Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

20 years after 9/11: Will we ever stop taking our shoes off at airports?

ocregister.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

941–950 of 969 posts

Re: 20 years after 9/11: Will we ever stop taking our shoes off at airports?

#941

Post by maxwell »

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #870
maxwell wrote: post #802

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 18th century "regulated" means "well trained" today. What implies that any restrictions on the type of arms which may be possessed would be Constitutional? Where is the ambiguity outside of misunderstanding the contemporary meaning of "regulated"? "Bearing" doesn't mean using/firing weapons, of course, it's about preventing any authority from monopolizing violence. Certainly the founders—you know, the violent, en…

The United States Constitution was not "the first constitution in history". For earlier, famous, instances of actual "constitutions" rather than codes of law (such as that of Urukagina of Lagash) see for example Solon's constitution of ancient Athens: The Solonian Constitution was created by Solon in the early 6th century BC.[1] At the time of Solon the Athenian State was almost falling to pieces in consequence of di…

Right, I should have said "first codified Constitution that's still in use today".

Sort by "date ratified": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_constitutions

Re: 20 years after 9/11: Will we ever stop taking our shoes off at airports?

#942

Post by nickthemagicman »

bqmjjx0kac wrote: post #883
nickthemagicman wrote: post #593

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are people with severe immune deficiencies that any disease they catch could kill them. Why aren't you wearing a full body haz mat suit to protect them? Do you think people with immune deficiencies lives are worth less and its okay to kill them? Where do you draw the line where it's okay to kill some people with your bodily diseases but not others?

I don't claim to have all the answers, but I think wearing a mask is a reasonable accommodation and barely an inconvenience. Same goes for FDA-approved vaccines. Reductio ad absurdum doesn't always work in the real world, so your hazmat scenario just sounds silly.

Going to gym is barely an inconvenience. Mortality would have been minimal if fat people would jump on a treadmill occasionally and keep the cheeseburgers out of their face.

"What is inconvenient" is subjective and that's the ultimate slippery slope argument.

Your argument and thinking is so so bad, I feel like I'm being trolled.

Re: 20 years after 9/11: Will we ever stop taking our shoes off at airports?

#943

Post by maxwell »

cogman10 wrote: post #836
maxwell wrote: post #802

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 18th century "regulated" means "well trained" today. What implies that any restrictions on the type of arms which may be possessed would be Constitutional? Where is the ambiguity outside of misunderstanding the contemporary meaning of "regulated"? "Bearing" doesn't mean using/firing weapons, of course, it's about preventing any authority from monopolizing violence. Certainly the founders—you know, the violent, en…

The way the US government works today is VERY different from the government setup by the founders. Trying to divine what they would and wouldn't have wanted (understanding that they were all over the board on opinions) isn't a useful exercise. The founders didn't want a federal military, they wanted each state to run their own military. The founders didn't want a strong federal government, they wanted to states to be…

I agree on divining intent, but I'm not aware of any founder endorsing any form of arms control. I'd be interested to see any references suggesting otherwise. Are you aware of any meaningful debate on what became the Second?

I'm mostly going off Jefferson's "tree of liberty" letter [1], maybe there was dissent amongst other founders?

As far as federal vs. state military, I dunno, references? Each state would have their own navy...? Doesn't seem to fit with Jefferson's willingness to launch a preemptive strike on African pirates at the beginning of his presidency [2].

Agreed on strong states, hence the Tenth, and the impact of the Fourteenth, though I'm actually currently trying to get a better handle on that one (e.g. not entirely clear on equal protection yet).

Disagree on McDonald, doesn't seem like the design allows for states to pass laws that take away rights explicitly enumerated in the federal Constitution. States can "exceed" enumerated rights (like California's affirmative right to free speech), but can't cancel them out. Any sources suggesting otherwise?

1. https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/jefferson/jefffed.html#105

2. https://www.city-journal.org/html/jefferson-versus-muslim-pi...

Re: 20 years after 9/11: Will we ever stop taking our shoes off at airports?

#944

Post by bqmjjx0kac »

nickthemagicman wrote: post #942
bqmjjx0kac wrote: post #883

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't claim to have all the answers, but I think wearing a mask is a reasonable accommodation and barely an inconvenience. Same goes for FDA-approved vaccines. Reductio ad absurdum doesn't always work in the real world, so your hazmat scenario just sounds silly.

Going to gym is barely an inconvenience. Mortality would have been minimal if fat people would jump on a treadmill occasionally and keep the cheeseburgers out of their face. "What is inconvenient" is subjective and that's the ultimate slippery slope argument. Your argument and thinking is so so bad, I feel like I'm being trolled.

What is your problem?

Obesity is not a communicable disease.

I regret feeding the troll.

Re: 20 years after 9/11: Will we ever stop taking our shoes off at airports?

#945

Post by woko »

GhostVII wrote: post #537

We should have some kind of dashboard tracking how many people die from terrorism, car crashes, heart disease, COVID, etc., and how much time and money we spend trying to prevent these deaths. We are just so terrible at evaluating risk, for some reason it is OK to waste everyone's time with over the top security to stop a tiny portion of terrorism deaths, while still being OK with high speed limits that kill thousand…

> while still being OK with high speed limits that kill thousands of people per year.

The French government tried to tackle this issue. This lead to months of yellow-vest protests, close to a revolution at times. Some dude forced the door of a ministry with a bulldozer. Others set fire to a prefecture. Death threats everywhere. Small Guillotines were built. Etc. The protests were sill rocking after a year, and were put to a temporary stop due to COVID lock-down.

tl;dr: nobody would dare decrease the speed limits again.

Re: 20 years after 9/11: Will we ever stop taking our shoes off at airports?

#946

Post by bqmjjx0kac »

nickthemagicman wrote: post #936
bqmjjx0kac wrote: post #883

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't claim to have all the answers, but I think wearing a mask is a reasonable accommodation and barely an inconvenience. Same goes for FDA-approved vaccines. Reductio ad absurdum doesn't always work in the real world, so your hazmat scenario just sounds silly.

Let me summarize your argument. "Your haz mat argument is silly because I say it is. My argument is not silly because I say it's not." This absolute state of critical thinking in America... I can't wait till the media stops covering covid and everyone forgets that covid exists because they're on to the next thing the medium easily manipulates them over.

My point is that your attempt at a logical argument misses a number of externalities. My refusal to engage is because you're acting like a jerk, not because I can't construct a proof.

While you marvel at the "state of critical thinking" I am astounded by your lack of empathy.

Re: 20 years after 9/11: Will we ever stop taking our shoes off at airports?

#947

Post by everlost »

nmca wrote: post #660
GhostVII wrote: post #537

We should have some kind of dashboard tracking how many people die from terrorism, car crashes, heart disease, COVID, etc., and how much time and money we spend trying to prevent these deaths. We are just so terrible at evaluating risk, for some reason it is OK to waste everyone's time with over the top security to stop a tiny portion of terrorism deaths, while still being OK with high speed limits that kill thousand…

I think Taleb has a point on this topic - the concern is about a forecasted growth rate, not about the current rate. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dKiLclupUM

By that logic, shouldn't the concerns stop when the growth rate drops?

Re: 20 years after 9/11: Will we ever stop taking our shoes off at airports?

#948

Post by ctrlp »

horsawlarway wrote: post #322
ctrlp wrote: post #230

The obvious purpose of removing shoes at airports has long been more about security theater than safety. The authorities must be seen to be doing something to protect travelers or the industry might not survive the customer's perception of danger. But, the less obvious reasons surely include maintaining the function of the huge TSA security apparatus put in place after 9/11. The stated function of the TSA is to prote…

> The unstated (and unacknowledged function) that has perpetuated the practice despite every traveler hating it (and its obvious futility), is to intimidate travelers and provide a convenient mechanism of crowd-control. I think you're misguided here. I certainly do understand the viewpoint that this security theater is harmful (and agree, actually). But lets be honest: The TSA has nothing to do with "Scaring the shee…

TSA is a manifestation of the totalizing technocratic State and all that that implies. The motivations are manifold and they evolve and are discovered over time; I wouldn't argue that there is only one reason. Being also a 'jobs program' in no way invalidates my point.

By the way, shepherds don't scare sheep, wolves do. Shepherds corral sheep. Sheepdogs harass sheep, triggering their herd instincts by raising the specter of the wolf in their minds. Sheepdogs are used by shepherds in order to herd sheep to where the shepherd wants them 'for their own protection' and his use.

But to make the point less metaphorically, the intention isn't to scare people, but the effect is to herd people efficiently, by reassuring them through fear. The fear we feel when we have our hands in the air like criminals to be screened is transferred to the fear we assume those who would harm us must feel and we assume the deterrent affects them, too. The dog that nips our heels will surely chase off the wolf. That effect (efficient management) is itself desirable and so the preservation of that effect becomes another motivation of the system.

Re: 20 years after 9/11: Will we ever stop taking our shoes off at airports?

#949

Post by playguardin »

AtlasBarfed wrote: post #783
vowelless wrote: post #674

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For example, guns. Very few people die because of mass shootings. Adjusted for how armed Americans are, gun violence in this country is tiny. And seeing what an armed citizenry can do against the full American force (Afghanistan), an armed population is a necessity against tyranny in America.

Pea shooters will allow you to stop the US Army on home soil? They have total information awareness, tanks, space/air power, snipers, GPS bombs, etc. Afghanistan was lost because of our tolerance of corruption and intolerance for spending money on a speck of dirt. Oppression of the US will be far more worth the money to a tyranny. If the second amendment actually said what gun people say it does (literalist/"strict c…

A civil war would involve defections of entire units to the insurgent side.

Re: 20 years after 9/11: Will we ever stop taking our shoes off at airports?

#950

Post by tcoff91 »

bregma wrote: post #833
tcoff91 wrote: post #724

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You didn't have to give your fingerprints when you got a driver's license?

Where on earth would people accept such an encroachment on their privacy and right to unreasonable search and seizure just to obtain proof they have passed an examination? Soviet Russia? The DDR? Orwell's Oceania?

Here in California everyone who has a driver's license had to have a fingerprint/thumbprint taken.
Post reply on HN