--0-1891267403-1155574517=:44808
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Well Danny, after reading all the replys to this issue so far I would say you
have not persuaded me to your argument that such security attempts are useless.
James Mickens, as usual, is very calm, logical, and effective with his
argument, which, though expressed so much more eloquently than mine, is
essentially the same as mine, i.e., that past, present, and future security
attempts at airports (or anywhere else) are necessary and justified, though
admittedly far from perfect. And all the logic, statistics, and probabilities
placed aside, when we imagine that perhaps within the week as many as 10 planes
full of innocent people may well have been blown out of the sky, in my opinion
one does not advocate ignoring such an atrocity and attempt to do nothing. To
address Bethany's point, yes, the broader measures that she notes are necessary
to address, i.e. poverty, etc. we should of course address as well. In the
meantime though, I'd like to know that terrorists are not
given carte blanche to easily walk onto planes and wreak their perverted
violence as they desire.
Daniel Reeves wrote: My mom and I argued about this today. I'm on a plane
right now and here
are my thoughts:
If you wanted to get a liquid on a plane you would just put it in a
ziplock bag in a square container and that would pass through the x-ray
without raising an eyebrow, or just leave bottles of stuff right in your
pockets -- no alarms will go off as you stroll through the metal detector.
Or print a fake prescription label (they have an exception for
prescriptions). These measures will foil the terrorists who are
sophisticated enough to acquire liquid explosives but not sophisticated
enough to get some liquid through security (something, incidentally, I
just did without trying). If you still think (this is directed at you,
Mom) we've got to "at least try", how about this: do brain scans of
passengers and reject those who are thinking about blowing up a plane.
Sure, we can't detect that in a brain scan and if we could terrorists
could circumvent it by thinking about kittens, but my god, we've to to at
least try!
Thus is my rant. The TSA is stupid.
Danny
PS, seriously, any idiot can get liquids through security. I'm a case in
point. Oh, and same goes for pocket-knives, to a lesser extent.
--
http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves - - search://"Daniel Reeves"
"I'm on a seafood diet -- I see food and I eat it."
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
--0-1891267403-1155574517=:44808
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Well Danny, after reading all the replys to this issue so far I would say you
have not persuaded me to your argument that such security attempts are useless.
James Mickens, as usual, is very calm, logical, and effective with his
argument, which, though expressed so much more eloquently than mine, is
essentially the same as mine, i.e., that past, present, and future security
attempts at airports (or anywhere else) are necessary and justified, though
admittedly far from perfect. And all the logic, statistics, and probabilities
placed aside, when we imagine that perhaps within the week as many as 10 planes
full of innocent people may well have been blown out of the sky, in my opinion
one does not advocate ignoring such an atrocity and attempt to do nothing. To
address Bethany's point, yes, the broader measures that she notes are necessary
to address, i.e. poverty, etc. we should of course address as well. In the
meantime though, I'd like to
know that terrorists are not given carte blanche to easily walk onto planes
and wreak their perverted violence as they desire. Daniel Reeves
<dreeves Æ umich.edu> wrote: My mom and I argued about this
today. I'm on a plane right now and here are my thoughts: If you wanted to
get a liquid on a plane you would just put it in a ziplock bag in a square
container and that would pass through the x-ray without raising an eyebrow, or
just leave bottles of stuff right in your pockets -- no alarms will go off as
you stroll through the metal detector. Or print a fake prescription label
(they have an exception for prescriptions). These measures will foil the
terrorists who are sophisticated enough to acquire liquid explosives but not
sophisticated enough to get some liquid through security (something,
incidentally,
I just did without trying). If you still think (this is directed at you,
Mom) we've got to "at least try", how about this: do brain scans of passengers
and reject those who are thinking about blowing up a plane. Sure, we can't
detect that in a brain scan and if we could terrorists could circumvent it by
thinking about kittens, but my god, we've to to at least try! Thus is my
rant. The TSA is stupid. Danny PS, seriously, any idiot can get liquids
through security. I'm a case in point. Oh, and same goes for pocket-knives, to
a lesser extent. -- http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves - -
search://"Daniel Reeves" "I'm on a seafood diet -- I see food and I eat it."
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of
spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
--0-1891267403-1155574517=:44808--
|
