Perhaps now that Stewart is popular, he does indeed have a duty to inform (That he has played down in many interviews)? People go to him for news, that he markets as a side-effect to the comedy.
People who watch The Daily Show did better on a quiz about their political knowledge than people who watch any of the cable news shows - FOX, CNN, MSNBC, etc.
Doesn't that mean he's doing his duty to inform people?
I'd say that was more the press covering each others' asses than a liberal bent (not making any judgement on whether there is one or not). CNN, ABC, MSNBC, etc. don't wanna get hit by CBS when they have a similar scandal.
Neither. Just another case of somebody failing to bring his reading comprehension game.
Care to tell me where I failed in reading comprehension? Seemed fairly straightforwards to me...
"Mostly un-patrolled?" It's not 2001 any more. Things have changed.
In 2003 (most recent stat I can find) about 500 U.S. Border Patrol agents patroled 3,987 miles of Canadian border. I'd suspect many of those are focused on populated areas, leaving fewer for the more remote sections - Montana, for example.
Drug smugglers in Mexico - a far more fortified border - managed to dig a huge tunnel and bring in tons of drugs (and who knows what else). IIRC, they did it for years before being discovered, and I tend to doubt that was the only tunnel ever.
This is lots of very smart people spending billions of dollars to ensure that it's not possible. Understand now?
We've spent billions ensuring it's not possible to get drugs across the border. Interestingly, I can probably walk about a block from my apartment and buy cocaine, heroin, marijuana, whatever I want.
Continue calling me arrogant and blind, though.
If what you mean is that the people who planned 9/11 waged a successful attack, say so. Don't gush in admiration for those murdering motherfuckers and then try to back away from it when you get called on it.
If admitting it was a brilliant plot, in planning and execution, constitutes "gushing admiration", then I suspect we're using different meanings of the words.
Hitler was brilliant in ways - brilliant orator, for one. Al Qaeda has its brilliant moments, too.
Take my word for it: that would be completely impossible. Do you really think that we didn't think of that one? Do you really think that the first thing we did after 9/11 was install sophisticated radiological detectors at ports, border crossings and other points of entry?
Hmm... didn't you just recently say...
But beyond that, your arrogance is disappointing. You're committing exactly the same sins that we all committed before 9/11: you believe it can't happen. You believe that there's something, some attack, some threat, that simply can't come to pass... You've established a big ol' blind spot for yourself.
Hypocrisy? Or just short memory?
Of course we've thought of that one. Doesn't mean it's not possible. Have fun detecting the lead lined nuke in the container full of liquid... or detecting the one smuggled through the mostly unpatrolled Canadian border, then driven into NYC. By the time you've tracked the nuke truck down with those detectors, it has gone off already.
I know you'd love to stand by that, but the simple fact is that it's not true. Expressing admiration for a terrorist act is repugnant, and you should repudiate that comment and clarify your position.
The 9/11 attacks were diabolically brilliant in their conception and their execution. Yes, I stand by that statement.
Sorry, Twirlip, but we got our asses handed to us that day. They did their jobs well. Doesn't mean I like what resulted, or that I support their ideals or methods. I'm just admitting that they taught us one hell of a lesson.
It was to illustrate a point (as I don't know what agent would be effective in that type of plot) - obviously, the full body chem suits for sarin would be a bit suspicious. Doesn't mean it's completely impossible.
But beyond that, your arrogance is disappointing. You're committing exactly the same sins that we all committed before 9/11: you believe it can't happen. You believe that there's something, some attack, some threat, that simply can't come to pass.
Not true, but I do think it's far more likely for someone to sail a nuke in a container on a ship up NYC harbour. Less posibility for detection, and a hell of a lot more damage.
Oh, and that whole "9/11 was brilliant" thing? Disgusting. You should know better than to express admiration for mass murderers. That kind of thing just isn't okay.
Brilliant doesn't imply any judgement on the morality of it. Hitler's blitzkrieg was a brilliant military move, no matter how repugnant the reasons and results.
Admiration? Hardly. Admission of the audacity and success of the plan? Yes.
If there is a lock on the door, and pilot who decides to do this is virtually guaranteed success.
There's not much you can do about it, locked door or no. Bash the co-pilot on the head and there's no one else to notice - the passengers certainly won't until it's too late.
Further, it leaves things wide open to flight attendants causing problems, unless the cockpit is kept sealed through the entire flight, which is a very different suggestion which entails other problems.
IIRC the new laws post-9/11 require the door to be locked at all times during the flight, no exceptions. So, flight attendants aren't a problem - they don't go into the cockpit.
The reason that the locked/reinforced doors are a mistake is that they add the problem of a pilot being able to easily ram whatever he wants but solve no problems in the process.
Besides the problem of terrorists simply opening the door and waltzing in, you mean?
Pilots can crash the plane if they want - remember that Egypt Air flight that went for a nosedive into the ocean?
We are already basically guaranteed that a terrorist cannot take over the cockpit and do bad things with the plane because the passengers know the risk and will rise up and kill anyone who tries that (unless they can't get through the cockpit door).
That, finally, I can agree with you on. Still, I'd prefer the door locked than unlocked. Just in case the plan was to do something like spray sarin gas into the ventillation system or something, then sieze control with everyone dead.
I'm torn on the issue. On one hand, I wish the military weren't necessary. On the other hand, when it is necessary, I'd like the people sending other people into combat to have served themselves, so they understand what's involved.
I'd be okay using that as a method of dealing with terrorism if we had mandatory military service, too, so there's at least a little proper gun safety taught.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps now that Stewart is popular, he does indeed have a duty to inform (That he has played down in many interviews)? People go to him for news, that he markets as a side-effect to the comedy.
People who watch The Daily Show did better on a quiz about their political knowledge than people who watch any of the cable news shows - FOX, CNN, MSNBC, etc.
Doesn't that mean he's doing his duty to inform people?
I'd say that was more the press covering each others' asses than a liberal bent (not making any judgement on whether there is one or not). CNN, ABC, MSNBC, etc. don't wanna get hit by CBS when they have a similar scandal.
Not to mention the fact that bullet proof vests are hardly a couple inches square only protecting the space between the shoulder blades...
There're a whole lot more than 5-10 earthquakes on that single day graph...
While you wait to see how major publishers will jerk you around next, games for linux keep getting better and better!
Perhaps, but going from Doom 1 to Doom 2 quality hardly counts for much in the days where you can buy Doom 3.
Major titles keep getting better and better, too.
The rights it represents are God given, not changable as to the whims of men. They need to be preserved at all costs.
That'd be why we have the amendment process written into the thing, right?
With relatives who did serve during that time, they reported that F-16 readiness dropped from over 90% to less than 77%.
So, like, if the Soviet Union came back and regained the power it had at its height - without us realizing - we might have been in trouble?
Could you be a little more informed?
A supernova in our Sun is impossible, but a supernova of a nearby star would do a hell of a lot of damage.
Glad to be back! :-) Thanks!
Dude, who needs phone support for an iPod?
Most of which, IMO, aren't as elegant and userfriendly as Gmail.
I like my email sorted into folders, thank you very much.
Labels work exactly the same way, except you don't have to choose one folder where two might both apply - you can label it with both.
Is the interface as elegant and user friendly?
Neither. Just another case of somebody failing to bring his reading comprehension game.
Care to tell me where I failed in reading comprehension? Seemed fairly straightforwards to me...
"Mostly un-patrolled?" It's not 2001 any more. Things have changed.
In 2003 (most recent stat I can find) about 500 U.S. Border Patrol agents patroled 3,987 miles of Canadian border. I'd suspect many of those are focused on populated areas, leaving fewer for the more remote sections - Montana, for example.
Drug smugglers in Mexico - a far more fortified border - managed to dig a huge tunnel and bring in tons of drugs (and who knows what else). IIRC, they did it for years before being discovered, and I tend to doubt that was the only tunnel ever.
This is lots of very smart people spending billions of dollars to ensure that it's not possible. Understand now?
We've spent billions ensuring it's not possible to get drugs across the border. Interestingly, I can probably walk about a block from my apartment and buy cocaine, heroin, marijuana, whatever I want.
Continue calling me arrogant and blind, though.
If what you mean is that the people who planned 9/11 waged a successful attack, say so. Don't gush in admiration for those murdering motherfuckers and then try to back away from it when you get called on it.
If admitting it was a brilliant plot, in planning and execution, constitutes "gushing admiration", then I suspect we're using different meanings of the words.
Hitler was brilliant in ways - brilliant orator, for one. Al Qaeda has its brilliant moments, too.
Take my word for it: that would be completely impossible. Do you really think that we didn't think of that one? Do you really think that the first thing we did after 9/11 was install sophisticated radiological detectors at ports, border crossings and other points of entry?
Hmm... didn't you just recently say...
But beyond that, your arrogance is disappointing. You're committing exactly the same sins that we all committed before 9/11: you believe it can't happen. You believe that there's something, some attack, some threat, that simply can't come to pass... You've established a big ol' blind spot for yourself.
Hypocrisy? Or just short memory?
Of course we've thought of that one. Doesn't mean it's not possible. Have fun detecting the lead lined nuke in the container full of liquid... or detecting the one smuggled through the mostly unpatrolled Canadian border, then driven into NYC. By the time you've tracked the nuke truck down with those detectors, it has gone off already.
I know you'd love to stand by that, but the simple fact is that it's not true. Expressing admiration for a terrorist act is repugnant, and you should repudiate that comment and clarify your position.
The 9/11 attacks were diabolically brilliant in their conception and their execution. Yes, I stand by that statement.
Sorry, Twirlip, but we got our asses handed to us that day. They did their jobs well. Doesn't mean I like what resulted, or that I support their ideals or methods. I'm just admitting that they taught us one hell of a lesson.
Would you disagree with the statement "Hitler's blitzkrieg was a brilliant military move"?
You've been watching way, way too many movies.
It was to illustrate a point (as I don't know what agent would be effective in that type of plot) - obviously, the full body chem suits for sarin would be a bit suspicious. Doesn't mean it's completely impossible.
But beyond that, your arrogance is disappointing. You're committing exactly the same sins that we all committed before 9/11: you believe it can't happen. You believe that there's something, some attack, some threat, that simply can't come to pass.
Not true, but I do think it's far more likely for someone to sail a nuke in a container on a ship up NYC harbour. Less posibility for detection, and a hell of a lot more damage.
Oh, and that whole "9/11 was brilliant" thing? Disgusting. You should know better than to express admiration for mass murderers. That kind of thing just isn't okay.
Brilliant doesn't imply any judgement on the morality of it. Hitler's blitzkrieg was a brilliant military move, no matter how repugnant the reasons and results.
Admiration? Hardly. Admission of the audacity and success of the plan? Yes.
I have this funny image of a bunch of 10 year olds singing 0s and 1s gustily around a campfire.
If there is a lock on the door, and pilot who decides to do this is virtually guaranteed success.
There's not much you can do about it, locked door or no. Bash the co-pilot on the head and there's no one else to notice - the passengers certainly won't until it's too late.
Further, it leaves things wide open to flight attendants causing problems, unless the cockpit is kept sealed through the entire flight, which is a very different suggestion which entails other problems.
IIRC the new laws post-9/11 require the door to be locked at all times during the flight, no exceptions. So, flight attendants aren't a problem - they don't go into the cockpit.
The reason that the locked/reinforced doors are a mistake is that they add the problem of a pilot being able to easily ram whatever he wants but solve no problems in the process.
Besides the problem of terrorists simply opening the door and waltzing in, you mean?
Pilots can crash the plane if they want - remember that Egypt Air flight that went for a nosedive into the ocean?
We are already basically guaranteed that a terrorist cannot take over the cockpit and do bad things with the plane because the passengers know the risk and will rise up and kill anyone who tries that (unless they can't get through the cockpit door).
That, finally, I can agree with you on. Still, I'd prefer the door locked than unlocked. Just in case the plan was to do something like spray sarin gas into the ventillation system or something, then sieze control with everyone dead.
Apparently you failed to note that the discussed hypothetical was about train derailments.
I'm torn on the issue. On one hand, I wish the military weren't necessary. On the other hand, when it is necessary, I'd like the people sending other people into combat to have served themselves, so they understand what's involved.
Yes, but then you waste time and effort on infants, 98 year old WWII veteran Medal of Honor winners with no arms or legs, etc.
I'd be okay using that as a method of dealing with terrorism if we had mandatory military service, too, so there's at least a little proper gun safety taught.
What's to stop some psycho from derailing a train or cashing it into a busy train station? Nothing.
Yes, but there are far jucier targets. Train derailments usually involve a lot of minor injuries but few major ones, and even fewer fatalities.
A small bomb in Times Square on New Years would be far more damaging (not to mention fear-inducing).