That's where a thing called leadership is helpful, something that is sorely lacking in US government. A good leader would at least try to explain the low risks of travel and that security measures for the sake of security measures are not helpful. Instead we get toothpaste bans.
You lost me, what does treatment of Palestinians in Israel have to do with airport security? You don't have to agree with or like Israel to acknowledge that El Al's security clearly know what they're doing.
I wouldn't be surprised at all if the shoe bomber and the Xmas pants bomber were the only two bombing attempts in the past 9 years, and they both got through security. Surly if they caught someone at the gates with a bomb it wouldn't be kept secret.
Of course this doesn't count how many people have been deterred from trying to blow up a plane, but considering how obvious and simple it is to sneak explosives under your pants I can't imagine how anyone but the least imaginative would have been deterred. Most likely it took 8 years since the shoe bomber to try this simply because no one was trying.
Ok, but the preceding reasoning was just as specious. Did significant regional economic troubles follow the construction of Taibei 101 or the Petronas Towers? Not that I can tell.
It's not impossible that there is a correlation here, since as we just saw real estate bubbles can be a symptom of serious financial problems, but just by looking at the few tallest building records from the last century isn't enough to build a case on.
The US hasn't held the record for highest building since 1998, and the World Trade Center was still attacked in '93 despite the Sears Tower having been taller than it for two decades. The WTC was not targeted because of it's significant height, more likely it was targeted for being the most significant landmark in America's financial center.
Why would this building be a target for terrorism? As far as I can tell there's never been a case where a building was targeted by terrorists because of its height.
I'm not sure how having a building at a higher elevation in the Rockies is relevant. If height above sea-level is considered instead of height above local ground-level then the first homeless guy to set up a cardboard box in Denver beat the Dubai Tower by half a mile.
Or it could be that every decade sees several new highest buildings erected in various places, regardless of pending economic troubles. Any correlation between ongoing construction hubris and economic crashes is likely coincidental.
Who says the Nexus One has an OLED? I keep on seeing it from people commenting on articles about the phone, but it's not said in the articles themselves.
Honestly I'm not sure I prefer OLED for phones. As much as I'd kill for an OLED display at home, it seems like a bit of a problem for something I'll be using a lot outside during the day.
I agree about the keyboard thought. I would love something like the Droid, but I'm not about to switch to Verizon for it.
Cryptography with current technology is a strong link in the chain, but with advances in quantum computing factorization will be easy enough that current ciphers will no longer provide strong security. This is when quantum encryption will have a big advantage over current methods.
Right, but we're talking about how security effects passenger travel time, not overall costs. Securing the rails doesn't add anything to the overall trip time so it's not really relevant here.
One picky point with TFA... it suggests that the fast travel times of a high-speed rail network would not come with the security overhead of air travel. I'm not so sure about that.
Why do you think rail would have the same security overhead? Last time I used Amtrak there was no security at all. It was a very refreshing departure from what I was used to with air travel.
as for long distance rail, Amtrak is already unreliable. there is no reason to think that a new high speed train will be reliable and there is no benefit over flying.
I think there is some reason to think high-speed rail would be more reliable. One of Amtrak's major problems right now is that they don't own the rails they use, they share them with freight companies. A new high-speed rail line, however, would be built specifically for passenger service and would not have this problem.
Kelo v. New London was about the government being able to use eminent domain to free up propety for commercial development. As far as I've seen it had nothing to do with the amount of compensation given to people for their property, and in Kelo v. New London the plaintiffs were given market value for their property.
Scenario 3. Plane crashes after departing Major City International Airport: holy mother of Jesus, how could that happen, a whole commercial area and half the airport destroyed, tragedy, damages in the billions, oh my god how awful!
The only reason why this guy and the shoe bomber were in a position to be detained by passengers is because they had already failed. When someone successfully sets of a bomb, no one has time to intervene.
They're already being blamed for being inept because they're bloody inept. If they don't want to be blamed next time they screw up maybe they should worry about not screwing up their existing policies so much. Adding yet another pointless rule that they will fail to enforce will certainly not help things.
That's the most ridiculous thing about all this. Some TSA representative was quoted as saying they didn't have enough information to warrant putting this guy on the no-fly list. Apparently they had enough evidence on Ted Kennedy, one of the most senior US Senators at the time, to put him on the no-fly list, but a guy whos own father thought he was a dangerous zealot that the US should watch out for doesn't get on the list. Amazing.
Slashdot Mirror
That's where a thing called leadership is helpful, something that is sorely lacking in US government. A good leader would at least try to explain the low risks of travel and that security measures for the sake of security measures are not helpful. Instead we get toothpaste bans.
You lost me, what does treatment of Palestinians in Israel have to do with airport security? You don't have to agree with or like Israel to acknowledge that El Al's security clearly know what they're doing.
I wouldn't be surprised at all if the shoe bomber and the Xmas pants bomber were the only two bombing attempts in the past 9 years, and they both got through security. Surly if they caught someone at the gates with a bomb it wouldn't be kept secret.
Of course this doesn't count how many people have been deterred from trying to blow up a plane, but considering how obvious and simple it is to sneak explosives under your pants I can't imagine how anyone but the least imaginative would have been deterred. Most likely it took 8 years since the shoe bomber to try this simply because no one was trying.
No, I think the difference is that it only hangs the browser at start.
Ok, but the preceding reasoning was just as specious. Did significant regional economic troubles follow the construction of Taibei 101 or the Petronas Towers? Not that I can tell.
It's not impossible that there is a correlation here, since as we just saw real estate bubbles can be a symptom of serious financial problems, but just by looking at the few tallest building records from the last century isn't enough to build a case on.
WTF are you on about? I hate to break it to you, but trolling is not your strong suite.
The US hasn't held the record for highest building since 1998, and the World Trade Center was still attacked in '93 despite the Sears Tower having been taller than it for two decades. The WTC was not targeted because of it's significant height, more likely it was targeted for being the most significant landmark in America's financial center.
Why would this building be a target for terrorism? As far as I can tell there's never been a case where a building was targeted by terrorists because of its height.
I'm not sure how having a building at a higher elevation in the Rockies is relevant. If height above sea-level is considered instead of height above local ground-level then the first homeless guy to set up a cardboard box in Denver beat the Dubai Tower by half a mile.
Or it could be that every decade sees several new highest buildings erected in various places, regardless of pending economic troubles. Any correlation between ongoing construction hubris and economic crashes is likely coincidental.
Who says the Nexus One has an OLED? I keep on seeing it from people commenting on articles about the phone, but it's not said in the articles themselves.
Honestly I'm not sure I prefer OLED for phones. As much as I'd kill for an OLED display at home, it seems like a bit of a problem for something I'll be using a lot outside during the day.
I agree about the keyboard thought. I would love something like the Droid, but I'm not about to switch to Verizon for it.
Cryptography with current technology is a strong link in the chain, but with advances in quantum computing factorization will be easy enough that current ciphers will no longer provide strong security. This is when quantum encryption will have a big advantage over current methods.
He was also featured on Rachael Maddows show on MSNBC last night.
I missed the point? That's the exact point I was making. Did you reply to the wrong post?
Right, but we're talking about how security effects passenger travel time, not overall costs. Securing the rails doesn't add anything to the overall trip time so it's not really relevant here.
You're argument is valid but has nothing to do with Kelo v. NL. You are arguing against eminent domain in general.
One picky point with TFA... it suggests that the fast travel times of a high-speed rail network would not come with the security overhead of air travel. I'm not so sure about that.
Why do you think rail would have the same security overhead? Last time I used Amtrak there was no security at all. It was a very refreshing departure from what I was used to with air travel.
as for long distance rail, Amtrak is already unreliable. there is no reason to think that a new high speed train will be reliable and there is no benefit over flying.
I think there is some reason to think high-speed rail would be more reliable. One of Amtrak's major problems right now is that they don't own the rails they use, they share them with freight companies. A new high-speed rail line, however, would be built specifically for passenger service and would not have this problem.
Kelo v. New London was about the government being able to use eminent domain to free up propety for commercial development. As far as I've seen it had nothing to do with the amount of compensation given to people for their property, and in Kelo v. New London the plaintiffs were given market value for their property.
Scenario 3. Plane crashes after departing Major City International Airport: holy mother of Jesus, how could that happen, a whole commercial area and half the airport destroyed, tragedy, damages in the billions, oh my god how awful!
The only reason why this guy and the shoe bomber were in a position to be detained by passengers is because they had already failed. When someone successfully sets of a bomb, no one has time to intervene.
What about the hour after take off then? Isn't that equally likely to be over a populated area?
Long story short, how about you think before posting instead of just blindly making shit up.
They're already being blamed for being inept because they're bloody inept. If they don't want to be blamed next time they screw up maybe they should worry about not screwing up their existing policies so much. Adding yet another pointless rule that they will fail to enforce will certainly not help things.
That's the most ridiculous thing about all this. Some TSA representative was quoted as saying they didn't have enough information to warrant putting this guy on the no-fly list. Apparently they had enough evidence on Ted Kennedy, one of the most senior US Senators at the time, to put him on the no-fly list, but a guy whos own father thought he was a dangerous zealot that the US should watch out for doesn't get on the list. Amazing.
Yeah, suddenly the TSA's water bottle ban makes some sense.