. Someone that is seemingly close enough to be a threat but also far enough away so that it can remain vague. Someone who is strong enough not to ever go away, but also someone who still will not likely show up and take over. We are the perfect enemy; the Taliban's Emanuel Goldstein. Or we were. The Taliban and Al Qaeda miscalculated what they could get away with and now we are their worst nightmare.
1984 was great dystopian science fiction, but you don't need telescreens to have oppression. You want to see a dystopian society? Go to www.rawa.org and you can see video of one that works just as well with Stone Age technology.
We will not become Oceania. I have faith in the politicians, and the intelligence personnel, and the police, and the military that while they would tolerate some restrictions during a temporary crisis most all of them would not tolerate major permanent restrictions. But even if my faith in them is misplaced, it doesn't matter. We do, after all, have the 2nd Amendment along with the more popular ones like the 1st and 4th. A government is only stable in the long run, if its political and military power is distributed in similar fashions*. There are enough firearms in the United States for every adult in the nation to have one. This individual ownership of small arms no doubt leads to lethal accidents, and some argue that it leads to more violent crime... but it also insures that the ONLY form of government that will be stable (over the long term) in the United States is one that is supported by the general population. This does not protect against racism or religious oppression or any of the other evils that democracies can exhibit... but it does protect against totalitarianism.
If your argument is meant to suggest that we need a clearly defined victory condition for this war, then I do agree with that.
*Which is probably why the platform the Taliban espoused when gaining power was peace and security through disarmament. Except that they sought to disarm all the OTHER tribes, but not their own followers. If our gov't starts to spout similar ideas, then we should start to worry; but fortunately our current administration is very unlikely to do that considering the pivotal role the NRA and the rest of the "gun lobby" played in getting them in office.
Death.