321–330 of 419 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would they have guns? Even pre-TSA airports used metal detectors.
And security was run by private contractors at the airport. So you are opposed to the TSA but not security. What’s the difference? No you don’t pay for TSA out of taxpayer money. The airlines do bu adding a cost to your ticket.
I expressed no opinion on the TSA.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you really unaware of how often plane hijackings use to occur?
Plane hijackings used to occur because the SOP was to not resist and try to negotiate with the hijackers for the safe release of the passengers. After 9/11 the assumption has to be that they're going to fly the plane into a building and kill everyone, so now if you try to hijack a plane all the passengers and crew are going to beat you to death with their fists and shoelaces like their life depends on it, which makes…
The liquids ban really is bullshit though, it's to prevent a fictional movie plot using a bomb mixed up using binary liquids...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Showing ID to buy alcohol is pretty common though.
Right, but only when and where you buy it, not when and where you drink it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I think us software people tend to think in absolutes. "Software people" have an above-average understanding of probabilities overall. It's politicians who tend to think in absolutes. If you tell them that the effectiveness of something is poor and vastly exceeded by its costs, they say "so you admit that its effectiveness is more than zero". And then people will instead have to say that something doesn't work when…
> "Software people" have an above-average understanding of probabilities overall. It's politicians who tend to think in absolutes. If I had a penny for everytime a software person / nerd on HN and elsewhere made an argument that shows little understanding of probabilities and statistics, or perhaps only a theoritical understand that's context dependent (meaning they know the math, but magically forget them when discu…
If 75% of people in some group are above average then 25% of them still aren't.
> They are explaining how little exhaustive their implementation can be, while still being effective for their goals.
But their goals are different than yours. Or if they're not, you're the baddies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes and how well is that going to work if people can get guns on board? Flight 94 they had knives.
Guns are trash on a plane. The use of a firearm is to be able to incapacitate someone from far enough away that they can't counterattack. Planes are densely packed with people. You'd have people surrounding and disarming you long before you could get control of the plane. How many shots do you expect to get off when anyone you're not currently aiming at can put their hands on the gun while someone else grabs your oth…
Look no further than 911. Two costly unnecessary wars (that even republicans don’t defend anymore) that caused an entirely new generation of people to hate America.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Plane hijackings used to occur because the SOP was to not resist and try to negotiate with the hijackers for the safe release of the passengers. After 9/11 the assumption has to be that they're going to fly the plane into a building and kill everyone, so now if you try to hijack a plane all the passengers and crew are going to beat you to death with their fists and shoelaces like their life depends on it, which makes…
TSA is security theater, but I think checks are still necessary. Otherwise people can bring C4 onto planes, blow themselves (and the plane) up in the air, and freak a lot of "Western civilization" out. The liquids ban really is bullshit though, it's to prevent a fictional movie plot using a bomb mixed up using binary liquids...
The liquids ban is bullshit because you can have arbitrarily many small bottles of liquid and an arbitrarily large empty bucket to mix them in once you're inside. And because blowing up a plane isn't any more of a problem than blowing up a subway car or a highrise hotel lobby but it's ridiculous and infeasible to stripsearch everyone who goes into a high population density area.
I'm reminded of efforts in the 1990s to ban strong encryption in email and websites because governments tried to tell us it was used by drug dealers and pedos to do their nefarious activities. Yes, governments really did want to force us to use HTTPS with only broken/weak crypto. Same propaganda, different buzzwords.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipper_chip
As someone born in a post‑Soviet country with rather many odd digital laws--including one requiring that any use of encryption be registered with the department of commerce and the secret service (meaning no TLS unless you get a permit)--I can clearly see the endgame of similar proposals. These laws aren’t meant to be followed. Their text is deliberately vague, and their demands are impossible by design. They aren't…
> These laws aren’t meant to be followed Selective enforcement should be illegal - people practicing it should be put in prison, the law should be auto-repealed, any past sentences cancelled and the people sentenced should be compensated. This should be written into every constitution, just like free speech and the right to kill when killing is right ("right to bear arms").
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Plane hijackings used to occur because the SOP was to not resist and try to negotiate with the hijackers for the safe release of the passengers. After 9/11 the assumption has to be that they're going to fly the plane into a building and kill everyone, so now if you try to hijack a plane all the passengers and crew are going to beat you to death with their fists and shoelaces like their life depends on it, which makes…
TSA is security theater, but I think checks are still necessary. Otherwise people can bring C4 onto planes, blow themselves (and the plane) up in the air, and freak a lot of "Western civilization" out. The liquids ban really is bullshit though, it's to prevent a fictional movie plot using a bomb mixed up using binary liquids...
A device-side IP filter locked behind a password that parents can configure in the device's settings would be much more effective and easier to implement than censoring the Internet. This should be the default solution, yet it's never brought up for whatever reason. Not to mention these online content censorship laws for kids are wrong in principle because parents are supposed to be in control of how they raise each…
These are religious fanatics trying to ban porn because they believe it's evil. All the rest is dressing to advance that cause and isn't worth spending too much time trying to make sense of. They'd latch on to whatever reason they'd think would stick.