there is a larger more worrying issue. this kind of thing passifies people to invasive monitoring. these kids will grow up thinking it's ok for big brother to be watching them like this.
Big brother, no. Mother and father, yes. If a parent doesn't monitor their kids's diet they're being negligent. My daughter tries to guilt me into letting her buy junk food at her primary school. It's not just normal cravings -- have you seen the amount of crap food advertised on children's TV? At this monet I can hear a Macdonald's ad as she watches a cartoon. We have to fight back or see their health destroyed.
what is a MUCH better solution, is how about the lunch meals are all made healthy?
In these days when Coca Cola sponsors schools to install their sugar water dispensers? Dream on.
You make some pretty strange assumptions when it comes to carrying handguns.
I assume guns are tools designed to make holes in people, or anything else they're pointed at. I also assume that someone who wants to have this ability is not someone I would want to be in a confined place with for 12 hours with free alcohol.
I'd rather give everyone a fighting chance than to see them go down helpless.
Hijackers have no chance to subdue unarmed passengers now. Box cutters aren't gong to stop them being beaten to death. Give them a chance a getting a gun and they'd still go down, but take more passengers with them than otherwise. Potential hijackers knowing this is probably the reason there haven't been any hijackings since 9/11. Not preventing people carrying nail scissors or X-rays. It'll always be possible for a suicide bomber to crash a plane, but not to take it over.
B-17s were unpressurised war planes, designed to take heavy fire, that flew much slower and gnerally lower than modern jets. So if you pullled a gun and went nuts on one it wouldn't be a problem. If you and your NRA buddies shot up a Jumbo, I'd rather not be around, thanks.
Fundamentally, the idea of numbered worlds has got to offend someone.
Originally in the post WWII era, it was basically a political division:
1st World: the "Western Bloc"; NATO and countries allied to them
2nd World: Soviet Bloc
3rd World: The rest
But now it's mostly used meaning "1st World" = rich; "3rd World" = poor. But under both definitions Western Europe is 1st World.
After all, the "first world" would be Europe. The "second world" might be the U.S. and Australia. Third world? The colonies that didn't achieve independence prior to 1900?
Europe is the "Old World", the Americas, and sometimes Australia, is the "New World".
. The odds passengers being killed by a vigilante is way lower than being killed by a terrorist.
WTF? Can you imagine how many people would have died and planes crashed in the last three years if passengers were armed? Every time a swarthy passenger sneezed or yawned and stretched he'd have a dozen guns cocked and pointing at him. And are you going to prevent Americans of Arab descent from carrying guns? Then what happens when some redneck spots him and decides to preempt? Not to mention what would happen 12 hours into a flight when the vigilantes have had way too much booze.
How about the fact that no American airlines have been hijacked since 9/11? The only threat I can think of was from the infamous idiotic shoe bomber, and no guns were necessary to subdue him.
If you want to make planes hijack proof, fortify the cockpit. If the terrorist has a bomb, he can set it off whatever you do (if he remembers to bring a fuse).
I'd say that's considerably less if it's a matter of a stray bullet launched by you imaginarily clumsy vigilante.
I am REALLY glad this is all just a fantasy. My blood runs cold at the thought of people like you armed on an aircraft. (Or anywhere, but that's another discussion.)
There is however, a significant increase in the number of violent crimes and gun-related violence since handguns were banned.
Cause and Effect!
Consider that gun crime was going up and was slowed by attempts to restrict handguns. At least as likely in my opinion, and opinion is all the other side has too.
Planes are designed to fly with windows missing. It does not cause a catastrophic loss of stability, all it does is depressurise the cabin. Wear your nice yellow mask and everything is fine.
Okay. I'll put my mask on while the hijacker is spraying lead around.
I'm sure Tom Clancy has thought of a way to bring a plane down with a pistol (are there any fuel lines accessible?); but my plan would be go for the cockpit, unless the doors are bulletproof (only on El Al, I think).
No one in their right mind would want to fly with armed lunatics on board itching to exercise their right to bear arms, airlines would all shut down and thus there would be no hijacking problem.
>Just this once, how about trying to argue without hyperbole?
You mean you were serious? Anyway, my point stands. Maybe you would feel comfortable knowing armed vigilantes were in a plane; not me. I think the chances of passengers being killed are astronomically greater from this than any terrorist attempt.
If the pilots don't cooperate he can just shoot out some of the windows and crash the plane.
>And, while you're at it, how about trying to make a cogent point instead of citing hollywood physics?
Of course, in your world we use bulletproof windows in all airplanes. Transparent aluminum no doubt.
Whether on an airplane or anywhere else, the most effective way to counter an armed criminal is with a trained, armed population.
If X-rays keep nutcases like you from coming on with your guns, perhaps it's not such a bad idea.
No. Just those who wanted continuous Internet. Surfing porn, P2P, Slashdot, yes, they needed that. To do email, download it all (I have no sympathy if you use webmail) and read and reply to it at leisure, send it off later. Write your documents, spreadsheets, blog, whatever and upload later too.
This, paired with a metal detector would mean almost 100% transparency with regards to body-carried weapons.
No, it just means it'll catch weapons that look like weapons. Considering all the metal and hard plastic junk people carry on board -- phones, laptops, not to mention attache cases and framed bags, it'd be an evening's work to make a weapon that breaks down into innocuous parts. See or read the original Day of the Jackal for instance.
And as TFA states, all you need is a fat person to hide stuff in the butt, under the breasts.
Anyway, since 9/11 no knives or even guns are going to be useful to a hijacker. Plenty of passengers will choose to attack the hijacker regardless of personal risk, given the alternative is no hope at all.
It's just security theater, as Bruce Schneier calls these stunts that fulfill the need to be seen to be doing something regardless of effectiveness.
For a long-term solution, let anyone who's proven his or her ability and willingness to train to carry a weapon aboard an aircraft do so. Attempting to disarm everyone simply discards the natural advantage of good people outnumbering bad people.
An excellent long-term solution. No one in their right mind would want to fly with armed lunatics on board itching to exercise their right to bear arms, airlines would all shut down and thus there would be no hijacking problem.
Until that happened, all a hijacker would need to do to get a weapon is follow a civilian with a gun bulge showing to the bathroom, whack him on the head, and now you have an armed hijacker. If the pilots don't cooperate he can just shoot out some of the windows and crash the plane.
Smart scammers will keep track of IP addresses via a script running on the server, and block you after a while.
From what I've read, these sites don't stay up long by design. They send out a few million phishing spams pointing to their site, any responses are likley within a few hours. Then move to a new host and repeat. So DOSsing them in that short period can hurt them. Recall though that thay may be mobbed up and if you keep bothering them, someone may visit you in the real world.
Bollywood movies are churned out by the bucketful, but they are not exactly high-art, nor are they meant to be.
And Hollywood is "high art"? In Hollywood, "art movie" is a pejorative. It funds "high concept", a plot so simple you can summarise it in one sentence, not "high art".
I think the emphasis should have been on "an imaginary future foe composed of anti-American and anti-globalization hackers." There are loonies all over the ideological spectrum. But as far as I can tell, the "anti-globalisation" groups don't indulge in terrorism; they just want to be heard. When the police forces herd them away and beat them down (literally, in many cases) some may respond likewise, but mostly it's street theatre. But as for a calculated act of terrorism; what evidence is there to suggest this is at all likely? If anyone wants to cite 9/11 as an example of an unanticipated act, well similar groups have been making terrorist attacks in the Middle East (for a century) in Europe (eg, Munich, 1972) and elsewhere for decades, just not in the US. Anyway, wasn't something like this done a year or so ago, when the bogeyman was North Korean elite ninja hackers? Just call them Red team and concentrate on tactics, not preemptive smearing.
Yes, nuclear power kills people, but far, far, fewer people die for one kWh of nuclear power than from one kWh of coal power
I'm dubious about nuclear power, not because of the risks of running the plants (despite Chernobyl, it's acceptable) but becaues of the risk of proliferation. The more nuclear plants, the easier it is for nuclear weapons to be made. Does anyone believe that Iran built its reactors because it needs power? North Korea boasts it has already built bombs using its reactors. The nuclear industry is just as indiscriminate in who it sells technology to as gun and cigarette manufacturers are -- anyone with cash.
See Permutation City by Greg Egan. This explores the idea in great depth. One of the very few authors, along with Rudy Rucker, who can make maths the basis of a readable story.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, you can't expect your code to be solid if it can't even pass lint.
Big brother, no. Mother and father, yes. If a parent doesn't monitor their kids's diet they're being negligent. My daughter tries to guilt me into letting her buy junk food at her primary school. It's not just normal cravings -- have you seen the amount of crap food advertised on children's TV? At this monet I can hear a Macdonald's ad as she watches a cartoon. We have to fight back or see their health destroyed.
what is a MUCH better solution, is how about the lunch meals are all made healthy?
In these days when Coca Cola sponsors schools to install their sugar water dispensers? Dream on.
I assume guns are tools designed to make holes in people, or anything else they're pointed at. I also assume that someone who wants to have this ability is not someone I would want to be in a confined place with for 12 hours with free alcohol.
I'd rather give everyone a fighting chance than to see them go down helpless.
Hijackers have no chance to subdue unarmed passengers now. Box cutters aren't gong to stop them being beaten to death. Give them a chance a getting a gun and they'd still go down, but take more passengers with them than otherwise. Potential hijackers knowing this is probably the reason there haven't been any hijackings since 9/11. Not preventing people carrying nail scissors or X-rays. It'll always be possible for a suicide bomber to crash a plane, but not to take it over.
B-17s were unpressurised war planes, designed to take heavy fire, that flew much slower and gnerally lower than modern jets. So if you pullled a gun and went nuts on one it wouldn't be a problem. If you and your NRA buddies shot up a Jumbo, I'd rather not be around, thanks.
Maybe Lea & Perrins?
Originally in the post WWII era, it was basically a political division:
- 1st World: the "Western Bloc"; NATO and countries allied to them
- 2nd World: Soviet Bloc
- 3rd World: The rest
But now it's mostly used meaning "1st World" = rich; "3rd World" = poor. But under both definitions Western Europe is 1st World.After all, the "first world" would be Europe. The "second world" might be the U.S. and Australia. Third world? The colonies that didn't achieve independence prior to 1900?
Europe is the "Old World", the Americas, and sometimes Australia, is the "New World".
WTF? Can you imagine how many people would have died and planes crashed in the last three years if passengers were armed? Every time a swarthy passenger sneezed or yawned and stretched he'd have a dozen guns cocked and pointing at him. And are you going to prevent Americans of Arab descent from carrying guns? Then what happens when some redneck spots him and decides to preempt? Not to mention what would happen 12 hours into a flight when the vigilantes have had way too much booze.
How about the fact that no American airlines have been hijacked since 9/11? The only threat I can think of was from the infamous idiotic shoe bomber, and no guns were necessary to subdue him.
If you want to make planes hijack proof, fortify the cockpit. If the terrorist has a bomb, he can set it off whatever you do (if he remembers to bring a fuse).
I'd say that's considerably less if it's a matter of a stray bullet launched by you imaginarily clumsy vigilante.
I am REALLY glad this is all just a fantasy. My blood runs cold at the thought of people like you armed on an aircraft. (Or anywhere, but that's another discussion.)
Cause and Effect!
Consider that gun crime was going up and was slowed by attempts to restrict handguns. At least as likely in my opinion, and opinion is all the other side has too.
Okay. I'll put my mask on while the hijacker is spraying lead around.
I'm sure Tom Clancy has thought of a way to bring a plane down with a pistol (are there any fuel lines accessible?); but my plan would be go for the cockpit, unless the doors are bulletproof (only on El Al, I think).
>Just this once, how about trying to argue without hyperbole?
You mean you were serious? Anyway, my point stands. Maybe you would feel comfortable knowing armed vigilantes were in a plane; not me. I think the chances of passengers being killed are astronomically greater from this than any terrorist attempt.
If the pilots don't cooperate he can just shoot out some of the windows and crash the plane.
>And, while you're at it, how about trying to make a cogent point instead of citing hollywood physics?
Of course, in your world we use bulletproof windows in all airplanes. Transparent aluminum no doubt.
Whether on an airplane or anywhere else, the most effective way to counter an armed criminal is with a trained, armed population.
If X-rays keep nutcases like you from coming on with your guns, perhaps it's not such a bad idea.
No. Just those who wanted continuous Internet. Surfing porn, P2P, Slashdot, yes, they needed that. To do email, download it all (I have no sympathy if you use webmail) and read and reply to it at leisure, send it off later. Write your documents, spreadsheets, blog, whatever and upload later too.
Matildas 2000 nude calendar
No, it just means it'll catch weapons that look like weapons. Considering all the metal and hard plastic junk people carry on board -- phones, laptops, not to mention attache cases and framed bags, it'd be an evening's work to make a weapon that breaks down into innocuous parts. See or read the original Day of the Jackal for instance.
And as TFA states, all you need is a fat person to hide stuff in the butt, under the breasts.
Anyway, since 9/11 no knives or even guns are going to be useful to a hijacker. Plenty of passengers will choose to attack the hijacker regardless of personal risk, given the alternative is no hope at all.
It's just security theater, as Bruce Schneier calls these stunts that fulfill the need to be seen to be doing something regardless of effectiveness.
An excellent long-term solution. No one in their right mind would want to fly with armed lunatics on board itching to exercise their right to bear arms, airlines would all shut down and thus there would be no hijacking problem.
Until that happened, all a hijacker would need to do to get a weapon is follow a civilian with a gun bulge showing to the bathroom, whack him on the head, and now you have an armed hijacker. If the pilots don't cooperate he can just shoot out some of the windows and crash the plane.
From what I've read, these sites don't stay up long by design. They send out a few million phishing spams pointing to their site, any responses are likley within a few hours. Then move to a new host and repeat. So DOSsing them in that short period can hurt them. Recall though that thay may be mobbed up and if you keep bothering them, someone may visit you in the real world.
And Hollywood is "high art"? In Hollywood, "art movie" is a pejorative. It funds "high concept", a plot so simple you can summarise it in one sentence, not "high art".
And as they were chosen by that bastion of internationalism, Time Magazine, we know there wasn't any bias.
The same way all the Star Wars rumours do. And the dupes, hoaxes, product PR releases, beat-ups and other random trash that ends up on the front page.
Unless they recast Solo, they'll need a CGI Harrison Ford to carry that off.
I think the emphasis should have been on "an imaginary future foe composed of anti-American and anti-globalization hackers." There are loonies all over the ideological spectrum. But as far as I can tell, the "anti-globalisation" groups don't indulge in terrorism; they just want to be heard. When the police forces herd them away and beat them down (literally, in many cases) some may respond likewise, but mostly it's street theatre. But as for a calculated act of terrorism; what evidence is there to suggest this is at all likely? If anyone wants to cite 9/11 as an example of an unanticipated act, well similar groups have been making terrorist attacks in the Middle East (for a century) in Europe (eg, Munich, 1972) and elsewhere for decades, just not in the US. Anyway, wasn't something like this done a year or so ago, when the bogeyman was North Korean elite ninja hackers? Just call them Red team and concentrate on tactics, not preemptive smearing.
I'm pretty sure you can copy MP3s, the restrictions are with iTunes-bought tracks, with its DRM.
I'm dubious about nuclear power, not because of the risks of running the plants (despite Chernobyl, it's acceptable) but becaues of the risk of proliferation. The more nuclear plants, the easier it is for nuclear weapons to be made. Does anyone believe that Iran built its reactors because it needs power? North Korea boasts it has already built bombs using its reactors. The nuclear industry is just as indiscriminate in who it sells technology to as gun and cigarette manufacturers are -- anyone with cash.
of course it isn't. The judge would lock him up for contempt.
See Permutation City by Greg Egan. This explores the idea in great depth. One of the very few authors, along with Rudy Rucker, who can make maths the basis of a readable story.
A very similar idea was used in Clifford Simak's Way Station, (1964 Hugo winner). The aliens weren't dinosaurs though.