It is also impossible to crush an egg against your own eye socket, or in your armpit, as these perfectly cup the egg, again dissipating the forces.
Hmm... I'm sure I couldn't crush an egg in my armpit, because all the force I could exert would just deform my somewhat-flabby hairpits. But next time I'm already on antibiotics for some reason, I'll try one against my eyesocket. Seems to me it should be possible, as long as the egg is large enough to bridge the from the upper orbital to the cheekbone. That's just over two finger-widths for me... maybe a jumbo egg would be big enough.
One other thing to note... I've noticed lately that some eggs (especially the cheapest ones) have VERY thin shells. I broke one making Christmas cookies just picking it up out of the carton -- but it's possible it had a hairline fracture I didn't see.
That's a very interesting point I hadn't considered until now.
The invite system may be yet another way that Google collects information useful to them in selling advertising, etc... they can identify "power brokers" in tech marketing, which would be valuable information to advertisers (and to their internal marketing).
Try it yourself, you can't crush an egg in your hand no matter how hard you squeeze.
Hey douchebag, that's not true at all. I've got egg all over my desk, my monitor, my pants, and my shirt now.
Of course, it could just be because I used my masturbating hand to do it... that hand is much stronger.
Anyway, it's not the distribution of force over the shell that makes hand-crushing an egg difficult. It's the fact that most people simply can't generate enough force at that position due to how the hand is shaped -- a lot of the force is dispersed by deforming the hand tissue, not the egg. The trick is to have the narrow end of the egg towards your thumb, and to squeeze like you're milking a cow but with the palm, not with the fingers). This loads the first portion of the force exerted into deforming your palm, and the last portion is almost entirely directed into the egg.
Note also that a robotic hand does not have the physiological limitations a human hand does.
Good point. I would have to see the uniforms before passing judgment. Without further information, I would say that in general, uniforms marginalize individuals and make them feel like a smaller cog in the machine.
I've seen the uniforms. I have no problem with wearing one of them, as long as it isn't the red one.
BOSS: Ensign Flayer, you and Scotty head over to the VP of Marketing's office to troubleshoot his docking station. ME: FUCK
Not really. Let's say we get rid of metal detectors and all screening today
Metal detectors and some of the other screening is a general measure that can help prevent multiple attack vectors on a specific target (an airplane). It's the no-liquids-over-2-oz rule, and the new sit-in-your-seat-for-an-hour-and-no-hanky-panky-mister rules that are silly.
From a practical standpoint there is no mechanism to allow that to magically happen. The socialist believes the answer lies in redistribution of wealth (as you have proposed). The pragmatist looks for the simplest workable solution, which may involve walling off the country (in a manner of speaking). The realist knows that this isn't just about pinching pennies but many hundreds of thousands (potentially millions) affected, losing their jobs and their livelihood as this happens.
Those are some very sweeping generalizations, along with a mischaracterization (socialist does not belong in the same set as pragmatist and realist).
The socialist believes the answer lies in redistribution of wealth (as you have proposed).
This is not what I have proposed. Furthermore, free market wealth redistribution is about as far from socialism as you can get. Protectionist policies are much closer to socialism than free movement of labor.
The pragmatist looks for the simplest workable solution, which may involve walling off the country (in a manner of speaking).
I don't know where to start with that statement, it has so many flaws. First, a pragmatist does not seek the simplest workable solution. A pragmatist seeks the solution that produces the desired result, regardless of means. In this situation, a pragmatist with an understanding of economics would not seek a walled garden... because almost all economists agree that protectionism hurts economies in the long run. Even Krugman couches his pro- stance on protectionism with caveats, such as the biggest one -- protectionism only works if there is no retaliatory protectionism.
The realist knows that this isn't just about pinching pennies but many hundreds of thousands (potentially millions) affected, losing their jobs and their livelihood as this happens.
Anyone with half a brain understand that employment rates, immigration, etc affect millions of people. What you describe can be attributed to anyone, from idealist through realist... though the idealist would be more likely to believe that philosophical ideals would carry through to real-world effects, despite lack of evidence. And for what it's worth, realism isn't really applicable to economics. Pragmatism is closer to what you describe when you make that statement about realists.
Retraining isn't going to happen quickly enough to keep us out of a bigger depression in the future if these problems aren't addressed.
Retraining is the only thing that will keep us out of a major depression in the future. Yes, we need to pay the piper now. The tradeoff is to pay the piper later, with a huge amount of interest tacked on. Protectionism stagnates economies, moreso now that trade is so globalized.
The only people benefiting from this in the long-term are the Indians. The decision to outsource labor to India is bad for all Americans. As an American I find the situation disturbing.
I disagree. We have cheaper products because of offshoring, which gives us excess capital to spend on other things. Some of us have greater profits (and while there is a problem with how the cost-savings are distributed, that is attributable to income imbalance in the US, not to offshoring itself). Where do you shop that you never take advantage of cheap offshore labor? How much do you think your consumer goods would cost if they were produced in the US? How much more would you pay for software if it were all developed in the US? What would your standard of living be like if everything you used or consumed were produced with American labor rates? To even think that offshored labor doesn't benefit anyone in the US is just laughable.
Additionally, I think you dismiss my question... are Indians less human than Americans? Is lifting Indians out of abject
Free movement of labor... when you're dealing with two economies where the standard of living is almost an order of magnitude different... means both economies eventually settle somewhere in the middle. That's bad for at least one of the parties.
Only in the short run. It frees up the labor in the wealthier nation to do things that are more productive. And from a humanist standpoint, which is better? To see some people with a ridiculous standard of living need to pinch pennies for a while (while still having housing, cars, all the food they could want, etc), or to see some people continue to live in squalor? Are Indians less human than Americans?
The problem is you didn't raise the salary to a level competitive with contracting. If you did so, the contractors would be willing to make the employment commitment. Instead, you got a foreigner to take a job that could be done by an American if you were willing to pay the higher salary.
We offered the same rate as an employee that they were willing to accept as a contractor. Not sure if you know how contracting rates work, but they are almost always *more* than employee rates... we offered a substantial incentive by offering employment terms at contract rates. I've never seen equity in offered hourly pay (employee-contractor) before or since then. That's the trade-off for no benefits, lower overhead for the company, etc. These were PRIME offers, and we couldn't find any qualified American willing to do the work as an employee. Well above the six-figure threshold for these positions... it's a function of the niche the jobs were in, I think. But there have to be more niches like that.
You miss the point entirely. Schneier's points, my point, all of them... because you got hung up on one little detail I threw in, as an exaggeration, to accentuate the folly of trying to stop all attack vectors.
Simple intrusive screening techniques will give us a very high level of assurance that terrorists with the ability to take down or gain control of planes are not allowed on board.
Those simple instrusive screenings are, if I'm not mistaken, exactly part of the security theater that Schneier objects to. They don't *really* make us safer, they just seem to.
What we're talking about are measures to ensure that terrorists do not take down a plane over a populated area or gain control of a plane.
No. That's not what we're talking about -- if you think it is, you didn't RTFA. We are addressing prevention and control of terrorist acts in general, NOT specific threats on a specific target (like airplanes). An entire point of TFA is that looking only at specific threats is pointless and wasteful -- it's just security theater.
I don't think the commission got all the data they needed. I think, based on the data they got, the report is the closest thing we have to the truth. So maybe I am a truther... I believe we have reasonable ground for suspecting that not all the pertinent information was released. God, now I loathe myself. Thanks for pointing it out, Maxume!
That argument is fallacious. It argues for no action against any type of threat whatsoever in any circumstance in any field of discussion.
It doesn't quite argue that... but even if it did, the argument is not fallacious (please point to the specific thing that falsifies the argument -- is it the assumptions? One of the logical deductions?). It seems to me that the conclusion, not the argument, is what you don't like.
Targeting specific vectors on specific targets is practically useless. That's my point. Setting the bar lower (which you may be confused about -- setting the bar lower means to lower the threshold for something to qualify for a subset; this means a lower threshold for inclusion in the list of threats to defend against, which means increasing the list of specific threats to target). Schneier argues that we raise the bar on qualifying threats, thus defending with general measures most of the time. Or maybe I'm completely misreading what you're applying the "raise/lower the bar" metaphor to, in which case I'd appreciate a clarification:)
I did RTFA, and I recommend you do the same.
I have a hard time believing the first part of that (maybe you read it after your initial post?), since your OP and first follow-up not only blatantly contradict Schneier's points, but also attribute a conclusion to him that he did not make. Maybe you skimmed the first few paragraphs, then came back to comment early in the thread? As for me, I read it thoroughly before even looking at the comments to the article... still not sure how, up until this last post, you missed his major points.
At any rate, the point of this discussion is the claim of yours that the problem is one of reactive measures, rather than proactive measures. Can we agree, now that we've both read the piece, that it doesn't matter if it's proactive or reactive, it's the specificity that's the basis of Schneier's argument? Because that was my main gripe with your OP.
Other than bringing a machine gun on a plane, we know that the passengers will defeat all hijacking threats.
With a walled-off cockpit, hijacking isn't a threat anyway -- as long as the hijackers do not have the ability to surpass the cockpit doors. A gun doesn't help the hijackers much, unless their goal is just to kill people in a high-profile manner (in which case, bringing that gun elsewhere could be nearly as effective, but with a much higher chance of success).
So, as you point out, explosives are the real threat. But it's impossible to fool dogs and/or a puffer machine. You'd just need to properly seal and decontaminate the explosive package, so physical search is still necessary if you want to prevent explosive attacks.
Never mind the fact the puffer machines and dogs would contribute to the security theater.
On September 10, 2001, the intelligence agencies knew that Osama bin Laden's men were in the country, that they were going to participate in a major attack, and that they were planning to use airplanes in the attack. The people who could have done something about it were not assuming that everyone who got on an airplane wanted to get off of it alive; after decades of dealing with suicide bombers in the middle east, why would anyone assume that bin Laden's men were hoping to survive their own attack?
On the contrary... airplane hijackings, to that date, were primarily used as a negotiating tool.
My guess? The planes were hijacked, demands were made, and the hijackers were told to go to hell (I don't think GWB would have EVER negotiated with terrorists). So the hijackers did what they were told, and took thousands with them. Now, I'm no truther, but I also believe that a decision was made* to not shoot down the planes, and that the potential for the planes to hit the WTC (or other structure)and collapse it was either disregarded, discounted, or overlooked.
*Also possible that the decision was made via inaction, i.e., not escalating to the right people in time. But I believe it was a conscious decision at a high level.
We should not travel naked. The main attack vector is always due to some activity (implements can always be found if some activity is permitted). Rather, people should be led into a waiting hall and put under with a sleeping gas, then loaded into explosion proof containers and loaded onto cargo planes for delivery.
That's just overkill, and environmentally irresponsible -- just think of the fuel required to lift those blast chambers to cruising altitude!
Straightjackets and leg restraints would work just fine, while maintaining a sense of modesty. Plus, with no ability to move around, passengers need less space -- so it would be more profitable for the airlines. As long as each passenger is fitted with a breathing tube, you could stack them four or five deep in coach class, maybe just two or three deep in business class.
There is nothing wrong with listing possible attack vectors -- that should be the goal. Each should be weighed in terms of order of likelyhood, and any that are justified to merit preventive action should be handled.
Except, as soon as you put measures in place to prevent one vector, the other vectors have an increased likelihood, because terrorists are not necessarily stupid. If YOU know you can;t bring liquids on planes, THEY know it too. So then they use a different vector. It's like a game of whack-a-mole... defend all holes or they'll come through the one you didn't defend.
Now, the author is arguing that that bar on what merits action should be low. I agree. But if it's going to be high, as it currently is, it should not simply be based on "what they did last time".
That's not what Schneier is arguing at all, please go back and actually RTFA. I'm not sure how you can so completely misread what he wrote. Schneier is arguing that it's useless to defend specific attack vectors on specific targets (like airplanes), since the very specificity of the defense precludes the use of that vector by terrorists.
If they actually cared about security, it would be obvious: the approach to dealing with threats would be proactive, not reactive. It wouldn't be a case of, "someone tried to blow up a plane with shoes? Everyone has to take their shoes off". Taking shoes off would come before someone tried it. Same with liquids and all of these other ridiculous regulations. They're just trying to pretend that they're on top of it, when what they're doing isn't helping anyone. It's just making flying a pain in the arse.
I think you missed Schneier's point, if you RTFA.
The approach to dealing with threats should be intelligence gathering, our criminal justice system, and resilience in response to successful attacks.
A proactive approach that you suggest would require listing possible attack vectors, then taking action to prevent each of them. Carried to its logical conclusion, we'd all have to board planes naked (you could strangle someone with the elastic band from your underwear!), or even restrained (hands are weapons too!) in order to prevent terrorist actions on planes.
It's simply unreasonable to take that kind of preventative action.
In truth, (and one of Schneier's points), we cannot realistically defend against all attack vectors. To try to do so is pointless, except that it gives people a feeling of security. True defense against terrorism isn't served by reactive restrictions, nor by proactive restrictions -- unless they absolutely limit our ability to conduct regular tasks.
You're right, though, what they're doing isn't helping and is a royal pain in the ass. But the solution is not to become proactive in travel restrictions. It's most of what Schneier wrote in the piece.
There was a good article in National Geographic about this, with great maps, reference to the treaties governing claiming of seabed territory, in relation to oil and gas deposits in the Arctic.
Basically, it has to do with the continental shelf... the Russian continental shelf extends (subject to debate) across the North Pole... here's a map that helps clarify. I couldn't find the NGM map that shows the various claims by the countries surrounding the arctic, but I've pored over that issue of NGM for collective hours while sitting on the shitter (that's the best place to read NGM, IMO).
Because in the long run, it leads to a stagnant economy in the protectionist country. While it lessens the impact of downturns, it more greatly reduces the opportunities for growth. Protectionist policies lengthened and deepened every recession and depression in US history which they were enacted in response to.
Please, read some economic history. Protectionism is penny-wise and pound-foolish.
Yes there is something definitely wrong with this...it f*cking depresses economies in the long run. I suggest you start researching history of labor law, minimum wage, unions, etc before you start lecturing anyone on economic best practices.
Maybe you shouldn't be throwing stones, living in that glass house of yours.
You have no idea what you're talking about. I suggest you do some reading of your own. Protectionism, which is what you're backing, depresses economies in the long run. Free movement of labor does not.
Re: minimum wage, labor law, unions, etc... That is a separate issue from free movement of labor. Yes, ideally all countries would afford workers the same level of rights and protections. But that is ancillary to the fact that artificial barriers on labor movement inhibit economic growth.
Just to add to your point... there is a minimum salary by law for workers on H1B. We pay my company's H1B employees a minimum of US 60,000 a year... and most receive much more than that.
The truth is, we can't find qualified Americans for the positions in question. We want employees, not contractors, from some positions (for a variety of reasons...) and almost all Americans with one of the skillsets we require work only on contract basis.
So we can either hire American contractors, which some of our clients do not want, or we can hire Indian/Eastern European/Chinese workers on H1B visas as employees.
I'm honestly a little bit confused about jurisdiction.
You shouldn't be. Where is Apex located?
That's right, in Middlesex County, NJ (South Plainfield, to be specific). So any damages would have been incurred in Middlesex County, NJ. Which makes it a perfectly logical place to file suit.
Exactly. The only way for the US to have won in Nam would have been to destroy everything (which was humanely and politically unpalatable). The only way to win in Iraq is to turn it into a glass parking lot (which would also be humanely and politically unpalatable).
But with spam... that may be a bit more palatable, if we can get people to accept responsibility for getting hosed.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm... I'm sure I couldn't crush an egg in my armpit, because all the force I could exert would just deform my somewhat-flabby hairpits. But next time I'm already on antibiotics for some reason, I'll try one against my eyesocket. Seems to me it should be possible, as long as the egg is large enough to bridge the from the upper orbital to the cheekbone. That's just over two finger-widths for me... maybe a jumbo egg would be big enough.
One other thing to note... I've noticed lately that some eggs (especially the cheapest ones) have VERY thin shells. I broke one making Christmas cookies just picking it up out of the carton -- but it's possible it had a hairline fracture I didn't see.
That's a very interesting point I hadn't considered until now.
The invite system may be yet another way that Google collects information useful to them in selling advertising, etc... they can identify "power brokers" in tech marketing, which would be valuable information to advertisers (and to their internal marketing).
Yech.
Hey douchebag, that's not true at all. I've got egg all over my desk, my monitor, my pants, and my shirt now.
Of course, it could just be because I used my masturbating hand to do it... that hand is much stronger.
Anyway, it's not the distribution of force over the shell that makes hand-crushing an egg difficult. It's the fact that most people simply can't generate enough force at that position due to how the hand is shaped -- a lot of the force is dispersed by deforming the hand tissue, not the egg. The trick is to have the narrow end of the egg towards your thumb, and to squeeze like you're milking a cow but with the palm, not with the fingers). This loads the first portion of the force exerted into deforming your palm, and the last portion is almost entirely directed into the egg.
Note also that a robotic hand does not have the physiological limitations a human hand does.
I've seen the uniforms. I have no problem with wearing one of them, as long as it isn't the red one.
BOSS: Ensign Flayer, you and Scotty head over to the VP of Marketing's office to troubleshoot his docking station.
ME: FUCK
Metal detectors and some of the other screening is a general measure that can help prevent multiple attack vectors on a specific target (an airplane). It's the no-liquids-over-2-oz rule, and the new sit-in-your-seat-for-an-hour-and-no-hanky-panky-mister rules that are silly.
Those are some very sweeping generalizations, along with a mischaracterization (socialist does not belong in the same set as pragmatist and realist).
This is not what I have proposed. Furthermore, free market wealth redistribution is about as far from socialism as you can get. Protectionist policies are much closer to socialism than free movement of labor.
I don't know where to start with that statement, it has so many flaws. First, a pragmatist does not seek the simplest workable solution. A pragmatist seeks the solution that produces the desired result, regardless of means. In this situation, a pragmatist with an understanding of economics would not seek a walled garden... because almost all economists agree that protectionism hurts economies in the long run. Even Krugman couches his pro- stance on protectionism with caveats, such as the biggest one -- protectionism only works if there is no retaliatory protectionism.
Anyone with half a brain understand that employment rates, immigration, etc affect millions of people. What you describe can be attributed to anyone, from idealist through realist... though the idealist would be more likely to believe that philosophical ideals would carry through to real-world effects, despite lack of evidence. And for what it's worth, realism isn't really applicable to economics. Pragmatism is closer to what you describe when you make that statement about realists.
Retraining is the only thing that will keep us out of a major depression in the future. Yes, we need to pay the piper now. The tradeoff is to pay the piper later, with a huge amount of interest tacked on. Protectionism stagnates economies, moreso now that trade is so globalized.
I disagree. We have cheaper products because of offshoring, which gives us excess capital to spend on other things. Some of us have greater profits (and while there is a problem with how the cost-savings are distributed, that is attributable to income imbalance in the US, not to offshoring itself). Where do you shop that you never take advantage of cheap offshore labor? How much do you think your consumer goods would cost if they were produced in the US? How much more would you pay for software if it were all developed in the US? What would your standard of living be like if everything you used or consumed were produced with American labor rates? To even think that offshored labor doesn't benefit anyone in the US is just laughable.
Additionally, I think you dismiss my question... are Indians less human than Americans? Is lifting Indians out of abject
So what's the alternative? An entity that suffers damages due to an entity in another jurisdiction must file suit in the defendant's jurisdiction?
I'm just glad they didn't file in the 9th Circuit Court down in TX.
We offered the same rate as an employee that they were willing to accept as a contractor. Not sure if you know how contracting rates work, but they are almost always *more* than employee rates... we offered a substantial incentive by offering employment terms at contract rates. I've never seen equity in offered hourly pay (employee-contractor) before or since then. That's the trade-off for no benefits, lower overhead for the company, etc. These were PRIME offers, and we couldn't find any qualified American willing to do the work as an employee. Well above the six-figure threshold for these positions... it's a function of the niche the jobs were in, I think. But there have to be more niches like that.
Those simple instrusive screenings are, if I'm not mistaken, exactly part of the security theater that Schneier objects to. They don't *really* make us safer, they just seem to.
No. That's not what we're talking about -- if you think it is, you didn't RTFA. We are addressing prevention and control of terrorist acts in general, NOT specific threats on a specific target (like airplanes). An entire point of TFA is that looking only at specific threats is pointless and wasteful -- it's just security theater.
Maybe a shaped charge and some general aiming by the would-be assassin?
The prior failure may have been a problem with execution (no pun intended), not with concept.
Awesome. I love the way you pointed out the numerical editorializing done by the author (despite claims of non-editorialization).
Now, for the sake of completeness:
Let's assume that we're only counting people atoms (and not luggage, clothing, etc).
Atoms transported == people*miles * (atoms/person)
Per this site, there are about 7*10^27 atoms in an average person.
So we're talking 7*10^27 * 11.6*10^9, so roughly 8 * 10^37. In long form, for enhanced visual impact:
We have only one terrorist attack per each 80,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 atom*miles !11!!!one!eleventyone!
How's that for perspective?
That's a hard line to take.
I don't think the commission got all the data they needed. I think, based on the data they got, the report is the closest thing we have to the truth. So maybe I am a truther... I believe we have reasonable ground for suspecting that not all the pertinent information was released. God, now I loathe myself. Thanks for pointing it out, Maxume!
It doesn't quite argue that... but even if it did, the argument is not fallacious (please point to the specific thing that falsifies the argument -- is it the assumptions? One of the logical deductions?). It seems to me that the conclusion, not the argument, is what you don't like.
:)
Targeting specific vectors on specific targets is practically useless. That's my point. Setting the bar lower (which you may be confused about -- setting the bar lower means to lower the threshold for something to qualify for a subset; this means a lower threshold for inclusion in the list of threats to defend against, which means increasing the list of specific threats to target). Schneier argues that we raise the bar on qualifying threats, thus defending with general measures most of the time. Or maybe I'm completely misreading what you're applying the "raise/lower the bar" metaphor to, in which case I'd appreciate a clarification
I have a hard time believing the first part of that (maybe you read it after your initial post?), since your OP and first follow-up not only blatantly contradict Schneier's points, but also attribute a conclusion to him that he did not make. Maybe you skimmed the first few paragraphs, then came back to comment early in the thread? As for me, I read it thoroughly before even looking at the comments to the article... still not sure how, up until this last post, you missed his major points.
At any rate, the point of this discussion is the claim of yours that the problem is one of reactive measures, rather than proactive measures. Can we agree, now that we've both read the piece, that it doesn't matter if it's proactive or reactive, it's the specificity that's the basis of Schneier's argument? Because that was my main gripe with your OP.
With a walled-off cockpit, hijacking isn't a threat anyway -- as long as the hijackers do not have the ability to surpass the cockpit doors. A gun doesn't help the hijackers much, unless their goal is just to kill people in a high-profile manner (in which case, bringing that gun elsewhere could be nearly as effective, but with a much higher chance of success).
So, as you point out, explosives are the real threat. But it's impossible to fool dogs and/or a puffer machine. You'd just need to properly seal and decontaminate the explosive package, so physical search is still necessary if you want to prevent explosive attacks.
Never mind the fact the puffer machines and dogs would contribute to the security theater.
On the contrary... airplane hijackings, to that date, were primarily used as a negotiating tool.
My guess? The planes were hijacked, demands were made, and the hijackers were told to go to hell (I don't think GWB would have EVER negotiated with terrorists). So the hijackers did what they were told, and took thousands with them. Now, I'm no truther, but I also believe that a decision was made* to not shoot down the planes, and that the potential for the planes to hit the WTC (or other structure)and collapse it was either disregarded, discounted, or overlooked.
*Also possible that the decision was made via inaction, i.e., not escalating to the right people in time. But I believe it was a conscious decision at a high level.
That's just overkill, and environmentally irresponsible -- just think of the fuel required to lift those blast chambers to cruising altitude!
Straightjackets and leg restraints would work just fine, while maintaining a sense of modesty. Plus, with no ability to move around, passengers need less space -- so it would be more profitable for the airlines. As long as each passenger is fitted with a breathing tube, you could stack them four or five deep in coach class, maybe just two or three deep in business class.
Except, as soon as you put measures in place to prevent one vector, the other vectors have an increased likelihood, because terrorists are not necessarily stupid. If YOU know you can;t bring liquids on planes, THEY know it too. So then they use a different vector. It's like a game of whack-a-mole... defend all holes or they'll come through the one you didn't defend.
That's not what Schneier is arguing at all, please go back and actually RTFA. I'm not sure how you can so completely misread what he wrote. Schneier is arguing that it's useless to defend specific attack vectors on specific targets (like airplanes), since the very specificity of the defense precludes the use of that vector by terrorists.
I think you missed Schneier's point, if you RTFA.
The approach to dealing with threats should be intelligence gathering, our criminal justice system, and resilience in response to successful attacks.
A proactive approach that you suggest would require listing possible attack vectors, then taking action to prevent each of them. Carried to its logical conclusion, we'd all have to board planes naked (you could strangle someone with the elastic band from your underwear!), or even restrained (hands are weapons too!) in order to prevent terrorist actions on planes.
It's simply unreasonable to take that kind of preventative action.
In truth, (and one of Schneier's points), we cannot realistically defend against all attack vectors. To try to do so is pointless, except that it gives people a feeling of security. True defense against terrorism isn't served by reactive restrictions, nor by proactive restrictions -- unless they absolutely limit our ability to conduct regular tasks.
You're right, though, what they're doing isn't helping and is a royal pain in the ass. But the solution is not to become proactive in travel restrictions. It's most of what Schneier wrote in the piece.
There was a good article in National Geographic about this, with great maps, reference to the treaties governing claiming of seabed territory, in relation to oil and gas deposits in the Arctic.
Basically, it has to do with the continental shelf... the Russian continental shelf extends (subject to debate) across the North Pole... here's a map that helps clarify. I couldn't find the NGM map that shows the various claims by the countries surrounding the arctic, but I've pored over that issue of NGM for collective hours while sitting on the shitter (that's the best place to read NGM, IMO).
Because in the long run, it leads to a stagnant economy in the protectionist country. While it lessens the impact of downturns, it more greatly reduces the opportunities for growth. Protectionist policies lengthened and deepened every recession and depression in US history which they were enacted in response to.
Please, read some economic history. Protectionism is penny-wise and pound-foolish.
Maybe you shouldn't be throwing stones, living in that glass house of yours.
You have no idea what you're talking about. I suggest you do some reading of your own. Protectionism, which is what you're backing, depresses economies in the long run. Free movement of labor does not.
Re: minimum wage, labor law, unions, etc... That is a separate issue from free movement of labor. Yes, ideally all countries would afford workers the same level of rights and protections. But that is ancillary to the fact that artificial barriers on labor movement inhibit economic growth.
Just to add to your point... there is a minimum salary by law for workers on H1B. We pay my company's H1B employees a minimum of US 60,000 a year... and most receive much more than that.
The truth is, we can't find qualified Americans for the positions in question. We want employees, not contractors, from some positions (for a variety of reasons...) and almost all Americans with one of the skillsets we require work only on contract basis.
So we can either hire American contractors, which some of our clients do not want, or we can hire Indian/Eastern European/Chinese workers on H1B visas as employees.
You shouldn't be. Where is Apex located?
That's right, in Middlesex County, NJ (South Plainfield, to be specific). So any damages would have been incurred in Middlesex County, NJ. Which makes it a perfectly logical place to file suit.
Exactly. The only way for the US to have won in Nam would have been to destroy everything (which was humanely and politically unpalatable). The only way to win in Iraq is to turn it into a glass parking lot (which would also be humanely and politically unpalatable).
But with spam... that may be a bit more palatable, if we can get people to accept responsibility for getting hosed.