The Joys of Air Travel
Aug. 10th, 2006 11:01 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jducoeurOkay, yes -- I understand that a measure of caution is necessary in an age of loons who think terrorism actually accomplishes something. But I swear -- in ten years, everyone is going to be required to fly naked. (And preferably all sedated, which takes any potential fun out of it...)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2006-08-11 03:17 am (UTC)As in, something will slip past. These people are very determined, and I see no real end to this level of hatred in the immediate future.
On a side (and happier) note - I left something for you in my LJ, concerning Spam. :) Enjoy...
(no subject)
Date: 2006-08-11 03:37 am (UTC)On the one hand -- yes, that's probably true. OTOH -- it isn't clear to me that the extremities of paranoia we're getting into make it all that much less likely. The airports are always fighting yesterday's battles, but the successful attacks are always tomorrow's.
(I would love to see some accurate statistics about how many attacks get prevented by airport security, but I'm fairly sure that they don't exist. Indeed, it probably isn't even possible to compile them. Pain in the ass: omniscience would be so useful, sometimes...)
I left something for you in my LJ, concerning Spam.
Regarding the spam -- yeah, that's usually the way of it. But there are occasional gems.
As for the video -- okay, this one gets top-posted. That's brilliant...
(no subject)
Date: 2006-08-11 05:09 am (UTC)Not exactly what you asked for, but:
Mueller, John. "A False Sense of Insecurity?" Regulation 27.3 (Fall 2004): 42-46
It attempts to make the statistical argument that, even assuming a fairly high rate of "success" for terrorism, the risk to any given individual is significantly lower than the risk of, say, continued automobile use and policymakers should be looking for ways to get that point across rather than contributing to the hysteria. (I know, I know, depends on what your agenda is as the policy maker; I'm quite cynical, too.)
It's been slashdotted recently from BoingBoing and Bruce Scheiner's blog; if you are not already reading the latter and are interested in just that sort of question (applied to security in general) it's not a bad addition to your reading list.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-08-11 01:10 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-08-11 07:30 am (UTC)Perhaps we don't need to know that exactly to have an idea of what's up. We can start comparing losses from terrorist attacks against other risks of death to gain perspective.
We must always be wary of statistics, but consider the following - depending upon exactly how you want to count it, in order for flight to be ask risky as driving the same distance by car, you'd need to have one set of September 11th style crashes every month.
If so, unless they're stopping a multi-thousand victim plot every month, spending our Homeland Security budget on highway safety might be a more effective way to save American lives. And I figure if they were stoppig that many attacks, they'd be crowing about it in the news media, no?
It seems to me that every time we go into a frenzy trying to protect ourselves from terror, we show that we are, in fact, terrified - meaning that the bastards are achieving their goals. There's been little to no indication that the dangers are anywhere near justifying our reaction.
While not properly quantitative or attributed, the following paper does present much of the relevant logic: http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv27n3/v27n3-5.pdf
(no subject)
Date: 2006-08-11 01:19 pm (UTC)... "... it will happen again. "...
Date: 2006-08-11 05:09 am (UTC)Yes, they can bring down a plane. The Locherby incident (Locherbie?) should make that obvious, even to the AOL generation. But can they again use a plane as a weapon? Do you believe that again, a set of American passengers will sit passively in their seats, no matter what the hijackers have?
In case it's not clear - my personal belief is "no". We all die. I'd rather die in a rush down the aisle or trying to wrestle the detonator away from some licker-of-diseased-goats than passively in my seat.
How about you?
Re: ... "... it will happen again. "...
Date: 2006-08-11 11:14 am (UTC)Likewise. The days of sitting back and doing nothing when confronted with it are over, but it would seem that the continuation of the belief over there that the American people are "easy targets" is still being projected. That's pretty much what I'm referring to - their determination to end American lives hasn't slowed down any.
Just as you pointed out, our determination to save American and human lives overall shouldn't slow down, any, either.
Re: ... "... it will happen again. "...
Date: 2006-08-11 09:59 pm (UTC)Re: ... "... it will happen again. "...
Date: 2006-08-11 01:18 pm (UTC)Would it be possible to pull off 9/11 again? I'm not quite willing to say that it's impossible for someone clever and well-prepared enough. But I'm pretty sure that it's now much, much harder, less because of all the security measures, and more because the average American's instincts at this point are to Not Let It Happen. Doesn't take very many people acting on such instincts to foil most plans...
Re: ... "... it will happen again. "...
Date: 2006-08-11 01:39 pm (UTC)Re: ... "... it will happen again. "...
Date: 2006-08-11 06:48 pm (UTC)re: sit passively in their seats
Date: 2006-08-11 01:47 pm (UTC)Always winning last year's war...
(no subject)
Date: 2006-08-11 04:01 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-08-11 12:25 pm (UTC)re: sedated
Date: 2006-08-11 05:07 am (UTC)