Once you've dedicated yourself to the idea of suicide attacks, other costs are insignificant.
Well sure, if you're the mule. There were a lot more people that didn't blow themselves up on 9/11 than those that did.
Uncoordinated or lone wolf, suicidal attacks are big news, but relatively rare. Add any level of sophistication and they are rarer still.
I believe that they are just a risk of life and wholly unpreventable (as a symptom at least), not unlike weather patterns. But because a person is involved, people feel like something could have been done. Which I believe is a false assumption.
So in almost 40 years we have the two recent unsuccessful, one that didn't get past the planning stages, and three more incidents before the Berlin wall even fell.
- Dec. 25, 2009 - Failed (implementation failed) US
- Aug. 10, 2006 - Failed (in planning stage) UK
- Dec. 22, 2001 - Failed (overpowered on plane) US
- Dec. 21, 1988 - Success. Kills 259 people on board and 11 people on the ground. Scotland.
So given all this empirical evidence, I postulate that all airport security measures taken directly after 9/11 (not including the newest invasive screenings) are 100% effectivce.
Thanks for proving my point with empirical evidence?
Printer bombs are a non-starter, as they were meant to transport bombs to Synagogues, not blow up planes.
Using only empirical evidence: pre-9/11 a plane would never be purposely used for a missile to blow up buildings, and hijackings only ended up in Cuba for a prisoner exchange or something. I can think of only two people that were known popularly for proactively identifying something that had such a large benefit to cost ratio that paid out in terror dividends Tom Clancy and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
You said there were numerous, there are two in my recent memory (feel free to provide more): shoe bomber, xmas bomber.
And based on that empirical evidence: terrorists will fail to blow up planes. You and I can both agree that, using only empirical evidence here is silly. So I conclude that sometimes, only using empirical evidence can be silly.
Either way, my main point is that the government doesn't need to get involved once security is implemented to mitigate most attacks that can be used against people who didn't buy that air lines plane ticket. After that, it is the airlines that can implement policy that prevents the undesirables with back scatter, groping, Israeli interrogation, or run of the mill metal detectors and bomb sniffing dogs. Notwithstanding the inevitable lawsuits, waivers, extra liability, etc...
"In some ways, if we're relying on airport screeners to prevent terrorism, it's already too late. After all, we can't keep weapons out of prisons. How can we ever hope to keep them out of airports?"
I was thinking of that too, but unfortunately the obvious rebuttal is that, good, bad or indifferent, the collective memory of defining events fade; leaving only a shadow in their wake.
But it will be a great security measure for the next 10 if not 20 years.
Cannot work, because they share a "post-screened" area. Therefore, all of the planes are at the security of the lowest common denominator.
So why keep a common post screened area? There are multiple points before you enter a plane. Otherwise an airport is no less safe than a shopping mall.
Did you know that El Al consider intervention by their air marshals to be a security failure?
I'm not denouncing Israel's measures as bad, in fact I think they would be quite competitive in an open market. I just don't want them legislated.
Terrorists are happy to blow themselves up in a market in Baghdad, killing a few tens of people.
Bombing your home turf is relatively cheap to do. You could have literal sheep (or goats) do it. The logistics to pull off 9/11 was relatively much more expensive, even the Xmas day bomber had at least 2 known handlers. Putting a dollar value on it is difficult, but it was by no means resourceless.
So I wonder if terrorists could manage to neutralise the air marshall(s) and then convince the pilot to open the cockpit door by shooting passengers one at a time? If the pilot doesn't, the result still isn't any better than blowing the plane up, and possibly much worse than a hijacking.
Sounds like a great movie, but not very plausible, and also very expensive. You've trained someone that has enough skills to sneak a weapon on to a plane, identify and neutralize unknown armed targets, neutralize and/or subdue numerous unarmed targets, know enough English to make demands, and fly a plane. Just to blow himself up. If you'll excuse the pun, I would think a person like that would get more mileage elsewhere.
The funny thing is, we don't really even need that! There were some very good measures put in place after 9/11 that prevented the use of commercial airliners being used as missiles against us, namely a locked and reinforced cockpit door and armed air marshals. This also prevents hijackings for any reason, such as extortion and the like. Either way, as long as these measures are in place, planes being used as missiles is mitigated. And I firmly believe I will not see it happen again in the US in my lifetime.
Now that the threat to the general public is diminished the only thing a terrorist can do to a plane now is blow it up, and to that I say: so what? It's a waste of a terrorist organization's resources, they can accomplish much better kill and terror rates on other vectors. I don't even think the TSA should be the one scanning the people at all, it should be the individual airlines. That way you can choose to pay for your security if you really want it, and competitive practices can find the optimal solution.
Do you have a link for that? I can't believe she actually brought lawyers into that mess after such a classy defense of her. I guess they smelled blood given his apology, which to some lawyers is actually pronounced 'mo-ney prin-TER'. America. What a country!
You know what though, Karen was handled with a lot more class. She only witnessed the gnashing of internet teeth, she did not feel their bite: http://www.p2pnet.net/story/17874
Although if she then proceeded with an actual suit afterward, all fault would lie squarely on her, I didn't follow the story much after the Ken Starks defense of her.
I am honestly surprised at the harshness of the replies to this post.
To all my older siblings in this reply, look, we all understand copyright here ok? We're knee deep in discussing all this intellectual property shit daily.
One of the things we discuss here is the disproportional punishments laid upon people who infringe copyright. Sickening enough that law firms can now make money by simply targeting people en masse and sending them settlement letters for a few thousand dollars, or telling them that they will see them in court.
She did something stupid, and even worse, said something stupid. And ignorance of the law is no excuse, but this time the internet hate machine targeted a little gal with no real and apparent unwarranted-self-importance that just liked to write and cook and publish a shitty little unheard of magazine. And as always, the Internet did so such with such awesomely ignorant DRTFA remarks about recipes being protected under copyright (Protip:they're not) and other such off topic drivel. And to that I cry foul. To your fucking lynch mob mentality and the apathetic allowance of it in this instance.
There were no big guys or little guys here, just a lot of misdirected Internet hate.
Speech is speech unless it's under oath, then it's no longer speech, it's testimony.
Testimony is different because it is a legal action constituting evidence in a court of law, and you are under no obligation (well... you should not have, anyway) to give it.
All other speech causes no actions directly besides sound waves or marks on a medium i.e. writing. If those actions constitute a crime (noise ordinance, vandalism) it is regardless of content and not related to speech.
The only other action caused by speech are thoughts, and thoughts are (well... should be, anyway) under zero legal jurisdiction. Actions that happen because of those thoughts can constitute crime.
Inciting panic is just as much the fault of the people that panicked as it is the inciter (I believe this is the most controversial opinion I hold).
I want to hold people accountable for their actions, not their thoughts.
You don't truly believe in Free Speech until you allow someone to stand next to you on a soap box and spout things that make your blood boil (Fred Phelps is probably the best test of Free Speech to ever come along... unfortunately).
Free speech is more important then your life, and it is more important than my life. Some people used to understand that. I believe my brave new world is much older than you think.
I saw that Bruce Willis movie... it wasn't that good. It was all based on a '97 speculative tech article that was based on a speculative post coldwar war game exercise that might as well have included zombies in its ridiculousness. They had to come up with something since they no longer had a red bogeyman that could do an unknown number of things to the west... well, until we saw that all they had hiding behind their huge iron wall was a tiny limp dick.
I thought the young woman officer was handling herself very well. Either could have easily diffused the situation with a "please put the bubbles away ma'am, I don't want them getting in my/her eyes". And escalating from there, instead it's "If a bubble touches me, I'm going to arrest you for assault! That's a deliberate act! It's a detergent!! You want to bait the police!". He escalated the situation well past where it was, and was being far from professional.
No one was following anyone around blowing bubbles, so your analogy falls flat. I'm guessing by worse you mean that you would shoot someone putting a flower down the barrel of your gun. Cops need to be held to a higher standard then what you or I would do, because they have been entrusted with a certain amount of authority over other people.
You can tell which cops feel that they have adequate control over their own personal lives and which do not.
Cops are there to serve and protect, unfortunately, their unions have all but eliminated that obligation.
Slashdot Mirror
Once you've dedicated yourself to the idea of suicide attacks, other costs are insignificant.
Well sure, if you're the mule. There were a lot more people that didn't blow themselves up on 9/11 than those that did.
Uncoordinated or lone wolf, suicidal attacks are big news, but relatively rare. Add any level of sophistication and they are rarer still.
I believe that they are just a risk of life and wholly unpreventable (as a symptom at least), not unlike weather patterns. But because a person is involved, people feel like something could have been done. Which I believe is a false assumption.
You can't use a lack of empirical evidence to prove a negative.
Agreed.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2009/12/26/2009-12-26_long_history_of_horror_taking_to_skies.html
So in almost 40 years we have the two recent unsuccessful, one that didn't get past the planning stages, and three more incidents before the Berlin wall even fell.
- Dec. 25, 2009 - Failed (implementation failed) US
- Aug. 10, 2006 - Failed (in planning stage) UK
- Dec. 22, 2001 - Failed (overpowered on plane) US
- Dec. 21, 1988 - Success. Kills 259 people on board and 11 people on the ground. Scotland.
- June 23, 1985 - Success. Kills 329. Canada-India (over Ireland)
- Dec. 17, 1973 - Success. Kills 29. US-Libya.
So given all this empirical evidence, I postulate that all airport security measures taken directly after 9/11 (not including the newest invasive screenings) are 100% effectivce.
Thanks for proving my point with empirical evidence?
Careful there ..., might want to post as AC if you have brown friends or(!!) happen to be brown yourself.
Printer bombs are a non-starter, as they were meant to transport bombs to Synagogues, not blow up planes.
Using only empirical evidence: pre-9/11 a plane would never be purposely used for a missile to blow up buildings, and hijackings only ended up in Cuba for a prisoner exchange or something. I can think of only two people that were known popularly for proactively identifying something that had such a large benefit to cost ratio that paid out in terror dividends Tom Clancy and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
You said there were numerous, there are two in my recent memory (feel free to provide more): shoe bomber, xmas bomber.
And based on that empirical evidence: terrorists will fail to blow up planes. You and I can both agree that, using only empirical evidence here is silly. So I conclude that sometimes, only using empirical evidence can be silly.
Either way, my main point is that the government doesn't need to get involved once security is implemented to mitigate most attacks that can be used against people who didn't buy that air lines plane ticket. After that, it is the airlines that can implement policy that prevents the undesirables with back scatter, groping, Israeli interrogation, or run of the mill metal detectors and bomb sniffing dogs. Notwithstanding the inevitable lawsuits, waivers, extra liability, etc...
"In some ways, if we're relying on airport screeners to prevent terrorism, it's already too late. After all, we can't keep weapons out of prisons. How can we ever hope to keep them out of airports?"
-Bruce Schneier
I was thinking of that too, but unfortunately the obvious rebuttal is that, good, bad or indifferent, the collective memory of defining events fade; leaving only a shadow in their wake.
But it will be a great security measure for the next 10 if not 20 years.
Cannot work, because they share a "post-screened" area. Therefore, all of the planes are at the security of the lowest common denominator.
So why keep a common post screened area? There are multiple points before you enter a plane. Otherwise an airport is no less safe than a shopping mall.
Did you know that El Al consider intervention by their air marshals to be a security failure?
I'm not denouncing Israel's measures as bad, in fact I think they would be quite competitive in an open market. I just don't want them legislated.
Terrorists are happy to blow themselves up in a market in Baghdad, killing a few tens of people.
Bombing your home turf is relatively cheap to do. You could have literal sheep (or goats) do it. The logistics to pull off 9/11 was relatively much more expensive, even the Xmas day bomber had at least 2 known handlers. Putting a dollar value on it is difficult, but it was by no means resourceless.
So I wonder if terrorists could manage to neutralise the air marshall(s) and then convince the pilot to open the cockpit door by shooting passengers one at a time? If the pilot doesn't, the result still isn't any better than blowing the plane up, and possibly much worse than a hijacking.
Sounds like a great movie, but not very plausible, and also very expensive. You've trained someone that has enough skills to sneak a weapon on to a plane, identify and neutralize unknown armed targets, neutralize and/or subdue numerous unarmed targets, know enough English to make demands, and fly a plane. Just to blow himself up. If you'll excuse the pun, I would think a person like that would get more mileage elsewhere.
"Novell is the owner of the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights"
Not this shit again ...
In other news Attachmate's website appears to be unable to handle the extra load caused by this announcement. Things are not looking well.
Ok, now it makes sense, there were lawyers after the initial post but before the apology post. Thanks!
The funny thing is, we don't really even need that! There were some very good measures put in place after 9/11 that prevented the use of commercial airliners being used as missiles against us, namely a locked and reinforced cockpit door and armed air marshals. This also prevents hijackings for any reason, such as extortion and the like. Either way, as long as these measures are in place, planes being used as missiles is mitigated. And I firmly believe I will not see it happen again in the US in my lifetime.
Now that the threat to the general public is diminished the only thing a terrorist can do to a plane now is blow it up, and to that I say: so what? It's a waste of a terrorist organization's resources, they can accomplish much better kill and terror rates on other vectors. I don't even think the TSA should be the one scanning the people at all, it should be the individual airlines. That way you can choose to pay for your security if you really want it, and competitive practices can find the optimal solution.
Do you have a link for that? I can't believe she actually brought lawyers into that mess after such a classy defense of her. I guess they smelled blood given his apology, which to some lawyers is actually pronounced 'mo-ney prin-TER'. America. What a country!
You know what though, Karen was handled with a lot more class. She only witnessed the gnashing of internet teeth, she did not feel their bite: http://www.p2pnet.net/story/17874
Although if she then proceeded with an actual suit afterward, all fault would lie squarely on her, I didn't follow the story much after the Ken Starks defense of her.
I am honestly surprised at the harshness of the replies to this post.
To all my older siblings in this reply, look, we all understand copyright here ok? We're knee deep in discussing all this intellectual property shit daily.
One of the things we discuss here is the disproportional punishments laid upon people who infringe copyright. Sickening enough that law firms can now make money by simply targeting people en masse and sending them settlement letters for a few thousand dollars, or telling them that they will see them in court.
She did something stupid, and even worse, said something stupid. And ignorance of the law is no excuse, but this time the internet hate machine targeted a little gal with no real and apparent unwarranted-self-importance that just liked to write and cook and publish a shitty little unheard of magazine. And as always, the Internet did so such with such awesomely ignorant DRTFA remarks about recipes being protected under copyright (Protip:they're not) and other such off topic drivel. And to that I cry foul. To your fucking lynch mob mentality and the apathetic allowance of it in this instance.
There were no big guys or little guys here, just a lot of misdirected Internet hate.
Speech is speech unless it's under oath, then it's no longer speech, it's testimony.
Testimony is different because it is a legal action constituting evidence in a court of law, and you are under no obligation (well ... you should not have, anyway) to give it.
All other speech causes no actions directly besides sound waves or marks on a medium i.e. writing. If those actions constitute a crime (noise ordinance, vandalism) it is regardless of content and not related to speech.
The only other action caused by speech are thoughts, and thoughts are (well ... should be, anyway) under zero legal jurisdiction. Actions that happen because of those thoughts can constitute crime.
Inciting panic is just as much the fault of the people that panicked as it is the inciter (I believe this is the most controversial opinion I hold).
I want to hold people accountable for their actions, not their thoughts.
You don't truly believe in Free Speech until you allow someone to stand next to you on a soap box and spout things that make your blood boil (Fred Phelps is probably the best test of Free Speech to ever come along ... unfortunately).
Free speech is more important then your life, and it is more important than my life. Some people used to understand that. I believe my brave new world is much older than you think.
No. They're not.
Does freedom of speech run that far?
It should.
I saw that Bruce Willis movie ... it wasn't that good. It was all based on a '97 speculative tech article that was based on a speculative post coldwar war game exercise that might as well have included zombies in its ridiculousness. They had to come up with something since they no longer had a red bogeyman that could do an unknown number of things to the west ... well, until we saw that all they had hiding behind their huge iron wall was a tiny limp dick.
That's not to say we're not vulnerable to things like ... um ... box cutters? That's why we have to take off our shoes and get our junk felt up before we get on a plane. Even though it actually won't even prevent anything.
Yeah, cause old men know nothing about the internet.
I thought the young woman officer was handling herself very well. Either could have easily diffused the situation with a "please put the bubbles away ma'am, I don't want them getting in my/her eyes". And escalating from there, instead it's "If a bubble touches me, I'm going to arrest you for assault! That's a deliberate act! It's a detergent!! You want to bait the police!". He escalated the situation well past where it was, and was being far from professional.
No one was following anyone around blowing bubbles, so your analogy falls flat. I'm guessing by worse you mean that you would shoot someone putting a flower down the barrel of your gun. Cops need to be held to a higher standard then what you or I would do, because they have been entrusted with a certain amount of authority over other people.
You can tell which cops feel that they have adequate control over their own personal lives and which do not.
Cops are there to serve and protect, unfortunately, their unions have all but eliminated that obligation.
Cops can make the consequences of our actions much larger than they would otherwise be, and perhaps, disproportionately so.
Did the promoter have a contract with Red Bull that was breached? If so he might have a case for breach of contract.
In which case I suspect the answer is: better have the courts look at it.
I think a lot of people would trade being a good person for a massive pile of cash.
And then you can just buy your conscience back (e.g. Bill)
I read it as the AC referring to Zuckerberg.