First of all, this article must have been written the same week of the attack, because it presumes that we would have to conquer Pakistan first in order to attack Afghanistan. We now know that Pakistan has agreed to every major request we've made, INCLUDING a staging area on Pakistani soil. Face it, Pakistan has been bought off (much to bin Laden's chagrin, I'm sure).
Secondly, what would we get out of killing innocent civilians? Like he says, they already hate the Taliban, just feed them and arm them, and let them take back their country. The Taliban don't even have control of the entire country; about 10% belongs to rebel groups. Our objective is probably going to be to knock the Taliban out of power and help the Afghanistans rebuild, and make an ally out of them. That's our history, anyway. Whenever we beat the living crap out of a country's leadership, we always go back in to help them rebuild.
Third, I don't think we are going to make all of the mistakes that were made in Vietnam by us and Afghanistan by the Russians. Say what you will about "military intelligence" being an oxymoron, but I think that the Gulf War was proof that we have adapted. There's plenty of history on Afghanistan for our military leaders to study, and the fact that we haven't yet fired a shot is good; we're obviously doing our homework first.
Uh oh... time to invest some cash!
on
XBox Delayed
·
· Score: 2
Remember when PS2 was delaying and initial shipments were constrained? People were selling PS2 on eBay before Christmas for as much as $5000.
Anyone with some spare cash should probably get their pre-orders in, it looks like another hot investment opportunity...:-D
Lucas has publicly stated that he will release the original trilogy on DVD, but after Episode 3 comes out. He wants to release all 6 films in a special box set. If the review of Episode I is any indication, it should be worth the wait.
Personally, I hope there is an option to watch the original trilogy before they mucked it up with that "Special Edition" crap....
The most prevalent application for WAP is porn... My goodness, how desparate are these people for sexual gratification that tiny 1-bit images of nekkid women gets them off?
As I stated, Who knows what other evidence the hijackers were carrying? Nobody, because its all been blown to smithereens.
Look, nobody can say for certain what security would have done, but at least they would have had the option of intervening, and 6,000 people might still be alive.
Yes, there was a duffel bag found in the WTC wreckage that contained a copy of the Koran and a pilot training video. The terrorists also used some type of hard plastic knife in addition to the razors. (They used the knives to kill stewardesses in order to get the pilot out of the cabin on at least one of the flights.)
And that's just the stuff we do know about. Who knows what other evidence they may have been carrying on them, either suspicious or incriminating. We'll probably never know now, because it's all been blown to kingdom-come.
But, just imagine if those men had been pulled aside for questioning at that Boston airport. Over 5,000 lives saved, as well as the twin towers and tens of billions of dollars that turned into vapor in the aftermath. If only airport security had had a heads up, this would have been preventable.
Like I said, most of those men were known to have terrorist connections, and I believe 2 were wanted by the FBI already.
Dont get me wrong, I'm not disagreeing with your logical arguments, there is no expectation of privacy in public places - but there is somthing sinister about being watched by inhuman eyes. It's just an element that I don't think we need. When I stop and smell the roses in a park, I don't want to feel "watched and protected."
Ever been to Wal-Mart? Used an ATM? Pumped gas? Bought groceries? Gone to the mall?
It's too late, the electronic eyes are already all around us.
So what's your point? That some criminals slip through the cracks of the system? Oooooo, wait, let me call the Washington Post, I'm sure they'll want to pounce on that story right away...
I said the press release, but was thinking of this quote from the internal email. Sorry.
Also, today we are announcing the cancellation of Apple Expo 2001,
which was scheduled to take place in Paris on September 26-30. We
are very sorry to disappoint our customers and developers, but their
safety must be our primary concern at this time. Apple is a very
visible American company, and having a highly publicized event at
this time would be irresponsible.
Given that the human face recognition performed by the check-in agents did not keep the hijackers out, there is no reason to think that computer face recognition would help.
So, we now require all check-in agents at all airports to memorize the faces of thousands of known terrorists? I must have missed that in the news...
Personally, I'm all for placing face regocnition systems in airports. If it will save lives, beginning with mine and my family's, then let's get it done. Absolutely.
Look, the age of technology is here, and the criminals are already using technology to the max. The use of facial scanning technology, matching against wanted or known criminals in airports is not a violation of civil liberties, IMO. The unrestricted use of facial scanning technology by government may be, but it is important that we build out our legal system to accomodate new technologies AND protect civil liberties.
For example, we could make a distinction between "scanning and matching" and "tracking" (without a court order).
What I'm totally against is reactionary diatribes about the loss of civil liberties that don't cast an eye towards reshaping law. We have to keep seeking out that unique balance between protecting civil liberties and protecting society.
My point was that attacking symbols of America are just as valid, if not more so, to terrorists than attacking the US government or the US military directly. The WTC is a symbol of America. Apple is a symbol of America.
Terrorists might view Apple as a target because of that.
The WTC didn't house many (if any) government offices, they were businesses.
Personally, I also think it's a little too reactionary; they should just beef up security and go on with the show.
There was a report on Marketplace on Friday about how many organizations within the US are cancelling their conventions because of the tragedy. The financial impact on the tourism industry of those cities is in the tens of millions of dollars. Think about it, if a convention has 30,000 people, and each person spends an average of $300 apiece on food, lodging, and such, then the loss of that one convention would mean the loss of $9 mil. in revenue.
Re:The need for offsite backup
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 2
Actually, the WTC had an emergency plan that everyone in the towers should have been familiar with. Remember the 1993 bombing? One survivor account I read said that an entire company was saved because they remember the training they had after that incident.
The need for offsite backup
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 5, Informative
As everyone knows by know, Morgan Stanley Dean Whitter occupied roughly 10% of the WTC, with some 3500 employees. There's a good article on Yahoo this morning about their offsite back strategy, and how it enabled them to start working again almost immediately.
Re:What can be done about terrorism?
on
More On Tragedy
·
· Score: 2
Here's a newsflash for ya... In case you haven't heard, almost everything that humans do have an "alterior motive".
But are we evil for trying to export democracy, capitalism, and human rights? Whether or not we had an alterior motive in doing these things, it was doubtless the right thing to do.
And why do we support questionable leaders and oppressive regimes? Simple, we're trying to effect change, and we have to start somewhere. We can't just waltz into some third-world country with a leader we just hand-picked from the graduating class of Georgetown University and say, "Ok, we Americans have chosen a new leader for you people! Follow this guy!" Sure, we'd love to be able to do something even remotely close to that, but that's just not realistic. We have to work with governments, peoples and cultures where they are at. And no, we can't just simply erect a wall to the rest of the world and say, "Ok, when all you people clean up your act, then we'll do business with you!"
Well, that would be a weak plan. The civilians would have ample time to evacuate, and the fighters would have the luxury of forcing the plane down on their terms.
that the passengers on the other planes didn't act similarly. However, the word is that the terrorists on the other planes were telling the passengers that they would be alright if they were obedient.
Have we entered into an era where we can't ever again make assumptions about the safety of the passengers? These terrorists have now demonstrated what to do and how to do it; no doubt there will be many, many copycats.
Sad to say, but in a hijack situation, maybe passengers should probably assume they are already dead and do everything possible to bring down the plane before they become a flying bomb. And I hate to say it, but we may have even entered a time where the military would be negligent if they didn't shoot down a hijacked plane heading towards a metropolitan area.
"It must have been Osama Bin Laden," one said. I wonder how much this person knows about Osama Bin Laden other than the fact that the State Department made him boogeyman of the year a while back.
Osama Bin-Laden owns an airfield in Afghanistan where pilots are trained on jumbo jets for terrorist acts. Did you see the precision with which those two planes hit the towers? I've never flown a 767, but I used to be a private pilot, and I seriously doubt that Joe Shmoe Terrorist off the streets of Palestine would have been able to take over the controls and fly these planes in like that. These guys had training in commercial aviation, and you're talking some big bucks there. That narrows it down to a select group of terrorist organizations that they could have come from, and Bin Laden is on that list.
The problem with isolating the cockpit is that then you would be completely helpless in the event of a suicidal pilot, or heart attack. Or what about fire in the cockpit?
I think you've seen too many movies. First of all, I believe there are generally 3-5 people piloting these jumbo jets. If a pilot had a heart attack, the copilot or the navigator would take over. Besides, I doubt an inexperienced passenger could land something like a 767.
A suicidal pilot taking a fully loaded plane down with him? How often does that happen? I'll take my chances with that one.
Fire in the cockpit? If you have a fire in the cockpit, you're in serious trouble regardless...
Separating the cokpit is a great idea. The fact is that jumbo jets today aren't designed with security in mind, and they need to be. We have crossed into a new era.
This will no doubt change airline security forever. Perhaps what is needed is a total redesign of these jumbo jets, i.e., to have the pilot cabin totally sealed off from the rest of the plane. The pilots could enter a separate door, and then have each of them enter a security code in order to start the engines. Is there any reason that the pilots need access to the rest of the plane? Separating them will give the pilots a hell of a lot more options in a hijack situation. They can radio for help, and they can put the plane down on their terms. And, most importantly, it will keep terrorists from taking direct control of the aircraft. As was said on NPR today, a 767 is a terrorist's dream bomb -- up to 250 passengers on board, 20,000 lbs of fuel, and who knows how many tons of steel traveling at a high velocity.
Let's face it, today's airliners are NOT designed with security in mind.
I am going to agree with Jon, here (gasp!). This is how War is played in the twenty-first century. No one has the power to have a conventional war with the US, so it must result in terrorism and guerilla warfare. Its not pretty, but this is how war has evolved.
I'm reminded of the Roman Empire... one of the factors that led to the fall of that Empire was the constant raids by the Visigoths; not so much a nation as a nomadic people. They certainly weren't a match for the Empire in formal battle, but they led a fairly consistent "hit and run" campaign that greatly weakened the Romans and demoralized them.
Likewise, it's hard to pin down modern terrorists as a nation, but they execute suicide attacks whose primary purpose is to wear down and demoralize. They know they can't win a head-on battle with most governments, but they can wreak havoc if they can continue to hit us on our own soil on a regular basis.
Slashdot Mirror
First of all, this article must have been written the same week of the attack, because it presumes that we would have to conquer Pakistan first in order to attack Afghanistan. We now know that Pakistan has agreed to every major request we've made, INCLUDING a staging area on Pakistani soil. Face it, Pakistan has been bought off (much to bin Laden's chagrin, I'm sure).
Secondly, what would we get out of killing innocent civilians? Like he says, they already hate the Taliban, just feed them and arm them, and let them take back their country. The Taliban don't even have control of the entire country; about 10% belongs to rebel groups. Our objective is probably going to be to knock the Taliban out of power and help the Afghanistans rebuild, and make an ally out of them. That's our history, anyway. Whenever we beat the living crap out of a country's leadership, we always go back in to help them rebuild.
Third, I don't think we are going to make all of the mistakes that were made in Vietnam by us and Afghanistan by the Russians. Say what you will about "military intelligence" being an oxymoron, but I think that the Gulf War was proof that we have adapted. There's plenty of history on Afghanistan for our military leaders to study, and the fact that we haven't yet fired a shot is good; we're obviously doing our homework first.
Remember when PS2 was delaying and initial shipments were constrained? People were selling PS2 on eBay before Christmas for as much as $5000.
:-D
Anyone with some spare cash should probably get their pre-orders in, it looks like another hot investment opportunity...
Lucas has publicly stated that he will release the original trilogy on DVD, but after Episode 3 comes out. He wants to release all 6 films in a special box set. If the review of Episode I is any indication, it should be worth the wait.
Personally, I hope there is an option to watch the original trilogy before they mucked it up with that "Special Edition" crap....
The most prevalent application for WAP is porn... My goodness, how desparate are these people for sexual gratification that tiny 1-bit images of nekkid women gets them off?
As I stated, Who knows what other evidence the hijackers were carrying? Nobody, because its all been blown to smithereens.
Look, nobody can say for certain what security would have done, but at least they would have had the option of intervening, and 6,000 people might still be alive.
Yes, there was a duffel bag found in the WTC wreckage that contained a copy of the Koran and a pilot training video. The terrorists also used some type of hard plastic knife in addition to the razors. (They used the knives to kill stewardesses in order to get the pilot out of the cabin on at least one of the flights.)
And that's just the stuff we do know about. Who knows what other evidence they may have been carrying on them, either suspicious or incriminating. We'll probably never know now, because it's all been blown to kingdom-come.
But, just imagine if those men had been pulled aside for questioning at that Boston airport. Over 5,000 lives saved, as well as the twin towers and tens of billions of dollars that turned into vapor in the aftermath. If only airport security had had a heads up, this would have been preventable.
Like I said, most of those men were known to have terrorist connections, and I believe 2 were wanted by the FBI already.
Dont get me wrong, I'm not disagreeing with your logical arguments, there is no expectation of privacy in public places - but there is somthing sinister about being watched by inhuman eyes. It's just an element that I don't think we need. When I stop and smell the roses in a park, I don't want to feel "watched and protected."
Ever been to Wal-Mart? Used an ATM? Pumped gas? Bought groceries? Gone to the mall?
It's too late, the electronic eyes are already all around us.
So what's your point? That some criminals slip through the cracks of the system? Oooooo, wait, let me call the Washington Post, I'm sure they'll want to pounce on that story right away...
I said the press release, but was thinking of this quote from the internal email. Sorry.
Also, today we are announcing the cancellation of Apple Expo 2001,
which was scheduled to take place in Paris on September 26-30. We
are very sorry to disappoint our customers and developers, but their
safety must be our primary concern at this time. Apple is a very
visible American company, and having a highly publicized event at
this time would be irresponsible.
Any questions?
It might have prompted a more thorough search of the bags of the hijackers, most of whom were already known to the CIA to be involved in terrorism.
In the bags, someone would have found a video about how to fly a commercial jet and some plastic knives.
Given that the human face recognition performed by the check-in agents did not keep the hijackers out, there is no reason to think that computer face recognition would help.
So, we now require all check-in agents at all airports to memorize the faces of thousands of known terrorists? I must have missed that in the news...
Personally, I'm all for placing face regocnition systems in airports. If it will save lives, beginning with mine and my family's, then let's get it done. Absolutely.
Look, the age of technology is here, and the criminals are already using technology to the max. The use of facial scanning technology, matching against wanted or known criminals in airports is not a violation of civil liberties, IMO. The unrestricted use of facial scanning technology by government may be, but it is important that we build out our legal system to accomodate new technologies AND protect civil liberties.
For example, we could make a distinction between "scanning and matching" and "tracking" (without a court order).
What I'm totally against is reactionary diatribes about the loss of civil liberties that don't cast an eye towards reshaping law. We have to keep seeking out that unique balance between protecting civil liberties and protecting society.
My point was that attacking symbols of America are just as valid, if not more so, to terrorists than attacking the US government or the US military directly. The WTC is a symbol of America. Apple is a symbol of America.
Read their press release.
We're already in the midst of one jihad, don't get another one started... :-P
They didn't predict anything for MacWorld Paris, and it looks like they were right!!!
Terrorists might view Apple as a target because of that.
The WTC didn't house many (if any) government offices, they were businesses.
Personally, I also think it's a little too reactionary; they should just beef up security and go on with the show.
There was a report on Marketplace on Friday about how many organizations within the US are cancelling their conventions because of the tragedy. The financial impact on the tourism industry of those cities is in the tens of millions of dollars. Think about it, if a convention has 30,000 people, and each person spends an average of $300 apiece on food, lodging, and such, then the loss of that one convention would mean the loss of $9 mil. in revenue.
Actually, the WTC had an emergency plan that everyone in the towers should have been familiar with. Remember the 1993 bombing? One survivor account I read said that an entire company was saved because they remember the training they had after that incident.
As everyone knows by know, Morgan Stanley Dean Whitter occupied roughly 10% of the WTC, with some 3500 employees. There's a good article on Yahoo this morning about their offsite back strategy, and how it enabled them to start working again almost immediately.
Here's a newsflash for ya... In case you haven't heard, almost everything that humans do have an "alterior motive".
But are we evil for trying to export democracy, capitalism, and human rights? Whether or not we had an alterior motive in doing these things, it was doubtless the right thing to do.
And why do we support questionable leaders and oppressive regimes? Simple, we're trying to effect change, and we have to start somewhere. We can't just waltz into some third-world country with a leader we just hand-picked from the graduating class of Georgetown University and say, "Ok, we Americans have chosen a new leader for you people! Follow this guy!" Sure, we'd love to be able to do something even remotely close to that, but that's just not realistic. We have to work with governments, peoples and cultures where they are at. And no, we can't just simply erect a wall to the rest of the world and say, "Ok, when all you people clean up your act, then we'll do business with you!"
Well, that would be a weak plan. The civilians would have ample time to evacuate, and the fighters would have the luxury of forcing the plane down on their terms.
that the passengers on the other planes didn't act similarly. However, the word is that the terrorists on the other planes were telling the passengers that they would be alright if they were obedient.
Have we entered into an era where we can't ever again make assumptions about the safety of the passengers? These terrorists have now demonstrated what to do and how to do it; no doubt there will be many, many copycats.
Sad to say, but in a hijack situation, maybe passengers should probably assume they are already dead and do everything possible to bring down the plane before they become a flying bomb. And I hate to say it, but we may have even entered a time where the military would be negligent if they didn't shoot down a hijacked plane heading towards a metropolitan area.
Gee, I'm totally unfamiliar with those... why don't you list out a few names of these groups of disaffected, right-wing christian airline pilots?
"It must have been Osama Bin Laden," one said. I wonder how much this person knows about Osama Bin Laden other than the fact that the State Department made him boogeyman of the year a while back.
Osama Bin-Laden owns an airfield in Afghanistan where pilots are trained on jumbo jets for terrorist acts. Did you see the precision with which those two planes hit the towers? I've never flown a 767, but I used to be a private pilot, and I seriously doubt that Joe Shmoe Terrorist off the streets of Palestine would have been able to take over the controls and fly these planes in like that. These guys had training in commercial aviation, and you're talking some big bucks there. That narrows it down to a select group of terrorist organizations that they could have come from, and Bin Laden is on that list.
The problem with isolating the cockpit is that then you would be completely helpless in the event of a suicidal pilot, or heart attack. Or what about fire in the cockpit?
I think you've seen too many movies. First of all, I believe there are generally 3-5 people piloting these jumbo jets. If a pilot had a heart attack, the copilot or the navigator would take over. Besides, I doubt an inexperienced passenger could land something like a 767.
A suicidal pilot taking a fully loaded plane down with him? How often does that happen? I'll take my chances with that one.
Fire in the cockpit? If you have a fire in the cockpit, you're in serious trouble regardless...
Separating the cokpit is a great idea. The fact is that jumbo jets today aren't designed with security in mind, and they need to be. We have crossed into a new era.
This will no doubt change airline security forever. Perhaps what is needed is a total redesign of these jumbo jets, i.e., to have the pilot cabin totally sealed off from the rest of the plane. The pilots could enter a separate door, and then have each of them enter a security code in order to start the engines. Is there any reason that the pilots need access to the rest of the plane? Separating them will give the pilots a hell of a lot more options in a hijack situation. They can radio for help, and they can put the plane down on their terms. And, most importantly, it will keep terrorists from taking direct control of the aircraft. As was said on NPR today, a 767 is a terrorist's dream bomb -- up to 250 passengers on board, 20,000 lbs of fuel, and who knows how many tons of steel traveling at a high velocity.
Let's face it, today's airliners are NOT designed with security in mind.
I am going to agree with Jon, here (gasp!). This is how War is played in the twenty-first century. No one has the power to have a conventional war with the US, so it must result in terrorism and guerilla warfare. Its not pretty, but this is how war has evolved.
I'm reminded of the Roman Empire... one of the factors that led to the fall of that Empire was the constant raids by the Visigoths; not so much a nation as a nomadic people. They certainly weren't a match for the Empire in formal battle, but they led a fairly consistent "hit and run" campaign that greatly weakened the Romans and demoralized them.
Likewise, it's hard to pin down modern terrorists as a nation, but they execute suicide attacks whose primary purpose is to wear down and demoralize. They know they can't win a head-on battle with most governments, but they can wreak havoc if they can continue to hit us on our own soil on a regular basis.