I wonder if you understand or even want to think about what is involved in ensuring safe air travel?
There is a massive ongoing effort, and a huge amount of work and amount of money that is being and has been spent on providing travel in a safe and secure manner.
I guess you have not hear about 'the chain' and the weakest link being the link that will break.
Then if you will, consider the expense, effort and hard work placed into aircraft design, air traffic control, weather forcasting, pilot training, crew training, procedures, safety checks, timed inspections, detailed crash investigations, and action taken and enforced when an issue is detected.
In air weather radar, ground proximity radar, TECAS, all very expensive systems to operate and maintain that spend mostly their entire lives doing nothing !.
But you are vastly safer with them than you are without them.
The difference being that these are all effective measures. Nothing that the TSA has put in place has been effective, and the point of this article is that their attitude of "it's OK, they were screened" underscores that fact.
Of course all these systems are links in the chain or even doubled up links.
No, they're not. Some of them are linked, but they track different problems about different areas of safety. Aircraft design have little-if-anything to do with crew training or traffic control.
But by your logic, because you personally are a little 'put out' that you should allow the entire system to be rendered totally unsafe, because no matter what the government or air industry try to do to enable safe travel, you want to put a paper chain link in the chain by allowing certain people to ride on the plane without any for of checking, "just because".
If removing the TSA makes the system "totally unsafe," then I submit that the system is totally unsafe even WITH the TSA. Case in point: incoming International flights are not checked by the TSA. A plane leaving Amsterdam headed to the US isn't screened by the TSA. It's only flights that originate in the US that get scanned because, as mentioned before, the TSA is a US Government agency.
The dollar amount that the TSA would cost or is costing is insignificant compared to the total spent on overall air travel and air safety and security.
Every dollar spent on ineffective measures is a dollar wasted; and in this economy especially we should be sensitive to wasted dollars.
The fact that NO ONE is picking up this story, and it is not in the main stream news means the majority of people DO understand that it is not beyond a terrorist group to employ children or babies, they have before, they do now!
The fact that the main stream media isn't picking this up just shows that it doesn't generate ratings or drive ad revenue. If it says anything about the American people generally it's just that most of them don't travel much and so aren't directly affected by this. But just because only a few people are affected doesn't make this waste and abuse acceptible.
And yes, children have carried bomb vests into crowded market places in the middle east, but we aren't strip-searching everone who goes to their local mall, are we? Even if you could show me a case where a child-carried bomb targetted a plane that sort of thing can be picked up by pre-9/11 techniques. We don't need expensive, invasive scanners or frisking procedures.
I think that you are all 'mostly' being a bit self centered, and unable to see beyond their own delicate sensibilities.
This is the land of the free; I'm not willing to surrender my rights to placate your fear.
Re: Re: Re: Forgot the rest of the planet did we ?
Why does it have to be statistically significant before you consider doing something to mitigate that risk?
It doesn't have to be statistically signifiant before we try to mitigate the risks, but the mitigations should be proportionate to the real danger involved, and effective in actually mitigating the risk. An over-reaction that doesn't mitigate the danger is never acceptible, and I submit that's exactly what we're getting with the TSA.
So tornado's only kill a few people a year, so therefore you dont bother trying to detect and track tornado's ?
Almost no one has been killed (statictically) from storm micro-bursts, but a massive amount of expense and time is spent on detecting micro-bursts, and in warning pilots of their existance.
You're right, tracking known indicators and making sure people are aware of the threats and how to avoid them -- and doing this in an efficient and effective way -- is a good track to take. I'll note, however, that no civil liberties were impinged and no Constitutional questions brought up regarding any of those efforts; the same can not be said for what the TSA's doing. Also, there's hard evidence that things like tornado warnings and sirens have saved real, countable lives; since 9/11, every thwarted terrorist event has been halted by pre-9/11 tools and techniques, none of it is attributable to bady scanners, frisking passengers, or limiting how much liquid is brought in carry-on bags.
But according to you, as hardly anyone has been killed by it, we might as well ignore it!
ravo for the cheap shot, but he didn't say ignore it; he pointed out that the real danger is far lower than things we live with on a day-to-day basis, and which have preventative measures that don't compromise our Constitutional rights.
I also like that your "stats" are US ONLY, as if the rest of the world does not exist, and that other countries are also hit with terrorist attacks.
Did you include japan ? or bali, or England ? or germany or afganistan or pakistan ? in your 'stats'?
Oh, sorry, I thought we were discussing the TSA, a US Government Agency that doesn't operate in foreighn countries. If we want to talk about world-wide terrorist risks we can, but then we start going off-topic.
Oh, I see, you only counted Americans, not the people who died over Lockabie ? or in the london bombings or the japanese Om Surprime sect sarin attack ? or the bali bombing ? or the attack on the US embassy in Africa or the USS Cole attack ?
what about the anthrax attack ? oh forgot that as well !!
or the twin tower bombings in 1998 ? I could go on and on, but you get the idea. (we'll actually you appear not to have a clue that there is a world out there and things happen in it).
For the purpose of discussing the TSA and how ineffective they are, no, none of those have any real relevance.
You are, of course, ignoring the distribution and storage costs that go into physical goods that don't exist on the Internet. Regardless, you conclude "I think it makes sense that digital books cost only a few dollars less than a physical copy" when your argument seems to lead towards "why are we paying DOLLARS for ANYTHING" instead.
Regardless, the fact that actual materials are consumed in creating a physical object, and no such resoutrces are consumed in making a digital object, there SHOULD be a big difference in price, with digital being necessarily lower.
I think it's interesting how they twist the scenario to get thier iontendec effect. There's a whole army of people out there working hard to bring you, Johnny, that shiny new album you like. They set it up as 500 of them to prodice something for the one of you. How can you not-pay them after they've done so much for you?
If you flip it around to more realistic numbers, though, you'll end up with 500 of them mass-producing and hawking an item to 500,000 or more of us, and now the question is "with a ratio of 1:100, how can it be these guys are failing so hard at getting paid"? And the answer is that your money isn't really going to them, it's going to line some executive's pockets. All those 500 people in the PR firm and recording studio are working on salary, and the artists and songwriters, the people you really care about, are being screwed by lopsided contracts.
could only obtain it by violating someone else's rights.
Then you lost everything, because it was all denied to you. The RIAA isn't saying that pirates are reaching into their collective pocket and taking actual cash-in-hand, they're saying pirates are DENYING them monies they they should be rightfully entiled to. No one is taking money from them, it is being denied to them.
Sorry, my work system sucks and can't display those AC icons.
I agree that WalMart not-selling a game or movie isn't censorship, and they should by all rights be able to make that decision.
My anger is solely* with the MPAA and their unfair application of ratings -- because that's [a huge component of] what WalMart et al are basing their retail choices on. If the MPAA gave your movie a "bad" rating, it doesn't matter if there's a "worse" movie with a PG-13 on the shelves.
*and maybe a little towards people who fail to see the practical implications of systems like this...
I dispute that that's the case will all CEOs of all companies, and regardless, that's the discussion on minimizing risks I was setting aside. Even BESIDES that it's a limited pool of people who are willing to take CEO positions.
"Why make laws to do what a free market will automatically do on it's own?"
You're missing my point. I don't want a law that would bar the sale of AO and NC-17 movies. Rather, your comment implied that the MPAA ratings don't matter because "they aren't law," but it can be shown that they are far more influential than that statement implies. I think it's problematic when a small, private organization essentially has wide-ranging censorship powers.
To be fair, a CEO (ostensibly) takes on the risks of the entire company, and they they have the authority to direct an entire corporate entity, they also hold the responsibility to be accountable if their direction leads the company to a bad place. I'll leave aside an argument over how these risks are minimized to a point that they hardly seem like risks at all in practice and just point out that while any able-bodied person can (and probably will) take a laborer job, the same is not true for assuming the risks of a CEO. CEOs get paid more (in part) because of a difference in supply and demand.
There's also no law that says NC-17 films or AO games can't be sold in retail stores, but I defy you to find either in Wal-Mart or Best Buy. You don't have to outlaw something to ensure it fails, and especially in the case of movies getting a "bad" rating can essentially be the same as "you will never recoup your budget."
I think that depends on the style of music you're talking about; some songs/styles lend themselves more to a personal level of connection than a social one (think of a ballad or break-up song versus a dance mix).
In the end, I'm more likely to spend money on a band I know I like through personal experience versus spending money on a band a friend says I might like.