21–30 of 53 posts
...man, I was all ready to get out the pitchforks in response to "bioterror" research in a public place, but it turns out it's more "fluid dynamics research prompted by the risk of particulate bioweapons". It's not a clickbait title, but it asymptotically approaches one.
If it's written by BBC, it's probably not going to be something very damning about the U.S. government, quite the contrary.
For something that involves the US gov, anthrax, and a crowded public place, that was remarkably ethical. Clickbaity title IMO, but I'm not sure what to suggest. I think the current title suggests malice on the part of the US gov, but they were actually just doing some interesting research.
As I am reading the title, no malice is suggested. It seems to just be a plain statement of fact.
So we allowed people to go on trains in large number without lengthy security checks but not for airline travelers? What's the difference?
(That doesn't excuse the TSA's security theater, obviously.)
So while it is useful to understand the way subway systems may disperse particles, this kind of research does not reduce the risk of economic damage from low-sophistication attacks targeted at the subway system.
It is difficult to obtain Anthrax or similar chemical agents, and the number of people needed to pull off a successful attack is fairly large. Machine guns or simple explosives (like those used in the Boston Marathon attack), however, are 100x more likely to succeed and cause the intended economic damage, so long as they either create a fear of traveling by subway or lead to security checkpoints that drastically reduce the subway's throughput.
The key takeaway, in my opinion, is that nobody with access to the NYC subway really wishes to harm it or do terrorism.
...man, I was all ready to get out the pitchforks in response to "bioterror" research in a public place, but it turns out it's more "fluid dynamics research prompted by the risk of particulate bioweapons". It's not a clickbait title, but it asymptotically approaches one.
So we allowed people to go on trains in large number without lengthy security checks but not for airline travelers? What's the difference?
So we allowed people to go on trains in large number without lengthy security checks but not for airline travelers? What's the difference?
It's hard to fly a train into a building. (That doesn't excuse the TSA's security theater, obviously.)
For something that involves the US gov, anthrax, and a crowded public place, that was remarkably ethical. Clickbaity title IMO, but I'm not sure what to suggest. I think the current title suggests malice on the part of the US gov, but they were actually just doing some interesting research.
Can you point to a word, or collection of words in the title that you think suggests malice? Or, is it the whole title that makes the suggestion? As I am reading the title, no malice is suggested. It seems to just be a plain statement of fact.
So we allowed people to go on trains in large number without lengthy security checks but not for airline travelers? What's the difference?
There are occasional random security screening for trains. Amusingly you can choose to decline them and not board, which makes it even more of a theatrical display than usual. I guess it's for the terrorists who want to get caught?
For something that involves the US gov, anthrax, and a crowded public place, that was remarkably ethical. Clickbaity title IMO, but I'm not sure what to suggest. I think the current title suggests malice on the part of the US gov, but they were actually just doing some interesting research.
Can you point to a word, or collection of words in the title that you think suggests malice? Or, is it the whole title that makes the suggestion? As I am reading the title, no malice is suggested. It seems to just be a plain statement of fact.
I'm not sure that the headline is even clickbaity--don't know how I'd rewrite it. But I can easily see someone reading it to go to the story with an expectation of malice or at least stupidity.