Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 5 Jan 2007 14:06 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:36ab5$459d4eed$49ecfa8$5785(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >T Wake wrote: <space snip> >> Earlier you said sacrificing freedom for safety was acceptable > > Let's accept that was the precise intent, I've written a lot > of things in this thread. Not worth the research to get the > exact statement and context. This seems to be heading into a > good discussion. I agree. >> - yet here it seems to be you have to assume the government are going to >> lie. > > It is best to assume that government, in the context of elected > officials doing the business of the government, is bound to lie > if that's what it takes to get the current agenda legitimized. Again I (broadly) agree. >> In these circumstances, how can the electorate be expected to make a >> reasoned, willing, sacrifice of freedom? > > Sorry to say that this statement has a built in bias suggesting > that the electorate as a whole is capable of doing so if they > have valid information. Sorry to say I don't agree with any > such premise. Ok. Personally my take on the democratic process is that the electorate have to be assumed to be capable of making a decision based on a reasoned, willing judgement. If the electorate vote for a government which is going to remove [insert object or freedom of choice], then I would _hope_ the electorate have been given the information with which to make the choice. Now, my personal hubris aside, I realise that a significant percentage of the electorate do not care enough about anything other than food, beer and reality TV. I also tend to *think* that this percentage are primarily made up of people who will not vote anyway, so their lethargy is not really an issue. Part of the problem (again, this is just a gut "feeling" I have developed so it may not be defensible) is that the "voting" portion of the electorate has become less and less made up of "moderates" and more polarised between camps (i.e. anti or pro immigration or whatever). > Check the reading and comprehension capabilities of "average > Joe" in your country, then look at the same stats in mine. > You'll discover the facts are appalling. There's an article > in yesterday's newspaper about the problems people taking > medications are having because they do not read and understand > well enough to take their medications as prescribed. No, not > mental patients, the general population. If they can't get > simple instructions right as a rule then how would anyone > expect them to make informed choices about elections? Fair comment and again, I broadly agree. It does create a whole set of new questions though. For example, is the democratic process inherently flawed? >> I agree that it should generally be taken as a given that politicians are >> lying to you, but the average voter can not be expected to know the >> technical ins and outs of each new policy. > > They have trouble at much more elementary levels than that. > >> As a result people come to rely on "specialists" giving them advice - >> which is worse than a government as these people are not elected, are not >> answerable to the public and are often _selected_ by the government. > > That's a nasty job, but someone has to do it. LOL :-) I am just jealous as I never get any of these plum jobs. >> I remember about 15 years ago seeing senior civil servants, police >> officers and government selected experts telling everyone how CCTV would >> reduce crime by massive amounts. There were occasional dissenting voices >> but the majority of expert opinion was it would work. It didn't. [*] > > The expert opinion providers also stood to benefit from the > installation, no? Generally, yes. Sadly, few (if any) people see this as a warning sign. Speed cameras are another example. Police forces get an income stream from them, and as a result they often appear in places where they will make money rather than prevent accidents. Still, apathy seems to prevent anything other than a vocal minority (and generally an elderly minority) complaining, so maybe I am just in a minority opinion and should be quiet. >> Similar things happen the world over - the insanity which airport >> security has become is an example. People _seem_ to think that >> sacrificing freedoms automatically gives security and (for some reason) >> that security can not be improved without sacrificing freedoms. > > Generally speaking while airport security is somewhat > over the top we haven't had any significant difficulties > since they were imposed. Saner approaches delivered to us > a "shoe bomber". With that example in mind security makes > it as close as possible to perfect safety on airliners. I dont agree at all. Without getting on my high horse, security is always a trade off between useability and protection. In the case of airline security procedures implemented since 11 Sep 01 (and more so the changes this year), the vast majority are there to create an illusion of security and reassure the passengers. This is not intrinsically a bad thing, passenger confidence needed to be returned post 11 Sep 01 and it is possible this has done it, but the risk is that if the illusion is broken, confidence will plummet even more. I can only hope that the security has two dimensions and the illusion is backed up with legitimate measures, although I have yet to see any (and even attended a presentation on Airport security last July). As some examples (Sorry this is long), in November 2001 I flew to Washington from Heathrow. At the time I was employed by the government and had official paperwork for the journey. Between arriving at the airport and boarding the plane, I was pat searched _five_ times. This is in addition to passing through the X-Ray machine. For some reason the airport had decided to pat search 99.999% of people as they checked their luggage, everyone got patted down as they went through the X-Ray, I was lucky enough to get pat searched as I entered the departure lounge and again as I went through the boarding gate. Then, to round this off as I was walking down the corridor to the plane there was a search point set up and as far as I could see every passgener was searched again. Now, the argument given at the time was this was to make sure that no one brought a weapon on to the plane. Which sounds reasonable but I have to question the value of the previous four checks. Surely the X-Ray machine is the point of search and as (again as far as I could see) everyone was being checked pat searched as well what did the other four checks do - other than create an illusion that extra security was in place. (Interestingly, all the searches were terribly inefficient and largely amounted to a burly security guard rubbing his hands over my arms and legs.... so maybe security wasn't the issue....) On the return journey things were even more comical, but at least the Americans had a good reason to be jumpy. The searches were very inefficient (for example, not one of the US pat searches looked in the holdall I was carrying) and did little other than delay. The woman I was traveling with was subjected to a slightly more humilating search as she was forced to strip to a t-shirt in the crowded departure lounge while the woman checking her went over every item of clothing. (Again, while she was made to take a drink from a sealed bottle of water bought in the departure lounge, they didn't check her bags....). Not ideal for a woman in her late fifties who is a fairly senior security advisor to the Home Office. But as I said, I can understand it more in the US. The reason I mention this, is the illusion this multiple search created. If either of us had wanted to carry weaponry on board, none of the searches _other_ than the X-Ray would have detected them. Nothing they checked would have prevented the 11 Sep 01 attackers. All it did was make people feel safer at the expense of dignity, pride and time. [*] The reaction this year, when UK airports almost ground to a halt over the rumoured threat some Islamists were going to smuggle a binary agent on to a plane, was comical in extreme. I had the misfortune of being sent on an EU flight during the scare and the airports were insane. There appeard to be no logic as to what regulations were in force on any given day nor how they were interpreted by each airline. > Heck, I always thought it absurd that US courthouses (almost > all of them) have metal detectors and security almost as > bad as airports. OTOH we've had a number of judges shot and > killed while presiding on the bench. In Illinois a prison > inmate mailed a federal judge a match head bomb he created in > prison. Every weakness is exploited. In the Chicago instance > the mail is *all* examined by x-ray in a secure location before > being delivered to the judges. Before the bomb it seemed an > overkill and wasted money. (deleted snide comment about the > replacement value of a judge vs. money spent keeping them > safe.) Security is always a compromise and often plays catch up to the bad people. > I don't like any of it, but I understand the need to take > care, even if that care sometimes appears excessive. It is > all against the spirit of constitutions. > > Personally I think Osama and his followers had the idea to > shut off as much of the openness in western society as they > can, bringing our living conditions closer to theirs as least > in some ways. It appears to me to be somewhat convoluted, but > then there they are, doing as they do. > > Osama et alia aren't clever enough to realize that all this > is temporary. They're not going to be able to maintain their > threatening ways over the long haul. Without that, we in the > west will eventually revert to the status quo (more or less) > before 9/11. > > It is almost funny that while we executed the guy with 80 > palaces we can't seem to rid ourselves of a guy (who needs > regular dialysis) in a cave. > > BTW, if you have any ideas on how to maintain airport > or courthouse security without the fuss you really > ought to write about it. Blogs are so easy to create > these days that even a cave man can do it. I think that if airlines and airports revised their security procedures in light of a blog on the internet I would be more worried than I am now. Also, I have no special privileged information. Nothing I would write would be new to the airlines or airports. I also know the current airport procedures (no idea about US courthouses) are not in keeping with what is taught. One strange aspect of the general status quo is a few years ago I was on an HOSDB Langhurst course [**] with a gentleman who is now a senior security manager at one of the UK's larger airports. I know his peers have done the same courses. I know on the course they explained how to implement a variety of levels of security in publicly accessed establishments. I know what was taught is different to the current procedures. If I knew him better, I would phone him up and ask him why. Sadly, I do not know him well enough and anything I did would seem like I was trying to poach business. It was a very polite way of saying "Put up or Shut up" though, thanks :-) Because I can't help myself: As an example, if safety is the paramount concern then the options are: 1 - don't fly. 2 - make all passengers move through a security guard airlock and change in to orange jumpsuits with _all_ personal belongings held by airport staff until landing. 3 (etc) all have varying levels of risks. To properly answer though things like the value of human life need to be determined. What priorities are there over the measures? etc. -- [*] Which in the example of a plane flight is possibly a reasonable trade off. People can choose _not_ to fly. These are examples that are more likely to be shared by a wider selection of USENET. If I concentrated on examples specific to the UK domestic issue, then there is the risk it becomes meaningless. [**] a variety of courses are required to become "Security Industry Approved" in the UK. Langhurst runs some of the best and is used by most corporations and government agencies.
From: T Wake on 5 Jan 2007 14:19 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:enll0p$8qk_003(a)s965.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <459DC24E.2A4AD092(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> When you use your wireless telephone, >>> do you believe that conversation is a private communication? >> >>Once upon a time I never expected to be listened to by spies whether real >>or >>electronic. That's for sure. >> > > Then you had a serious reality filter. Blimey. Not only does this come from the person who was saying how things were much better in Somalia now, it is pure projectionism. > The Cold War mythologies were all about spies and electronics and stuff. Like lots of myths there is a kernal of truth at the core, but generally (unless you were a government official, atomic energy worker or high tech consultant) it was pretty much certain "spies" were not going to bug you. > The US embassy in Russia couldn't be used because of all the bugs. So what? How on Earth does that imply someone living their normal life in the [insert western democracy of choice] would be spied upon? All intelligence agencies have finite resources and are constrained by time. All collection plans are built around priorities. The main things that have changed since the end of the cold war is processing power has improved dramatically and more communication is electronic (and processable). The debate about security services monitoring the people _more_ now could go on for ever and may not be true. > Hollywood movies are > filled with people talking in the bathroom with the water running. They are also filled with movies about time travel, dinosaurs coming back to life, aliens, spaceships, a blue eyed, Irish Alexander the great and so on. They are not meant to be seen as "evidence." > Little girls learn all about how sound carries. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Interception of mobile telephones is nothing to do with how sound carries.
From: T Wake on 5 Jan 2007 14:21 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:enlq8v$8u0_001(a)s965.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <459E6B0F.D4DB32BA(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> > >>> >> When you use your wireless telephone, >>> >> do you believe that conversation is a private communication? >>> > >>> >Once upon a time I never expected to be listened to by spies whether >>> >real > or >>> >electronic. That's for sure. >>> >>> Then you had a serious reality filter. The Cold War mythologies were >>> all about spies and electronics and stuff. The US embassy in Russia >>> couldn't be used because of all the bugs. Hollywood movies are >>> filled with people talking in the bathroom with the water running. >>> Little girls learn all about how sound carries. >> >>I don't live in the US embassy and Hollywood is about fantasy. > > A lot of times Hollywood does take instances in real life and > then embellish it. Yes, they also make things up. Very little that comes out of hollywood has historical accuracy as part of its "project goal." > The point is that I'd like to know when > anybody actually had expectations that words uttered would > never be overheard; I am on my own in a room now. If I say something I have the expectation that it will not be overheard. If it is monitored then either a criminal is doing it or a warrant has been issued for my room to be monitored. Somethings really are black and white. > everybody, especially those who like to > gossip know how to take privacy precautions. Now childish > notion is that all transmissions in the EMF range are private? > >> >>It is however pretty clear to me that a former g/f of mine had her land >>line >>tapped for being active in CND. It was hilariously obvious. > > So you've already realized that privacy does not include landlines. > Why do you think it is going to include broadcasts over thru the air? > > I don't understand this logic. The tap would have been put in place _after_ a warrant was issued. Do you see how that is different.
From: T Wake on 5 Jan 2007 14:27 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:459DC531.31FB409B(a)hotmail.com... > > > unsettled wrote: > >> T Wake wrote: >> > "Lloyd Parker" <lparker(a)emory.edu> wrote in message >> > >> >>We're not at war. Congress has not declared war. >> > >> > He seems to be aiming for a self fulfilling circle. In time of war the >> > president can do what he wants and he can choose when "war" is >> > declared. The >> > war against obesity was obviously justification for martial law in any >> > town >> > with a McDonalds...... >> >> LOL. Have you heard about New York City banning trans fats >> from restaurant food? > > I heard about it a few weeks back. > > >> http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/html/cardio/cardio-transfat.shtml >> >> There's talk around the US in other places about following >> the example. > > It's a damn good idea. I've been banging on about it myself for some time. > > Trans-fats just make you overweight and contribute very significantly to > heart > disease. There's no excuse for them at all. Well, last time I checked no one forced people to buy trans-fat products in the shops. I agree there may be no real reason for having them in products as there are other substances which will taste as nice and have less health related issues, but that is (surely) not grounds for making it illegal? If governments want to improve the uptake of "healthy food" then surely the solution is to subsidse whatever is in vogue as "health food" rather than tax or bad the "bad things."[*] > In fact the pressure for the food industry to sell as as much fat in food > as > possible may be reduced by the discovery that fats can be used to > synthesise > bio-diesel fuel. It's an area I expect to take off quite seriously. As it should, when customer choice makes it viable. When customers choose to buy products which are lower fat (an odd choice as fat is an excellent source of energy for the body) or "healthier fats," then the market driven food industry will react and adjust it's products. -- [*] can you make a moral value judgment on "food?" Strikes me as a little odd, but I tend to think of food as food....
From: T Wake on 5 Jan 2007 14:33
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:459DC3C2.647161B5(a)hotmail.com... > > > T Wake wrote: > >> "Lloyd Parker" <lparker(a)emory.edu> wrote in message >> > JoeBloe <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >> >>lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) Gaveus: >> >> >> >>>No, it says the president can designate anyone, anytime, anywhere as >> >>>an >> >>>enemy combatant, and gives the person no way to challenge that. >> >> >> >> In time of war, it has always been that way, dumbass. >> > >> > We're not at war. Congress has not declared war. >> >> He seems to be aiming for a self fulfilling circle. In time of war the >> president can do what he wants and he can choose when "war" is declared. >> The >> war against obesity was obviously justification for martial law in any >> town >> with a McDonalds...... > > Hey, did you know that a McDonald's in Cornwall had to close because they > simply > weren't getting enough customers any more ? Not really surprising in Cornwall. Full of old age pensioners.... > There's hope for sanity yet. Maybe. Personally I think of McDonalds as a choice in the same manner as (for example) Sayers. I find it hard to think of food as "good" or "bad." If you ate McDonalds three times a day every day then fair enough, but I would say the same of some one who ate nothing but lettuce three times a day every day. My view is that educating people and then giving them the choice is the only solution. I rarely eat at McDonalds (I think the last time I did was in August), but for example, when I drive to Glasgow next week and I stop off at a service station is having a Big Mac a "bad thing?" As long as the choice remains (for example, I may choose to have the worlds biggest big mac meal but no breakfast or tea that day), then I don't really see what problem any one else should have with it. |