Then why did you state so previously using the form of rhetoric you did?
You simply failed to understand the context of my statements, surprising because I was referring to specific practices implemented by TSA, which is what this slashdot article is about. If you can find in my posts where I said that all security screening or procedures are useless, feel free.
Hardly. Looking at it from the perspective that you also have to remove your coat, hat and generally anything from your pocets, it makes sense.
Sorry, that makes no sense. Because it's an article of clothing? So are pants. Because it has pockets? Uh, no, unless they're 'roos. Because people normally take them off in buildings? No, only in their homes, unlike hats and coats. Really. It makes no sense. and it's useless to boot. There's no point to doing it, so why should we have to do it?
"You aren't checking anywhere else I could hide explosives."
No, just the obvious places that passengers wouldn't b*tch about (i.e. cavity searches).
You mean just the obvious places that terrorists wouldn't hesitate for 1 second to hide things (i.e. the crotch of their pants)?
Performing those actions that minorly inconvenience people without seriously offending them, while simultaneously not doing any of the things that would deter or catch actual security threats, is the very definition of Security Theater. "Oh, the guard scanned my shoes, I must be safe from shoe-bombers, thank you government for making me safe" only benefit, and that's only a benefit if you're a propagandist.
You seem to be hung up on the shoe thing way too much for something that takes absolutely no time or effort.
First, you apparently haven't traveled on a major travel day. People taking off and putting back on their shoes is a major cause of backups in front of and on the other side of security. Huge hassle? No, I suppose not. Worth it? Absolutely not! It's not just shoes, those are just a perfect example of something that is completely useless but we're expected to put up with because the government has to prove that it is Doing Something.
You seem to be hung up on making people do things that are quite clearly useless. You support security theater. The amount of inconvenience is irrelevent, because the in the cost/benefit equation the benefit is zero.
I never said I feel "safe" just safer... and i'm not saying alot safer either
Okay, that's fine, the part about "I'd rather be inconvenienced and safe then killed in an avoidable plane crash... " was just hyperbole, because you know that you aren't being made safe, and that none of this security theater would make a plane crash "avoidable".
The question is why do you feel any safer when you're forced to take off your shoes? That vector has only been attempted once, and any future terrorist is going to hide their explosives somewhere that isn't checked, an absolutely trivial exercise. Would you feel safer -- not a lot, but some -- if there was a switch on the side of the metal detector passengers could hit to disable it? I mean in theory a really half-assed terrorist wouldn't hit the button so they might be caught! Is that easy enough security to get around for you to not consider it a deterrent? Because that's what checking shoes is like.
I mean, you yourself thought of an attack vector that completely avoids 100% of the security currently in place, and I think we will both agree that you aren't very serious about planning and executing terrorist attacks, no? So you don't think even the shoe-bomber, clearly not the brightest match in the book, would if given another chance be able to think of a way through security? Even he could think "put the explosives on me, but not in my shoes".
life isn't safe...if I wanted to be safe i'd curl up in a ball in the corner of a bomb shelter somewhere
Exactly. So stop adding completely useless and unnecessary "safety" precautions to my life just so you can feel "safer... and i'm not saying alot safer either ". It doesn't actually help, we could all still be killed by a thousand things including but certainly not restricted to terrorists, so why would you even support something so superfluous?
basically it's only a minor inconvenience and you are all a bunch of whiners...
And you are perfectly willing to inflict inconvenience on me for no reason, because you're a scaredy-cat who thinks terrorists are going to release botulism on an airplane, and somehow thinks checking shoes makes you even the tiniest bit safer. You're happy to be inconvenienced for the Paper-Thin Illusion of Security that can quell your fear, even if only a little.
It's not the inconvenience. It's that it's pointless outside of convincing the gullible that Something Is Being Done. That is why I'm against it.
And, just like a large majority of the public, criminals and those who would do you harm are also half-assed, stupid and lazy.
Shall we not have passwords to access computers now by simple reasoning that hackers will always get what they desire?
But passwords do a good job of protecting computers -- they are usually compromised by social engineering. Bad example. If it were possible to get out of having to enter a password merely by holding down the shift key while pressing enter... that would be more like what our ludicrous screening does today.
And fyi, the 9/11 hijackers were not half-assed. No credible terrorist threat is half-assed, nobody who is actually going to smuggle explosives on a plane is half-assed. At least, not so half assed that they wouldn't think to put the explosives in their underpants if the screeners are only checking shoes.
Gee, I don't know because it's easier to scan a shoe than it is to do a full body cavity search? Don't know how you fail to grasp that concept.
Right, and at the same time it's at least as easy if not easier for a terrorist to stick the explosives in the crotch of their underwear. Thus making scanning shoes pointless. How do you fail to understand this?
In reality it is doing something, just check out the confiscation warehouses for further proof.
Yah, it's collecting a massive amount of pocket knives, nail clippers, shampoo bottles, baby formula, and other completely harmless things from completely harmless people. That's great "proof" of just how stupid the whole exercise is.
Screening procedures existed long before the threat of "terrorism"; just because you aren't old enough or don't understand that doesn't mean that doing so is useless or a facade.
Okay, if you aren't full of shit you'll remember this wonderful pre-check-in question from back in the day: "Are you a terrorist?" or words to that effect. "Yes- I mean no! No! Damn you, you caught me!" As if. Trying to keep a straight face while being asked that was always a strain. Screening procedures are not new, and they have always been mostly Security Theater. The only difference is that we've ramped up the scale of the production.
Not all of it is entirely worthless -- I'm all for screening baggage to prevent guns and large knives from entering the passenger cabin and screening bags checked and carry-on for explosives and what not. Taking off your shoes? That's pointless. That's security theater. That only makes you feel safe if all you care about is being made to feel safe, not the actuality of safety.
All in all, I'm more concerned about an intoxicated flyer or mentally unstable person getting into an argument and pulling a knife or a gun than terrorists -- which screening for weapons largely prevents.
Right, and that's the degree of scanning that I'm for. Put your bag on the scanner conveyor, walk through the metal detector, anything that goes boom or that goes stabby stab past a certain length (3" seemed like a good limit back in the day) is out. Take of your shoes? What's the point? You aren't checking anywhere else I could hide explosives. You might as well just ask if I'm planning on blowing anything up because it will be just as effective.
One gram of anthrax about 0.04 ounces, or the weight of two paper clips -- contains enough doses to kill 10 million people.
Uh, yah, math. Let's see 0.04 ounces can kill 10 million people, and a terrorist is going to release it on an airplane containing perhaps 200. That math makes a lot of sense.
Botulinum toxin is one of the most poisonous substances known. The lethal dose is one billionth of a gram per kilogram, meaning that breathing in 70 billionths of a gram would kill a person weighing 70 kilograms or 154 pounds. The toxin is fatal within three days to 80 percent of those exposed.
Okay, so the terrorist is going to expose everyone on the airplane, including themselves, killing everyone but leaving the plane in the air on auto pilot, having done only a fraction of the damage that opening the same bottle in an office building would do -- or in the airport terminal before even going through security. What a fantastic terrorist plot you've concocted!
Here's what's really funny: You imagine on the one hand that a terrorist will smuggle anthrax or botulism onto a plane, and on the other hand you imagine that making said terrorist take off their shoes will serve as a deterrent in any way, shape, or form. It won't! In fact, none of the security theater that you say is a necessary inconvenience would do anything to stop our 3oz-bottle-of-anthrax-carrying terrorist!
That's why you may as well worry about terrorists using dragons. There's as much connection between that and your imagination of the terrorist threat and the actual security procedures in place to stop it. Shoe removal deters dragon-wielding terrorists as well as anthrax-wielding terrorists, which is to say not at all. If you feel safe it's because useless security theater makes you feel safe.
Not sure where you were in the world, but in the USA and Canada discount-price tickets were NOT transferable prior to 9/11 either.
Of course they were transferable in the USA and presumably Canada, and I've done it myself. Here's how it worked: You bought a ticket. You decided you didn't want to go. Your friend said they would like to go if you aren't using your ticket. You hand the ticket to your friend. Your friend goes to the airport. He shows them the ticket. He gets on the plane. Easy-peasy.
Now there's a catch: you have to show your ID at the security checkpoint and it has to match the name on your ticket. What does this have to do with security? Nothing! But it does make a ticket worthless to anyone but the person it was originally for.
They might not have wanted you to transfer tickets before, but it was perfectly simple to do so and it wasn't even illegal. Now it is thanks to TSA.
Yah, because the dragon popping out of a bottle was in response to the OP "imagining" some terrible biological weapon in a 3 oz bottle.
And what kind of intruder does your fence deter? The most half-assed. Certainly not anyone who was intent on robbing you. What kind of terrorist does screening your shoe but not your underwear or asshole deter? The most half-assed. When do the terms "serious security threat" and "half-assed terrorist" intersect? Never. No half-assed terrorist who thinks to put explosives in their shoe but not in their underwear is going to try to blow up a plane. The threat, in as much as it exists, is more serious than that.
It's not a deterrent for shit. It is trivial to get around the security procedures for anyone who actually cares to. I mean, you're actually telling me that screening the soles of your shoes for explosives is a deterrent, when it's at least as easy to stuff C4 in the crotch of your pants? We're actually screening for the more difficult method of delivery, and this is supposed to deter the guy who apparently wasn't really serious about blowing up a plane?
No, it isn't a deterrent, it's an illusion. It appears to be doing something to increase your security, when in reality it is doing nothing. Our security today is like the fence around your house -- if only one side of the fence had been built. You could make the argument that meddlesome teenagers standing on that one side of the house would see the fence and not investigate further... And if that actually makes you feel better, then you are doing nothing but willingly participating in Security Theater.
Weird how tickets being transferable prior to 9/11 didn't cause any of the airlines to have to jack prices up. Prices were even cheaper then. The requirement for ID -- demonstrably useless against hijacking, remember all the 9/11 hijackers had valid ID and flew under their real names -- is just a way for the airlines to stop ticket transfers without them being seen as the bad guys. After all, it's for "security".
Overbooking at least makes financial sense, they're hedging against the possibility of last-minute cancellations leaving them with a less than full airplane. But ticket transfers effectively cost them nothing, and allowing them would not raise prices necessarily. It didn't before. It would merely deprive airlines of a newfound source of income. Though I agree very little will cause them to let go of said new income.
I'd rather be inconvenienced and safe then killed in an avoidable plane crash...
And never question how one is necessary to prevent the other. Because if they didn't take that Boy Scout's 2 inch pocket knife, you would have certainly been stabbed to death before your plane was used in another 9/11!
the 3 oz thing... well it doesn't have to be a bomb.. I imagine a 3 oz container of some sort of chemical or biological substance could do some serious damage.
Yeah, or what looked like simple saline solution could pop out of the bottle and turn into a fucking dragon and eat everyone on board the plane! I mean, we are dealing with your paranoid imagination here so why not go whole-hog?
one thing I will admit however the shoe things sucks... it's needed but it could be done a little more polite as brought up by "mi" earlier it would be great if they'd just give you disposable shoes so you're not standing their bare foot or
I don't give a crap about the sanitation, though the possibility of picking up athlete's foot from somebody else's sweaty socks is probably the greatest danger to me in air travel these days. It's the humiliation of having to take off my shoes and shuffle like a convict through the line.
But here's a hint about how "needed" this little bit of security theater is: The same amount of explosives will fit in the sole of a shoe as will fit in the crotch of underwear. So when you took your shoes off to be screened, thus making you feel safe, did they also grope your crotch? And do you want them to start groping your crotch? Maybe shoving a finger up your ass; the human colon could fit as much C4 as the sole of a shoe. Do you want them to start doing that? If not, then you are admittedly sacrificing safety for the "convenience" of personal dignity. And furthermore, this means that the current inconvenience of having to take off your shoes is not making you safe.
Your bargain is a false one. You've let yourself be inconvenienced for nothing more than the paltry illusion of safety, and like most illusions it only works if the viewer believes and doesn't question.
They have setbacks and failures, but that doesn't make them stupid.
Look, I'm not running down the whole list that I've already given a good sample of, but we're way beyond "setbacks and failures". Every single aspect of Rumsfeld's policy was a failure. Every single failure was predicted in advance by experts, generals, intelligence agencies, and they were all brushed off by the Defense Dept.
And I've read the PNAC manifesto, and yes the most accurate way to describe it is "Project for American Hegemony". Again, there is not a single agenda there explicit or implied that isn't served much better by having the war go well. In fact the whole exercise is now going down in flames because the American people are no longer willing to give them a free hand to test out their theories. We might be in Iraq for some time yet, but PNAC called for a whole series of invasions to restructure the middle east, and that's certainly not happening now. Once we leave Iraq, the defense dept. spending spree will be over. That's not a setback, that's complete and utter failure, and it's a direct result of Rumsfeld's incompetence.
I thought you were going to tell me how what looked like failure actually wasn't, because this failure somehow fit in with their nefarious plans. But all you're telling me is what I already knew, and there's no way they are better served by incompetent strategy than a competent one. That means these aren't successes disguised as failures. They aren't intentional "screw-ups" that are actually part of a sophisticated strategy. No, they are what they are: Incompetent failures caused by deliberate ignorance. They're idiots, they can't strategize for crap, and the whole neocon experiment is a failure because they aren't smart enough to execute it.
You think he has failed? Then you do not see what he had set out to do.
He failed to re-create military doctrine at the very least. The only stamp he's going to leave on the U.S. military is a sound example of what not to do.
As far as the goals of the Iraq war, I have quite a few opinions as to what they're up to that don't require believing their lies (seriously, you think i believe their lies after these posts?!) and none of them are improved by incompetent military planning. What do you think his motive is such that sucking at making war is good for his goals? You already implied it was unending war, and no, unending war is MUCH easier to pull off when you fight it well. This "infinite war" is going to be cut short as a direct result of how badly Rumsfeld and the rest of the neocons have sucked at waging it. If he was waging it well we'd be happy to be having this war and ready and willing to engage in another. So no go there.
If there's an angle I haven't considered, please let it be known. As it is, the "they're so crafty they just seem stupid" theory is on thin ice.
As an avid SimCity 2000 player, I know that constructing large microwave dishes that receive concentrated ion beams from satellites is the best way to harvest solar energy from space. For more on ion beam satellites -- and their military uses against shadowy quasi-nationstates led by enigmatic bald men - I refer you to Command&Conquer.
What about using them against shadowy quasi-nationstates led by men with mullets? That's really the more immediate need for me right now.
No, he's ruthless and stupid. I don't know how close attention you payed to the initial invasion, but I saw when Rumsfeld's brand new military strategy of light and fast attacks failed spectacularly because our supply lines got drawn out and our flanks attacked so we had to stall to regroup. Because Rumsfeld scrapped the army logistics manual so that he could micro-manage every little detail we also weren't able to get the supplies our troops needed in a timely fashion. And this was just in the first two weeks of the war! Rumsfeld's only actual military experience is in naval aviation -- why he or anyone else would think that qualifies him to completely re-write over a hundred years of U.S. military strategy overnight is beyond me, but the test was issued, and he failed. Spectacularly.
They were going to make sure ammo was needed in great quantities for years to come regardless, because in their original plan Iraq was just the first stepping stone to re-shaping the middle east to fit their ideals. Iran and Syria were both clearly on the chopping block back when Bush was triumphantly declaring "Mission Accomplished". They certainly weren't planning on stopping the warfare even if that had turned out to be true!
Again, even their actual goals would be served better by competent military management. They simply are incapable of executing, because they are idiots.
Carl Rove is a political genius. He knows how to play the Washington game like no other. In their own ways, I think all the rest of them are fairly talented political operators. The problem is that they lacked the savvy to realize that they were not geniuses when it came to matters of foreign relations, military strategy, and counter terrorism, and should therefore listen to the advice of those who are.
How the hell is it Cheney's fault if the Iraqis refuse to live peacefully together rather than blowing each other up?
Because only Cheney and his idiot crew didn't realize that this is exactly what would happen? Because they ignored every expert and general who told them that they needed to adjust their strategy to account for the reality? Because they actually believed their own crap about being "welcomed with roses"? Because they didn't even start to address the insurgency, even admit it existed, until it was in full swing? Because their lack of a plan for maintaining order once Saddam was ousted resulted in months of pure chaos? Because their decision -- driven by advice from Chalabi, an Iranian spy -- to disband the Iraqi army resulted in hundreds of thousands of young, armed, Iraqi men to suddenly become unemployed, resulting in an upswing in the insurgency, exactly like all the experts said would happen and the Bush administration denied. Every failure in Iraq was predicted in advance by people who know what they're talking about, and every time the Admin said "no they're wrong it won't happen that way". Turns out they were wrong because they know nothing, and the experts were right because they know something. Weird how that works.
I'm not blaming them for the actions of al Qaeda or Iran or the insurgents or the militia death squads. I am blaming them for their own mistakes which are multitudinous. I'm blaming them for not listening to good advice. I'm blaming them for being so ignorant and blind that they thought they could waltz into Iraq, kick Saddam to the curb, and turn the place into Minnesota overnight without having so much as a plan for doing so! Nobody who knew anything about Iraq thought that would work, and these guys not only didn't know anything about Iraq, they deliberately avoided learning!
If they didn't want to take responsibility for "middle-eastern muslim infighting" then they should have stayed the fuck out of a middle eastern country. If they won't do that, then they have to deal with that reality in a realistic way, and they completely failed to do so.
Realistically, as in "what they're doing in reality", the Navy is designing these weapons to fire at targets as far as 250 miles away. Even at 8000 ft/s out of the barrel, that's a travel time of several minutes, and it's going to be a very steep arc. Mountains will not be a problem, unless the target is on the far slope of the mountain itself. They are absolutely not line-of-sight and while they will be very effective at short ranges that is not the extent of the Navy's goals.
They will still keep their cruise missile destroyers and subs, since cruise missiles will still be useful. But we could very well see the battleship return as a major form of naval warship.
How do you figure a rail gun projectile has no ballistic arc?! Even at the speeds the projectile travels, it will still take several minutes to reach a target at the maximum range of around 250 miles, meaning several minutes of gravitational acceleration. Rail guns will have to have their trajectory calculated accounting for this much like every other artillery shell or ballistic missile, and will be just fine for shooting over mountains at deep inland targets. Put a limited guidance system on board to correct the path during the descent, and you have a cheap, effective replacement for the cruise missile in those ranges.
Firing artillery from 100km back is exactly how they'll use it. Just like during the prime of big naval artillery they would fire at targets that were 20 miles inland. Now it'll go farther, travel faster, do more damage per pound of ordinance, and be more precise as well.
Railguns, like traditional naval artillery, are not line-of-sight. Believe me, the path to the target 250 miles away is a steep arc just like any other ballistic trajectory and will easily pass over mountains.
Rail guns will most likely replace the heavier short-range cruise missiles in most situations, while the longer range missiles which can travel over 1000km will still be used.
If, as the post I first replied to implied, you don't think there's any significant difference between Bush's degree of ideological blindness and the people who came before him back thirty years, then no, you aren't being objective.
"Elect X to get rid of Y" is the foundation of democracy, btw. If someone fucks up, you vote them out. The fact that our only choices are "X" and "Y", and there's no A-W or Z, is a huge problem with our democracy. It does not mean that looking at one guy, saying "He sucks, anyone would be better" is inherently unobjective, nor does that mean that refusing to see any differences is objective. In reality, there are huge differences between people. The last seven years, which I started not seeing any difference between Bush and Gore, have proven that amply.
That's what scares me about your thinking -- the refusal to distinguish in the name of "objectivity".
I don't think everybody else is an idiot. I think Donald Rumsfeld is an idiot because he didn't think we'd need to have an actual PLAN for the occupation. And at no point after, no matter how many times his ideas failed, had he shown any more willingness to listen to people who knew strategy better than he. If you don't think that's stupid, then you're an idiot too.
Everyone else? They're probably pretty smart in general. I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt until the prove otherwise. This administration has proven they are idiots.
No, you missed the point, largely due to selective quoting. The full relavent quote:
"If you don't realize that Bush's administration is running on pure ideology and letting not a single fact get in their way, you're just not paying attention. If you care about what party they are in, then you're a partisan stooge. If you don't care, you're just ignorant."
The last two sentences are qualifiers on the first. I'm condemning him for not realizing Bush is running on ideology in a way previous presidents were not. "if you care/if you don't care" were about the CAUSE of that lack of realization -- ignorance or political affiliation -- and are not what I was damning him for.
I mean, I hoped it was freaking obvious that I would not condemn someone for not caring what party someone is in OUTSIDE of the context of acting like Bush's behavior was normal.
I could go on with a billion examples of politicians ignoring reality -- including Reagan, who I gave good marks to -- but you'd be hard pressed to find them so concentrated in one President who so consistently ignores competent advice because it clashes with his beliefs. The closest I could say would be Grant. Bush is certainly the worst in recent history in this regard.
"Open mind" does not mean "all things are equal". That's an ideological viewpoint that ignores reality. History doesn't repeat, it rhymes. It might be easy to say "Bush is not unique" and of course when you put it in absolute terms like that it's true, but that's also meaningless because nevertheless his actions stand out as an outlier, and history shows that quite clearly.
Yah, that's a good point, the rail gun systems under development will only have a range of around 250 nautical miles. So for range, cruise missiles will still have a role. For "near"-shore operations, the rail guns will rule the roost.
Missiles will also be the obvious choice for submarines and smaller ships. Our cruise missile destroyers will most likely not go away.
Fell into what? The fact that if you don't recognize Bush's ideology-driven nature, and if it isn't because you're a partisan stooge, then it's because you just haven't been paying attention?
I know I put it into three separate sentences, but it still shouldn't be that hard to understand the one complete thought.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah.. I understand. Sorry, by transferable I thought you meant "change the name on the ticket in the airline computers."
:)
:)
Yeah, I don't think they've ever let you do that. They just had no practical way to enforce the rule. Now they can, in the name of "security".
I always figured doing this made it easier to identify the bodies
You know, that's got to be the best explanation I've heard.
Then why did you state so previously using the form of rhetoric you did?
You simply failed to understand the context of my statements, surprising because I was referring to specific practices implemented by TSA, which is what this slashdot article is about. If you can find in my posts where I said that all security screening or procedures are useless, feel free.
Hardly. Looking at it from the perspective that you also have to remove your coat, hat and generally anything from your pocets, it makes sense.
Sorry, that makes no sense. Because it's an article of clothing? So are pants. Because it has pockets? Uh, no, unless they're 'roos. Because people normally take them off in buildings? No, only in their homes, unlike hats and coats. Really. It makes no sense. and it's useless to boot. There's no point to doing it, so why should we have to do it?
"You aren't checking anywhere else I could hide explosives."
No, just the obvious places that passengers wouldn't b*tch about (i.e. cavity searches).
You mean just the obvious places that terrorists wouldn't hesitate for 1 second to hide things (i.e. the crotch of their pants)?
Performing those actions that minorly inconvenience people without seriously offending them, while simultaneously not doing any of the things that would deter or catch actual security threats, is the very definition of Security Theater. "Oh, the guard scanned my shoes, I must be safe from shoe-bombers, thank you government for making me safe" only benefit, and that's only a benefit if you're a propagandist.
You seem to be hung up on the shoe thing way too much for something that takes absolutely no time or effort.
First, you apparently haven't traveled on a major travel day. People taking off and putting back on their shoes is a major cause of backups in front of and on the other side of security. Huge hassle? No, I suppose not. Worth it? Absolutely not! It's not just shoes, those are just a perfect example of something that is completely useless but we're expected to put up with because the government has to prove that it is Doing Something.
You seem to be hung up on making people do things that are quite clearly useless. You support security theater. The amount of inconvenience is irrelevent, because the in the cost/benefit equation the benefit is zero.
I never said I feel "safe" just safer... and i'm not saying alot safer either
Okay, that's fine, the part about "I'd rather be inconvenienced and safe then killed in an avoidable plane crash... " was just hyperbole, because you know that you aren't being made safe, and that none of this security theater would make a plane crash "avoidable".
The question is why do you feel any safer when you're forced to take off your shoes? That vector has only been attempted once, and any future terrorist is going to hide their explosives somewhere that isn't checked, an absolutely trivial exercise. Would you feel safer -- not a lot, but some -- if there was a switch on the side of the metal detector passengers could hit to disable it? I mean in theory a really half-assed terrorist wouldn't hit the button so they might be caught! Is that easy enough security to get around for you to not consider it a deterrent? Because that's what checking shoes is like.
I mean, you yourself thought of an attack vector that completely avoids 100% of the security currently in place, and I think we will both agree that you aren't very serious about planning and executing terrorist attacks, no? So you don't think even the shoe-bomber, clearly not the brightest match in the book, would if given another chance be able to think of a way through security? Even he could think "put the explosives on me, but not in my shoes".
life isn't safe...if I wanted to be safe i'd curl up in a ball in the corner of a bomb shelter somewhere
Exactly. So stop adding completely useless and unnecessary "safety" precautions to my life just so you can feel "safer... and i'm not saying alot safer either ". It doesn't actually help, we could all still be killed by a thousand things including but certainly not restricted to terrorists, so why would you even support something so superfluous?
basically it's only a minor inconvenience and you are all a bunch of whiners...
And you are perfectly willing to inflict inconvenience on me for no reason, because you're a scaredy-cat who thinks terrorists are going to release botulism on an airplane, and somehow thinks checking shoes makes you even the tiniest bit safer. You're happy to be inconvenienced for the Paper-Thin Illusion of Security that can quell your fear, even if only a little.
It's not the inconvenience. It's that it's pointless outside of convincing the gullible that Something Is Being Done. That is why I'm against it.
And, just like a large majority of the public, criminals and those who would do you harm are also half-assed, stupid and lazy.
Shall we not have passwords to access computers now by simple reasoning that hackers will always get what they desire?
But passwords do a good job of protecting computers -- they are usually compromised by social engineering. Bad example. If it were possible to get out of having to enter a password merely by holding down the shift key while pressing enter... that would be more like what our ludicrous screening does today.
And fyi, the 9/11 hijackers were not half-assed. No credible terrorist threat is half-assed, nobody who is actually going to smuggle explosives on a plane is half-assed. At least, not so half assed that they wouldn't think to put the explosives in their underpants if the screeners are only checking shoes.
Gee, I don't know because it's easier to scan a shoe than it is to do a full body cavity search? Don't know how you fail to grasp that concept.
Right, and at the same time it's at least as easy if not easier for a terrorist to stick the explosives in the crotch of their underwear. Thus making scanning shoes pointless. How do you fail to understand this?
In reality it is doing something, just check out the confiscation warehouses for further proof.
Yah, it's collecting a massive amount of pocket knives, nail clippers, shampoo bottles, baby formula, and other completely harmless things from completely harmless people. That's great "proof" of just how stupid the whole exercise is.
Screening procedures existed long before the threat of "terrorism"; just because you aren't old enough or don't understand that doesn't mean that doing so is useless or a facade.
Okay, if you aren't full of shit you'll remember this wonderful pre-check-in question from back in the day: "Are you a terrorist?" or words to that effect. "Yes- I mean no! No! Damn you, you caught me!" As if. Trying to keep a straight face while being asked that was always a strain. Screening procedures are not new, and they have always been mostly Security Theater. The only difference is that we've ramped up the scale of the production.
Not all of it is entirely worthless -- I'm all for screening baggage to prevent guns and large knives from entering the passenger cabin and screening bags checked and carry-on for explosives and what not. Taking off your shoes? That's pointless. That's security theater. That only makes you feel safe if all you care about is being made to feel safe, not the actuality of safety.
All in all, I'm more concerned about an intoxicated flyer or mentally unstable person getting into an argument and pulling a knife or a gun than terrorists -- which screening for weapons largely prevents.
Right, and that's the degree of scanning that I'm for. Put your bag on the scanner conveyor, walk through the metal detector, anything that goes boom or that goes stabby stab past a certain length (3" seemed like a good limit back in the day) is out. Take of your shoes? What's the point? You aren't checking anywhere else I could hide explosives. You might as well just ask if I'm planning on blowing anything up because it will be just as effective.
You do the math...
One gram of anthrax about 0.04 ounces, or the weight of two paper clips -- contains enough doses to kill 10 million people.
Uh, yah, math. Let's see 0.04 ounces can kill 10 million people, and a terrorist is going to release it on an airplane containing perhaps 200. That math makes a lot of sense.
Botulinum toxin is one of the most poisonous substances known. The lethal dose is one billionth of a gram per kilogram, meaning that breathing in 70 billionths of a gram would kill a person weighing 70 kilograms or 154 pounds. The toxin is fatal within three days to 80 percent of those exposed.
Okay, so the terrorist is going to expose everyone on the airplane, including themselves, killing everyone but leaving the plane in the air on auto pilot, having done only a fraction of the damage that opening the same bottle in an office building would do -- or in the airport terminal before even going through security. What a fantastic terrorist plot you've concocted!
Here's what's really funny: You imagine on the one hand that a terrorist will smuggle anthrax or botulism onto a plane, and on the other hand you imagine that making said terrorist take off their shoes will serve as a deterrent in any way, shape, or form. It won't! In fact, none of the security theater that you say is a necessary inconvenience would do anything to stop our 3oz-bottle-of-anthrax-carrying terrorist!
That's why you may as well worry about terrorists using dragons. There's as much connection between that and your imagination of the terrorist threat and the actual security procedures in place to stop it. Shoe removal deters dragon-wielding terrorists as well as anthrax-wielding terrorists, which is to say not at all. If you feel safe it's because useless security theater makes you feel safe.
Not sure where you were in the world, but in the USA and Canada discount-price tickets were NOT transferable prior to 9/11 either.
Of course they were transferable in the USA and presumably Canada, and I've done it myself. Here's how it worked: You bought a ticket. You decided you didn't want to go. Your friend said they would like to go if you aren't using your ticket. You hand the ticket to your friend. Your friend goes to the airport. He shows them the ticket. He gets on the plane. Easy-peasy.
Now there's a catch: you have to show your ID at the security checkpoint and it has to match the name on your ticket. What does this have to do with security? Nothing! But it does make a ticket worthless to anyone but the person it was originally for.
They might not have wanted you to transfer tickets before, but it was perfectly simple to do so and it wasn't even illegal. Now it is thanks to TSA.
Yah, because the dragon popping out of a bottle was in response to the OP "imagining" some terrible biological weapon in a 3 oz bottle.
And what kind of intruder does your fence deter? The most half-assed. Certainly not anyone who was intent on robbing you. What kind of terrorist does screening your shoe but not your underwear or asshole deter? The most half-assed. When do the terms "serious security threat" and "half-assed terrorist" intersect? Never. No half-assed terrorist who thinks to put explosives in their shoe but not in their underwear is going to try to blow up a plane. The threat, in as much as it exists, is more serious than that.
It's not a deterrent for shit. It is trivial to get around the security procedures for anyone who actually cares to. I mean, you're actually telling me that screening the soles of your shoes for explosives is a deterrent, when it's at least as easy to stuff C4 in the crotch of your pants? We're actually screening for the more difficult method of delivery, and this is supposed to deter the guy who apparently wasn't really serious about blowing up a plane?
No, it isn't a deterrent, it's an illusion. It appears to be doing something to increase your security, when in reality it is doing nothing. Our security today is like the fence around your house -- if only one side of the fence had been built. You could make the argument that meddlesome teenagers standing on that one side of the house would see the fence and not investigate further... And if that actually makes you feel better, then you are doing nothing but willingly participating in Security Theater.
Weird how tickets being transferable prior to 9/11 didn't cause any of the airlines to have to jack prices up. Prices were even cheaper then. The requirement for ID -- demonstrably useless against hijacking, remember all the 9/11 hijackers had valid ID and flew under their real names -- is just a way for the airlines to stop ticket transfers without them being seen as the bad guys. After all, it's for "security".
Overbooking at least makes financial sense, they're hedging against the possibility of last-minute cancellations leaving them with a less than full airplane. But ticket transfers effectively cost them nothing, and allowing them would not raise prices necessarily. It didn't before. It would merely deprive airlines of a newfound source of income. Though I agree very little will cause them to let go of said new income.
I'd rather be inconvenienced and safe then killed in an avoidable plane crash...
And never question how one is necessary to prevent the other. Because if they didn't take that Boy Scout's 2 inch pocket knife, you would have certainly been stabbed to death before your plane was used in another 9/11!
the 3 oz thing... well it doesn't have to be a bomb.. I imagine a 3 oz container of some sort of chemical or biological substance could do some serious damage.
Yeah, or what looked like simple saline solution could pop out of the bottle and turn into a fucking dragon and eat everyone on board the plane! I mean, we are dealing with your paranoid imagination here so why not go whole-hog?
one thing I will admit however the shoe things sucks... it's needed but it could be done a little more polite as brought up by "mi" earlier it would be great if they'd just give you disposable shoes so you're not standing their bare foot or
I don't give a crap about the sanitation, though the possibility of picking up athlete's foot from somebody else's sweaty socks is probably the greatest danger to me in air travel these days. It's the humiliation of having to take off my shoes and shuffle like a convict through the line.
But here's a hint about how "needed" this little bit of security theater is: The same amount of explosives will fit in the sole of a shoe as will fit in the crotch of underwear. So when you took your shoes off to be screened, thus making you feel safe, did they also grope your crotch? And do you want them to start groping your crotch? Maybe shoving a finger up your ass; the human colon could fit as much C4 as the sole of a shoe. Do you want them to start doing that? If not, then you are admittedly sacrificing safety for the "convenience" of personal dignity. And furthermore, this means that the current inconvenience of having to take off your shoes is not making you safe.
Your bargain is a false one. You've let yourself be inconvenienced for nothing more than the paltry illusion of safety, and like most illusions it only works if the viewer believes and doesn't question.
They have setbacks and failures, but that doesn't make them stupid.
Look, I'm not running down the whole list that I've already given a good sample of, but we're way beyond "setbacks and failures". Every single aspect of Rumsfeld's policy was a failure. Every single failure was predicted in advance by experts, generals, intelligence agencies, and they were all brushed off by the Defense Dept.
And I've read the PNAC manifesto, and yes the most accurate way to describe it is "Project for American Hegemony". Again, there is not a single agenda there explicit or implied that isn't served much better by having the war go well. In fact the whole exercise is now going down in flames because the American people are no longer willing to give them a free hand to test out their theories. We might be in Iraq for some time yet, but PNAC called for a whole series of invasions to restructure the middle east, and that's certainly not happening now. Once we leave Iraq, the defense dept. spending spree will be over. That's not a setback, that's complete and utter failure, and it's a direct result of Rumsfeld's incompetence.
I thought you were going to tell me how what looked like failure actually wasn't, because this failure somehow fit in with their nefarious plans. But all you're telling me is what I already knew, and there's no way they are better served by incompetent strategy than a competent one. That means these aren't successes disguised as failures. They aren't intentional "screw-ups" that are actually part of a sophisticated strategy. No, they are what they are: Incompetent failures caused by deliberate ignorance. They're idiots, they can't strategize for crap, and the whole neocon experiment is a failure because they aren't smart enough to execute it.
You think he has failed?
Then you do not see what he had set out to do.
He failed to re-create military doctrine at the very least. The only stamp he's going to leave on the U.S. military is a sound example of what not to do.
As far as the goals of the Iraq war, I have quite a few opinions as to what they're up to that don't require believing their lies (seriously, you think i believe their lies after these posts?!) and none of them are improved by incompetent military planning. What do you think his motive is such that sucking at making war is good for his goals? You already implied it was unending war, and no, unending war is MUCH easier to pull off when you fight it well. This "infinite war" is going to be cut short as a direct result of how badly Rumsfeld and the rest of the neocons have sucked at waging it. If he was waging it well we'd be happy to be having this war and ready and willing to engage in another. So no go there.
If there's an angle I haven't considered, please let it be known. As it is, the "they're so crafty they just seem stupid" theory is on thin ice.
As an avid SimCity 2000 player, I know that constructing large microwave dishes that receive concentrated ion beams from satellites is the best way to harvest solar energy from space. For more on ion beam satellites -- and their military uses against shadowy quasi-nationstates led by enigmatic bald men - I refer you to Command&Conquer.
What about using them against shadowy quasi-nationstates led by men with mullets? That's really the more immediate need for me right now.
Damnit, that asterisk was supposed to have tags so that Slashdotters couldn't read it!
No, he's ruthless and stupid. I don't know how close attention you payed to the initial invasion, but I saw when Rumsfeld's brand new military strategy of light and fast attacks failed spectacularly because our supply lines got drawn out and our flanks attacked so we had to stall to regroup. Because Rumsfeld scrapped the army logistics manual so that he could micro-manage every little detail we also weren't able to get the supplies our troops needed in a timely fashion. And this was just in the first two weeks of the war! Rumsfeld's only actual military experience is in naval aviation -- why he or anyone else would think that qualifies him to completely re-write over a hundred years of U.S. military strategy overnight is beyond me, but the test was issued, and he failed. Spectacularly.
They were going to make sure ammo was needed in great quantities for years to come regardless, because in their original plan Iraq was just the first stepping stone to re-shaping the middle east to fit their ideals. Iran and Syria were both clearly on the chopping block back when Bush was triumphantly declaring "Mission Accomplished". They certainly weren't planning on stopping the warfare even if that had turned out to be true!
Again, even their actual goals would be served better by competent military management. They simply are incapable of executing, because they are idiots.
Carl Rove is a political genius. He knows how to play the Washington game like no other. In their own ways, I think all the rest of them are fairly talented political operators. The problem is that they lacked the savvy to realize that they were not geniuses when it came to matters of foreign relations, military strategy, and counter terrorism, and should therefore listen to the advice of those who are.
How the hell is it Cheney's fault if the Iraqis refuse to live peacefully together rather than blowing each other up?
Because only Cheney and his idiot crew didn't realize that this is exactly what would happen? Because they ignored every expert and general who told them that they needed to adjust their strategy to account for the reality? Because they actually believed their own crap about being "welcomed with roses"? Because they didn't even start to address the insurgency, even admit it existed, until it was in full swing? Because their lack of a plan for maintaining order once Saddam was ousted resulted in months of pure chaos? Because their decision -- driven by advice from Chalabi, an Iranian spy -- to disband the Iraqi army resulted in hundreds of thousands of young, armed, Iraqi men to suddenly become unemployed, resulting in an upswing in the insurgency, exactly like all the experts said would happen and the Bush administration denied. Every failure in Iraq was predicted in advance by people who know what they're talking about, and every time the Admin said "no they're wrong it won't happen that way". Turns out they were wrong because they know nothing, and the experts were right because they know something. Weird how that works.
I'm not blaming them for the actions of al Qaeda or Iran or the insurgents or the militia death squads. I am blaming them for their own mistakes which are multitudinous. I'm blaming them for not listening to good advice. I'm blaming them for being so ignorant and blind that they thought they could waltz into Iraq, kick Saddam to the curb, and turn the place into Minnesota overnight without having so much as a plan for doing so! Nobody who knew anything about Iraq thought that would work, and these guys not only didn't know anything about Iraq, they deliberately avoided learning!
If they didn't want to take responsibility for "middle-eastern muslim infighting" then they should have stayed the fuck out of a middle eastern country. If they won't do that, then they have to deal with that reality in a realistic way, and they completely failed to do so.
Realistically, as in "what they're doing in reality", the Navy is designing these weapons to fire at targets as far as 250 miles away. Even at 8000 ft/s out of the barrel, that's a travel time of several minutes, and it's going to be a very steep arc. Mountains will not be a problem, unless the target is on the far slope of the mountain itself. They are absolutely not line-of-sight and while they will be very effective at short ranges that is not the extent of the Navy's goals.
They will still keep their cruise missile destroyers and subs, since cruise missiles will still be useful. But we could very well see the battleship return as a major form of naval warship.
How do you figure a rail gun projectile has no ballistic arc?! Even at the speeds the projectile travels, it will still take several minutes to reach a target at the maximum range of around 250 miles, meaning several minutes of gravitational acceleration. Rail guns will have to have their trajectory calculated accounting for this much like every other artillery shell or ballistic missile, and will be just fine for shooting over mountains at deep inland targets. Put a limited guidance system on board to correct the path during the descent, and you have a cheap, effective replacement for the cruise missile in those ranges.
Firing artillery from 100km back is exactly how they'll use it. Just like during the prime of big naval artillery they would fire at targets that were 20 miles inland. Now it'll go farther, travel faster, do more damage per pound of ordinance, and be more precise as well.
Railguns, like traditional naval artillery, are not line-of-sight. Believe me, the path to the target 250 miles away is a steep arc just like any other ballistic trajectory and will easily pass over mountains.
Rail guns will most likely replace the heavier short-range cruise missiles in most situations, while the longer range missiles which can travel over 1000km will still be used.
If, as the post I first replied to implied, you don't think there's any significant difference between Bush's degree of ideological blindness and the people who came before him back thirty years, then no, you aren't being objective.
"Elect X to get rid of Y" is the foundation of democracy, btw. If someone fucks up, you vote them out. The fact that our only choices are "X" and "Y", and there's no A-W or Z, is a huge problem with our democracy. It does not mean that looking at one guy, saying "He sucks, anyone would be better" is inherently unobjective, nor does that mean that refusing to see any differences is objective. In reality, there are huge differences between people. The last seven years, which I started not seeing any difference between Bush and Gore, have proven that amply.
That's what scares me about your thinking -- the refusal to distinguish in the name of "objectivity".
I don't think everybody else is an idiot. I think Donald Rumsfeld is an idiot because he didn't think we'd need to have an actual PLAN for the occupation. And at no point after, no matter how many times his ideas failed, had he shown any more willingness to listen to people who knew strategy better than he. If you don't think that's stupid, then you're an idiot too.
Everyone else? They're probably pretty smart in general. I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt until the prove otherwise. This administration has proven they are idiots.
No, you missed the point, largely due to selective quoting. The full relavent quote:
"If you don't realize that Bush's administration is running on pure ideology and letting not a single fact get in their way, you're just not paying attention. If you care about what party they are in, then you're a partisan stooge. If you don't care, you're just ignorant."
The last two sentences are qualifiers on the first. I'm condemning him for not realizing Bush is running on ideology in a way previous presidents were not. "if you care/if you don't care" were about the CAUSE of that lack of realization -- ignorance or political affiliation -- and are not what I was damning him for.
I mean, I hoped it was freaking obvious that I would not condemn someone for not caring what party someone is in OUTSIDE of the context of acting like Bush's behavior was normal.
I could go on with a billion examples of politicians ignoring reality -- including Reagan, who I gave good marks to -- but you'd be hard pressed to find them so concentrated in one President who so consistently ignores competent advice because it clashes with his beliefs. The closest I could say would be Grant. Bush is certainly the worst in recent history in this regard.
"Open mind" does not mean "all things are equal". That's an ideological viewpoint that ignores reality. History doesn't repeat, it rhymes. It might be easy to say "Bush is not unique" and of course when you put it in absolute terms like that it's true, but that's also meaningless because nevertheless his actions stand out as an outlier, and history shows that quite clearly.
Yah, that's a good point, the rail gun systems under development will only have a range of around 250 nautical miles. So for range, cruise missiles will still have a role. For "near"-shore operations, the rail guns will rule the roost.
Missiles will also be the obvious choice for submarines and smaller ships. Our cruise missile destroyers will most likely not go away.
Fell into what? The fact that if you don't recognize Bush's ideology-driven nature, and if it isn't because you're a partisan stooge, then it's because you just haven't been paying attention?
I know I put it into three separate sentences, but it still shouldn't be that hard to understand the one complete thought.