Not to mention the sites that display what others supposedly searched for when they hit the page, nothing like finding that the only relation the page has to your query is unrelated spam.
You'd have to convince people to understand what is going on to some extent (and I include webmasters here, what is a customer expected to do if the bank can't set up a proper chain from the root cert, I've gotten their fingerprint of the phone and manually fetched the authorities chain that was supposed to be handled by the bank). Furthermore you'd have to convince bussinesses to stop outsourcing web-services the lazy way, if customers are used to being redirected to various third party domains if they want to change email subscription settings or whatever, then phishers don't just need to put up enough smokescreen to get people from paypal.com (actually auto-resolved to paypal.example.com) to paypal.customerverification.com (say, in case we have half clueful customers: "if you are getting a digital signature error, your digital signature needs to be reauthenticated, please go to our customer verification page [link]"), surprise, the new page doesn't throw any cert mismatches. Having good crypto and a DNS system that doesn't confuse poeple is better than just having good crypto.
There's probably a lot of good lawyers out there, but "Lawyer fairly represents client, achieves reasonable result" is not exactly headline material nor memorable in case we hear about it anyway. Cue huge amounts of selection and confirmation bias.
Good luck with the strawmen, don't hurt yourself. If you want to get back on just how much markets care about what people enjoy, as opposed to what people will accept though...
None of the above is often one of your choices, but for most people it's not feasible to opt out of the market. How is not flying any different if you are avoiding private screeners? Oh, of course, its all about money in the end... Silly me, I thought we were talking about the process and how it might or might not change. You can continue to the tax rants without me then.
Government decisions are imposed on people by people elected by people. Market decisions are the result of choices made by customers, businesses as well as market conditions. But if you like oversimplification... the market is two wolves paying a starving sheep for it's hind leg. There, a nice oversimplified reversal of another over simplification. I won't even defend it, so please feel free to take it apart instead of discussing how little any individual customer affects the marketplace.
Except that people do pick their airports, at least as far as the originating one for their trip (that is the one at the end of the trip closest to their home).
Yes, we are in agreement that there is some choice in airports, particularly departure and arrival. I had a whole paragraph there.
The heart of our disagreement is that I am quite confident that the fastest and cheapest security that would satisfy the loudest and most influential voices will not be as invasive as the current system.
No, the heart of our disagreement is whether or not some things should be decided by the market at all. I don't know enough of the factors and lack a crystal ball to have any strong opinion of how it would actually turn out, I just don't want to be subject to an essentially non-disputable decision on something like this. Changing government decisions is hard, changing market conditions can be impossible.
How did squishy bread win out? Some people undoubtedly love it, but the price is likely to have been a significant factor.
How did unripe tomatoes win out. Some people undoubtedly don't know a ripe tomato from a hard, red round ball, but the difficulty of transporting/stocking ripe tomatoes is likely to have been a significant factor.
As for overbearing security, the first thing to remember is that, the market is going to be small. There's really no way it can work out logistically other than per airport or possibly per airline basis. So very unlikely to have more providers than airports, likely a lot less.
Next is the fact that people don't really pick their airports, the basics are determined by where you are coming from and where you are going to. There might be some choice on either end, it might even be a situation where all other things are more or less equal. So the people with lots of airports around them are more likely to have a hassle free option as their first step, but that only goes so far. Once you hit hubs though it gets a lot murkier, airlines tend to take the same routes over and over, so your choice is essentially restricted to a few per airline. Price is likely to play a big part here, at the end of the day many people need to get places more than they value a scanner-free experience.
Let's talk about transparency. Different people find different things acceptable or not, if there indeed happens to be a lot of difference between airports how easy will it be to figure out what to expect? Will airports prominently advertise their invasiveness? Or will they appeal to people looking for security assurances and obscure the actual procedures behind blanket disclaimers? Will some big airports have several screening providers with differing policies? Most importantly, how do you easily figure that out ahead of time?
Add a few moral panics, hassle free lanes for higher paying passengers and it's not that hard to imagine how the security for your average passenger could become a lot like their flight. It's not exactly comfortable, certainly not something you're looking forward to, but it's a fast, affordable way to get to point B.
In short if the fastest and cheapest security that satisfies the loudest and most influential voices happens to be invasive than it very well might become what most people have to deal with, weather they enjoy it or not. The lowest common denominator is often king when economies of scale are involved.
Enjoy? Most market conditions are a combination of factors including preference, cost, availability, marketing, legal environment, optimization, etc. Do most people enjoy squishy white bread or would a sudden transplant of >$2 artisan baguettes from Paris cause an the market to split? Do most people enjoy tomatoes for their redness or would a breakthrough in technology that enables bringing ripe tomatoes into stores at competitive prices stomp the hard red things into the ground? Does everyone want to manufacture electronics in Shenzhen, or are there strong network effects at play that make it much harder to do elsewhere even ignoring labor and environmental issues? I could probably go on for a while, but that should illustrate the basic idea.
This is a case where you have to go for the solution instead of delegating blame to that screening company over there. The improvement is questionable at best, negative at worst. The only reason it's this and not a direct approach is that the direct approach takes real work and political sacrifices, not ideological grandstanding.
That means that everyone who cares would be interested in a solution. I take it you prefer the approach of letting those who already have little choice take the hit? Besides, relying on an oligopoly to not follow game theory is almost as silly as expecting a singular provider to care.
Let's get back to the private prisons issue instead of random redirections to browsers. Unless all you want to do is attack some strawman position about letting the government do everything instead off the issue of privatizing unprofitable government functions.
Oh, and since I missed it the first time. Yes, we very much did apply selective pressure to the food we eat, you wouldn't recognize many of the wild ancestors of what we eat as food. I have no love for Monstanto but FUD is not going to get us anywhere.
I have it on good authority that just about anyone employed in the transportation industry at the time of horses and buggies and who understood how the market worked would not have advocated switching to cars. Ergo cars are bad for society as determined by industry experts.
Slashdot Mirror
Or that the "science" was just a bunch of cool looking reactions? The people expecting realism in any aspect of the video are mildly deluded.
So? What about rhubarb leaves to pull a random example? Not natural enough still?
Not to mention the sites that display what others supposedly searched for when they hit the page, nothing like finding that the only relation the page has to your query is unrelated spam.
No, that's profit maximization. Stop trying to sweep the nasty sides of capitalism elsewhere.
You'd have to convince people to understand what is going on to some extent (and I include webmasters here, what is a customer expected to do if the bank can't set up a proper chain from the root cert, I've gotten their fingerprint of the phone and manually fetched the authorities chain that was supposed to be handled by the bank). Furthermore you'd have to convince bussinesses to stop outsourcing web-services the lazy way, if customers are used to being redirected to various third party domains if they want to change email subscription settings or whatever, then phishers don't just need to put up enough smokescreen to get people from paypal.com (actually auto-resolved to paypal.example.com) to paypal.customerverification.com (say, in case we have half clueful customers: "if you are getting a digital signature error, your digital signature needs to be reauthenticated, please go to our customer verification page [link]"), surprise, the new page doesn't throw any cert mismatches. Having good crypto and a DNS system that doesn't confuse poeple is better than just having good crypto.
Just hand phishers all your passwords outright, no need to go through a system of local domain resolution.
There's probably a lot of good lawyers out there, but "Lawyer fairly represents client, achieves reasonable result" is not exactly headline material nor memorable in case we hear about it anyway. Cue huge amounts of selection and confirmation bias.
Good luck with the strawmen, don't hurt yourself. If you want to get back on just how much markets care about what people enjoy, as opposed to what people will accept though...
None of the above is often one of your choices, but for most people it's not feasible to opt out of the market. How is not flying any different if you are avoiding private screeners? Oh, of course, its all about money in the end... Silly me, I thought we were talking about the process and how it might or might not change. You can continue to the tax rants without me then.
Government decisions are imposed on people by people elected by people. Market decisions are the result of choices made by customers, businesses as well as market conditions. But if you like oversimplification... the market is two wolves paying a starving sheep for it's hind leg. There, a nice oversimplified reversal of another over simplification. I won't even defend it, so please feel free to take it apart instead of discussing how little any individual customer affects the marketplace.
Yes, we are in agreement that there is some choice in airports, particularly departure and arrival. I had a whole paragraph there.
No, the heart of our disagreement is whether or not some things should be decided by the market at all. I don't know enough of the factors and lack a crystal ball to have any strong opinion of how it would actually turn out, I just don't want to be subject to an essentially non-disputable decision on something like this. Changing government decisions is hard, changing market conditions can be impossible.
You're lumping all gold based currencies, splitting up the fiats all without even touching on silver standards. What kind of argument is that?
How did squishy bread win out? Some people undoubtedly love it, but the price is likely to have been a significant factor.
How did unripe tomatoes win out. Some people undoubtedly don't know a ripe tomato from a hard, red round ball, but the difficulty of transporting/stocking ripe tomatoes is likely to have been a significant factor.
As for overbearing security, the first thing to remember is that, the market is going to be small. There's really no way it can work out logistically other than per airport or possibly per airline basis. So very unlikely to have more providers than airports, likely a lot less.
Next is the fact that people don't really pick their airports, the basics are determined by where you are coming from and where you are going to. There might be some choice on either end, it might even be a situation where all other things are more or less equal. So the people with lots of airports around them are more likely to have a hassle free option as their first step, but that only goes so far. Once you hit hubs though it gets a lot murkier, airlines tend to take the same routes over and over, so your choice is essentially restricted to a few per airline. Price is likely to play a big part here, at the end of the day many people need to get places more than they value a scanner-free experience.
Let's talk about transparency. Different people find different things acceptable or not, if there indeed happens to be a lot of difference between airports how easy will it be to figure out what to expect? Will airports prominently advertise their invasiveness? Or will they appeal to people looking for security assurances and obscure the actual procedures behind blanket disclaimers? Will some big airports have several screening providers with differing policies? Most importantly, how do you easily figure that out ahead of time?
Add a few moral panics, hassle free lanes for higher paying passengers and it's not that hard to imagine how the security for your average passenger could become a lot like their flight. It's not exactly comfortable, certainly not something you're looking forward to, but it's a fast, affordable way to get to point B.
In short if the fastest and cheapest security that satisfies the loudest and most influential voices happens to be invasive than it very well might become what most people have to deal with, weather they enjoy it or not. The lowest common denominator is often king when economies of scale are involved.
Enjoy? Most market conditions are a combination of factors including preference, cost, availability, marketing, legal environment, optimization, etc. Do most people enjoy squishy white bread or would a sudden transplant of >$2 artisan baguettes from Paris cause an the market to split? Do most people enjoy tomatoes for their redness or would a breakthrough in technology that enables bringing ripe tomatoes into stores at competitive prices stomp the hard red things into the ground? Does everyone want to manufacture electronics in Shenzhen, or are there strong network effects at play that make it much harder to do elsewhere even ignoring labor and environmental issues? I could probably go on for a while, but that should illustrate the basic idea.
This is a case where you have to go for the solution instead of delegating blame to that screening company over there. The improvement is questionable at best, negative at worst. The only reason it's this and not a direct approach is that the direct approach takes real work and political sacrifices, not ideological grandstanding.
And if the market has spoken if favor of groping then suffer.
That means that everyone who cares would be interested in a solution. I take it you prefer the approach of letting those who already have little choice take the hit? Besides, relying on an oligopoly to not follow game theory is almost as silly as expecting a singular provider to care.
Let's get back to the private prisons issue instead of random redirections to browsers. Unless all you want to do is attack some strawman position about letting the government do everything instead off the issue of privatizing unprofitable government functions.
Organic crops use some pretty nasty pesticides. But they are Organic pesticides, so it's all fine.
Oh, and since I missed it the first time. Yes, we very much did apply selective pressure to the food we eat, you wouldn't recognize many of the wild ancestors of what we eat as food. I have no love for Monstanto but FUD is not going to get us anywhere.
Horizontal gene transfer does happen. Ignoring the realities of evolution is as silly as assuming that gene splicing is safe.
Yeah, I mean really, what incentive exactly do farmers have selecting high-yield crops in the face of overwhelming demand?
I'm sure a, say, 1 in 100 contamination would not show in a shakedown... err... I mean screening of non-GMO crop.
I have it on good authority that just about anyone employed in the transportation industry at the time of horses and buggies and who understood how the market worked would not have advocated switching to cars. Ergo cars are bad for society as determined by industry experts.
The decent robots will have sanity checks, that's plenty to not lose too much money in case of a security breach.