Hey, don't mock your rock. You never know when you need to ward away tigers!
More seriously though, part of the issue of gauging the "success" of TSA is that we don't know how many potential plots they stopped from even leaving home to attempt it. How effective was the security theater in convincing potential terrorists to "just stay home".
I see 2 possible answers to that question: Pessimistically, if those terrorists really wanted to do it, no amount of security theater is going to stop them. On the other hand, those that were really more on the fence, they probably decided to stay home instead. In that sense, it would be argued that the security theater works, and also we can't really gauge the level of that success.
The data points that we actually do have to gauge the "success" of TSA are skewed. All we see are the times when weapons are caught going through the scanning (call them partial successes) and when they slip through and either the passengers tackle them to the ground or they're successful in their mission (TSA failures).
Really, the only way we could truly gauge success would be to compare our airport system to the same system without TSA. We could try to compare to that of other countries, but then some would cry foul saying "That's not America, we can't accurately compare." Also, we (America as a whole) are too risk averse to try and see what happens if we actually stopped enforcing airport security. Honestly, I think the real risk is negligible, but we live in a world where we've been scared into thinking that any Arab-looking man is a potential terrorist... Bin Laden has won.
We really need to find some way of assessing how much the threat of security theater deters attacks, and how much the threat of passengers beating you up stops attacks. Honestly, real airport security should be self enforced, but we're stuck in a society where we depend on authority figures. The average American is lazy enough to prefer someone in a uniform to keep us safe over having to fight for him/herself. Because of that, we revert to allowing our higher ups to push us around, believing that what they do helps keep us safe from the terrorists.
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
the options are a 300 pound flight taking around 7 hours or a trans-Atlantic ferry which taking 8 days and costing 1500 for a shared cabin or 2000 pounds for a single cabin..
Well, it looks like market forces have now determined the price of privacy (or the cost of convenience and expediency in privacy lost, depending on your priorities)...
this is not about Facebook analyzing YOU specifically and predicting a breakup. It's an analysis of a big group by averages.
But Facebook is the tool/medium through which the analysis is being conducted. Thus part of the point is the fact that Facebook can now be used to do these kinds of analyses/social observations/stalking.
It may not rigorously accurate (biased sample pool, etc), but the observations are still interesting to note...
Has anyone made a bot that "plays" facebook yet?
I bet a bot could be very socially successful on facebook, given the depth of the interaction. We could approach machine intelligence by lowering the standard for the Turing test.
Ms. Marseille sticks by her story. "It makes me very angry when someone tells me, 'She probably hit the gas pedal instead,' because I think it's a sexist comment, an ageist comment," she said.
Instead of going all ape-shit and complaining that the Texas School Board is re-writing history for all of the US, boycott those texts and go for something more balanced. You don't *have* to buy those textbooks, you shouldn't sacrifice quality education just to save money. The texts used by Texas public schools have such a large influence on other states' curricula because they all buy those texts, so all those consumers are partly to blame for Texas's influence. If you don't like what they're putting out, you don't have to buy it. If the Texas School Board feels that education in Texas should be taught a certain way, that's their prerogative (insofar as what kind of powers were given to them when they were elected/appointed to the board).
To sum up, Texas School Board can "screw over" the education in Texas if they want. Everyone else can choose whether or not to follow suit. Texas is not responsible for the curriculum in California, and they're actually taking that to heart.
It's my understanding that we can only manufacture ridiculously minute quantities of the stuff, and that may take more energy to make than we'll get out of it anyways.
Given that entropy is always staying the same or increasing, yes it most probably will take more energy to create that antimatter than what we get out of it.
Yes, you can disable this. The point of the message going around, at least the way I interpreted it, is that you should be aware if this and go disable it. It wasn't meant as an alarmist message to get people all up in arms.
You guys obviously didn't understand what I was getting at. Your euphemism for a bad thing could also be used to describe some other good thing (successful landing). I don't want my good landings lumped in with your crashes.
In order for this to work, you need to come up with some phrase like "very rough landing." Yes, it still includes a list of not so bad occurrences, but it's a lot less encompassing.
Mr. Anonymous Trolling Coward, I indeed have a very healthy number of close friends. You really should go find some better spies to stalk me.
Boosting it out of Earth orbit is much more expensive than doing a retro-burn to allow it to fall back to Earth. Do leave orbit, you have to give it enough energy to reach escape velocity. To have it fall back to Earth, just a "small" nudge to slow down and come back down.
What about the accrued interest on the fine? I also wonder, if they had not dropped the fine, could there have been some sort of arrest warrant, and who would've been the one to arrest?
Except that terrestrial parking is waaay too broad. The space shuttle also does terrestrial parking (Apollo, Gemini, and Mercury too, if you're talking about terrestrial as in Earth, not land). In fact, I do terrestrial parking everyday. How else am I going to get out of my car?
Actually, the fuel spent would be the same (if not more) because it had to be spent to get the spacecraft components and fuel up to that altitude. The same spacecraft mass is still going to the same place, so the same amount of energy is being expended. It could actually be more because these components are being brought up in other launch vehicles, thus fuel is being spent on the carrier craft as well.
What this does help with, though, is reliability and redundancy. Instead of throwing all your eggs in one launch vehicle basket, you're going up to GEO in bits in and pieces, so if one of the launches fails, you don't loose the whole thing. This same idea is the main concept for the F6 fractionated spacecraft program.
Like the great-grandparent said, no system's perfect. For me, given the choice between paying for private road usage vs. having the government spy on me, I think paying for something I shouldn't have to pay for is worth keeping my privacy.
I guess different people just have different priorities...
I'd agree with Option 2. Generally the roads that needed the most repair would be the ones that had been most traveled on (thus creating the need for repair). This would best approximate the concept that the money "generated" from driving on Road A goes back to the repair of Road A.
This issue should be a state problem, not a federal problem. If the states want to piggyback off of this, they should figure out the solution themselves (ex: GPS embedded in license plate, also an undesirable solution). For the federal tax alone, just an odometer is necessary (barring the issue of driving out of the country). The federal tax/law/regulation should deal only with that, not with these states trying to take advantage of it.
Jackass is for people who are retarded and have resigned themselves to that fact. Mythbusters is for Jackass viewers who are in denial. There is no science or intellectual content on it. It is to science what Jackass is to athletics.
It's true that Mythbusters is pretty unscientific, but this comic is a much better characterization.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd love to see this option in Google Maps!
Hey, don't mock your rock. You never know when you need to ward away tigers!
More seriously though, part of the issue of gauging the "success" of TSA is that we don't know how many potential plots they stopped from even leaving home to attempt it. How effective was the security theater in convincing potential terrorists to "just stay home".
I see 2 possible answers to that question: Pessimistically, if those terrorists really wanted to do it, no amount of security theater is going to stop them. On the other hand, those that were really more on the fence, they probably decided to stay home instead. In that sense, it would be argued that the security theater works, and also we can't really gauge the level of that success.
The data points that we actually do have to gauge the "success" of TSA are skewed. All we see are the times when weapons are caught going through the scanning (call them partial successes) and when they slip through and either the passengers tackle them to the ground or they're successful in their mission (TSA failures).
Really, the only way we could truly gauge success would be to compare our airport system to the same system without TSA. We could try to compare to that of other countries, but then some would cry foul saying "That's not America, we can't accurately compare." Also, we (America as a whole) are too risk averse to try and see what happens if we actually stopped enforcing airport security. Honestly, I think the real risk is negligible, but we live in a world where we've been scared into thinking that any Arab-looking man is a potential terrorist... Bin Laden has won.
We really need to find some way of assessing how much the threat of security theater deters attacks, and how much the threat of passengers beating you up stops attacks. Honestly, real airport security should be self enforced, but we're stuck in a society where we depend on authority figures. The average American is lazy enough to prefer someone in a uniform to keep us safe over having to fight for him/herself. Because of that, we revert to allowing our higher ups to push us around, believing that what they do helps keep us safe from the terrorists.
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
One of many reasons I would much rather travel by car/bus/train than airplane.
Oh, don't worry, Homeland Security wants TSA to set up security stations for bus and train terminals too!
the options are a 300 pound flight taking around 7 hours or a trans-Atlantic ferry which taking 8 days and costing 1500 for a shared cabin or 2000 pounds for a single cabin. .
Well, it looks like market forces have now determined the price of privacy (or the cost of convenience and expediency in privacy lost, depending on your priorities)...
Would the evidence be admissible in court though? I mean, the 4th Amendment still carries some weight in this day and age...
this is not about Facebook analyzing YOU specifically and predicting a breakup. It's an analysis of a big group by averages.
But Facebook is the tool/medium through which the analysis is being conducted. Thus part of the point is the fact that Facebook can now be used to do these kinds of analyses/social observations/stalking.
It may not rigorously accurate (biased sample pool, etc), but the observations are still interesting to note...
For gods sake, there's only one spot where it really matters and yet men still make that mistake anyway and pay for it for 18 years.
Human biology drives males to that one particular spot. Otherwise, we'd all be extinct...
Has anyone made a bot that "plays" facebook yet? I bet a bot could be very socially successful on facebook, given the depth of the interaction. We could approach machine intelligence by lowering the standard for the Turing test.
How about Suzette ?
Ms. Marseille sticks by her story. "It makes me very angry when someone tells me, 'She probably hit the gas pedal instead,' because I think it's a sexist comment, an ageist comment," she said.
It was really funny to read that comment especially after I just finished reading this article on the misinformed believing lies over the truth.
Instead of going all ape-shit and complaining that the Texas School Board is re-writing history for all of the US, boycott those texts and go for something more balanced. You don't *have* to buy those textbooks, you shouldn't sacrifice quality education just to save money. The texts used by Texas public schools have such a large influence on other states' curricula because they all buy those texts, so all those consumers are partly to blame for Texas's influence. If you don't like what they're putting out, you don't have to buy it. If the Texas School Board feels that education in Texas should be taught a certain way, that's their prerogative (insofar as what kind of powers were given to them when they were elected/appointed to the board).
To sum up, Texas School Board can "screw over" the education in Texas if they want. Everyone else can choose whether or not to follow suit. Texas is not responsible for the curriculum in California, and they're actually taking that to heart.
It's my understanding that we can only manufacture ridiculously minute quantities of the stuff, and that may take more energy to make than we'll get out of it anyways.
Given that entropy is always staying the same or increasing, yes it most probably will take more energy to create that antimatter than what we get out of it.
Don't you mean their Verizon bill is going to suck?
Yes, you can disable this. The point of the message going around, at least the way I interpreted it, is that you should be aware if this and go disable it. It wasn't meant as an alarmist message to get people all up in arms.
You guys obviously didn't understand what I was getting at. Your euphemism for a bad thing could also be used to describe some other good thing (successful landing). I don't want my good landings lumped in with your crashes.
In order for this to work, you need to come up with some phrase like "very rough landing." Yes, it still includes a list of not so bad occurrences, but it's a lot less encompassing.
Mr. Anonymous Trolling Coward, I indeed have a very healthy number of close friends. You really should go find some better spies to stalk me.
Boosting it out of Earth orbit is much more expensive than doing a retro-burn to allow it to fall back to Earth. Do leave orbit, you have to give it enough energy to reach escape velocity. To have it fall back to Earth, just a "small" nudge to slow down and come back down.
What about the accrued interest on the fine? I also wonder, if they had not dropped the fine, could there have been some sort of arrest warrant, and who would've been the one to arrest?
Except that terrestrial parking is waaay too broad. The space shuttle also does terrestrial parking (Apollo, Gemini, and Mercury too, if you're talking about terrestrial as in Earth, not land). In fact, I do terrestrial parking everyday. How else am I going to get out of my car?
Actually, the fuel spent would be the same (if not more) because it had to be spent to get the spacecraft components and fuel up to that altitude. The same spacecraft mass is still going to the same place, so the same amount of energy is being expended. It could actually be more because these components are being brought up in other launch vehicles, thus fuel is being spent on the carrier craft as well.
What this does help with, though, is reliability and redundancy. Instead of throwing all your eggs in one launch vehicle basket, you're going up to GEO in bits in and pieces, so if one of the launches fails, you don't loose the whole thing. This same idea is the main concept for the F6 fractionated spacecraft program.
Actually, I'm thinking RFID tags.
Also, since you obviously don't believe in the industry's miniaturization, I believe Gordon Moore would like to speak with you.
Like the great-grandparent said, no system's perfect. For me, given the choice between paying for private road usage vs. having the government spy on me, I think paying for something I shouldn't have to pay for is worth keeping my privacy.
I guess different people just have different priorities...
Doesn't this use more gas, having restart the car each time he's at the bottom of the hill?
I'd agree with Option 2. Generally the roads that needed the most repair would be the ones that had been most traveled on (thus creating the need for repair). This would best approximate the concept that the money "generated" from driving on Road A goes back to the repair of Road A.
This issue should be a state problem, not a federal problem. If the states want to piggyback off of this, they should figure out the solution themselves (ex: GPS embedded in license plate, also an undesirable solution). For the federal tax alone, just an odometer is necessary (barring the issue of driving out of the country). The federal tax/law/regulation should deal only with that, not with these states trying to take advantage of it.
Jackass is for people who are retarded and have resigned themselves to that fact. Mythbusters is for Jackass viewers who are in denial. There is no science or intellectual content on it. It is to science what Jackass is to athletics.
It's true that Mythbusters is pretty unscientific, but this comic is a much better characterization.
Governments spend millions of dollars building and maintaining roads.
And where does that money come from? Our (taxpayers) pockets. So yes, we are indeed paying for what we use.