Refuse to be terrorized (2006) • Hacker News Board

Re: Refuse to be terrorized (2006)

#81

Post by wisty » Mon, Jul 18, 2011, 3:49 AM UTC

SoftwareMaven wrote: post #78

rjbond3rd wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You raise a fascinating point about what happens to societies when the males have no chance of getting a girlfriend or wife (they may become destructive because they aren't stakeholders).

I wonder what will happen in China as their "need" for male heirs continue to drive their one-child family planning (not to mention infanticide and abandonment leading to out-of-country adoption).

There's a wave of young, unmarried men in China now, but it's not nearly as bad as the pre-revolutionary times when polygamy was rampant.

At the moment, men are marrying later than women, and chasing overseas brides. Brides sometimes come from Vietnam, where the girls outnumber boys and the culture is somewhat similar; also men occasionally marry African women, as China is now doing more business there; though there's a hell of a lot of racism in China towards anyone with darker skin than average. Also, men are expected to buy a house and car before marriage, which isn't great for men from poorer families (the boys parents usually foot the bill, as few men in their 20s can buy a house). Actually, the costs of male children is starting to reduce the prejudice a bit.

It will raise the crime rate, and cause social disorder (young unmarried men are the kind of people who throw molotov cocktails at authorities - and no authority wants that). China knows this, and has softened the one-child policy a lot. Women used to be forced to abort subsequent pregnancies; now they are more likely to face a fine. Also, prostitution is widespread.

Re: Refuse to be terrorized (2006)

#82

Post by derleth » Mon, Jul 18, 2011, 4:01 AM UTC

HerraBRE wrote: post #48

rick888 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US is a more aware society. Just because they are talked about in the news, doesn't make someone afraid, just more aware of the dangers in society. "fear of walking the streets alone at night" It depends on where you live. If I'm in Detroit, then yes, I will be a little more apprehensive about walking on the streets alone at night. It's just common sense. "Fear of someone spiking your Tylenol" If someone hacked i…

Having lived both in the U.S. and abroad (I have dual citizenship), I have to say I agree with the original comment. Americans are afraid, and the culture of fear predates 9/11 by a wide margin. If you want to estimate how many attacks have been prevented by your paranoia, take a look at how many attacks have succeeded in countries with far laxer security. I think you'll find there's not much of a difference, you are…

> Of course, America may have an above-average number of enemies, which might justify tighter security.

This is a common belief, which does not make it false.

I'm sure America would be willing to step down to the extent someone else (a European coalition?) would be willing to step up.

Just a thought.

Re: Refuse to be terrorized (2006)

#83

Post by blahedo » Mon, Jul 18, 2011, 5:09 AM UTC

This was well understood nearly a century ago; an awful lot of people know FDR's line that "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself" but have never thought about it and have no idea what it means.

Re: Refuse to be terrorized (2006)

#84

Post by Bud » Mon, Jul 18, 2011, 5:21 AM UTC

Tharkun wrote: post #26

cstavish wrote: post #7

It amazes me that people freak out when they see "Muslim-looking" people on flights. The politically-correct response is along the lines of "OMG That is highly prejudicial!", but that's irrelevant. From a purely practical perspective, why would a terrorist leader send an attacker whom many Americans immediately view as "suspicious", when he could send someone who appears more "normal"? On another note, people these d…

Military action is part of the "let's pretend we're doing something useful"-strategy. Dropping bombs and sending soldiers is MUCH easier than trying to tackle the very complex social problems that drive people to blow themselves up. I'm not claiming I know the root cause of the problem, but terrorism does seem to be connected with poverty and oppressive governments. Blowing yourself up is obviously a last and despera…

Can we please not be mushy-headed and pretend that the reason that we chose military "solutions" is because they are somehow easier?

It's actually quite complex to invade several poorly-chosen nations, spending trillions in the process, stay in those nations for twice the duration of WWII, and manage to justify all of these misadventures to the public well enough to get away with it.

We didn't choose this path because it was easier. This path was chosen because we elected an Administration which had immense political and financial motivation to find excuses to make war, as often as possible for as long as possible, regardless of the alleged reasons.

For my money, it would actually be much simpler (and obviously more efficient and fruitful) to solve the admittedly complex problems surrounding what causes folks to want to become terrorists.

Re: Refuse to be terrorized (2006)

#85

Post by jamieb » Mon, Jul 18, 2011, 8:32 AM UTC

wtvanhest wrote: post #65

Silhouette wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know what sort of maths you're arguing for here, but your argument doesn't make any sense to me at all. If we assume there are about 100,000 flights per day worldwide (a quick Google suggests this is a reasonable round-figure estimate) then there are 36.5 million flights per year. If there is 1 actual attack attempt per year, then your chance that a flight you are on is a target is only 1 in 36,500,000 or so.…

The problem with your logic is that the statistics you give are based on there being security. Without it, you have no idea how high the number of successful attacks on planes would be. The chance of dying in a auto accident is still really low. Should we start allowing drinking and driving, no air bags, no speed limits etc. because those laws are annoying to you? I, like everyone else would appreciate less restricti…

You seem like a reasonable person, so I think you just missed the key point of the article: the security theater does not increase security.

Re: Refuse to be terrorized (2006)

#86

Post by jamieb » Mon, Jul 18, 2011, 8:47 AM UTC

wtvanhest wrote: post #68

huhtenberg wrote: post #9

That's all great, but consider a situation. I get on the plane and sit next to a guy who avoids eye contact, does not respond to Hi and then starts praying, seemingly detached from the reality. Shall I just ignore this and refuse to be terrorized? I will tell you more. As someone who rode on a subway train that was next to the one blown up in a terrorist attack, I will walk out of a coffee shop if I see a person leav…

Is it everyone's belief who reads hacker news that the number of successful terrorism attacks would not go up if we eliminated all airport security? It seems obvious to me that the following would occur more: 1) Mentally impaired people would attempt to hijack, bomb, or otherwise cause problems on planes with weapons. 2) Drunk or impaired by drugs (meth, coke, etc.) would attempt to hijack, bomb, or otherwise cause p…

Is it everyone's belief who reads hacker news that the number of successful terrorism attacks would not go up if we eliminated all airport security?

Yes! You are very astute! Everyone here believes that we should eliminate all airport security (even though none of us were brazen enough to actually write it)! Now that you have identified that fact, you may write 200 words arguing against it and proving how silly we all are.

Re: Refuse to be terrorized (2006)

#87

Post by Silhouette » Mon, Jul 18, 2011, 11:21 AM UTC

wtvanhest wrote: post #65

Silhouette wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know what sort of maths you're arguing for here, but your argument doesn't make any sense to me at all. If we assume there are about 100,000 flights per day worldwide (a quick Google suggests this is a reasonable round-figure estimate) then there are 36.5 million flights per year. If there is 1 actual attack attempt per year, then your chance that a flight you are on is a target is only 1 in 36,500,000 or so.…

The problem with your logic is that the statistics you give are based on there being security. Without it, you have no idea how high the number of successful attacks on planes would be. The chance of dying in a auto accident is still really low. Should we start allowing drinking and driving, no air bags, no speed limits etc. because those laws are annoying to you? I, like everyone else would appreciate less restricti…

You are doing what lawyers call "assuming facts not in evidence".

In particular, you are assuming that without the current procedures, actual security for air travel would in fact be lower. Moreover, you are assuming that if actual security for air travel were lower, the result would be an overall increase in losses due to terrorist attack. Neither of those things is necessarily true.

Firstly, the whole point of the criticism here is that there is no evidence whatsoever that the kind of security theatre we put up with (or avoid by not flying) today does improve actual security.

Secondly, why would you assume that a terrorist with the resources to conduct a successful attack and the willingness to do so would be deterred just because airport security prevented them getting onto a plane? Why wouldn't they just attack another target instead: a railway station, a shopping centre, a nightclub, the queue for security at the airport? If you prevent them from killing 300 people by attacking an aircraft, but they kill 300 people by blowing themselves up in a crowded nightclub instead, you haven't saved any lives, you've just moved the problem.

Your car analogy fails, by the way, for the simple reason that thousands of people die in road traffic accidents every year in my country, and laws prohibiting drinking and driving have been shown beyond any reasonable doubt to reduce that casualty rate. (Air bags and speed limits are more controversial, because the evidence that they are a net win is not so conclusive, but that's a topic for another day.)

Re: Refuse to be terrorized (2006)

#88

Post by SoftwareMaven » Mon, Jul 18, 2011, 2:16 PM UTC

wisty wrote: post #81

SoftwareMaven wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder what will happen in China as their "need" for male heirs continue to drive their one-child family planning (not to mention infanticide and abandonment leading to out-of-country adoption).

There's a wave of young, unmarried men in China now, but it's not nearly as bad as the pre-revolutionary times when polygamy was rampant. At the moment, men are marrying later than women, and chasing overseas brides. Brides sometimes come from Vietnam, where the girls outnumber boys and the culture is somewhat similar; also men occasionally marry African women, as China is now doing more business there; though there'…

Thank you for a very intereting bit of information.

Re: Refuse to be terrorized (2006)

#89

Post by SonicSoul » Mon, Jul 18, 2011, 4:43 PM UTC

georgieporgie wrote: post #57

SonicSoul wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

so you wouldn't worry about lightning storms in your sleep, but if you are out in the field during one you'll probably take some precautions? maybe get out from under the tallest tree? You probably wouldn't completely ignore it.

Lightning precautions are based on the testable realities of physics. There is no relation between that and the voodoo pseudo-security that is the TSA and public 'security' in general.

i am not defending TSA. Just pointing out the psychology of people who feel that their lives are in possible danger.

Re: Refuse to be terrorized (2006)

#90

Post by rick888 » Mon, Jul 18, 2011, 10:53 PM UTC

jdietrich wrote: post #44

rick888 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US is a more aware society. Just because they are talked about in the news, doesn't make someone afraid, just more aware of the dangers in society. "fear of walking the streets alone at night" It depends on where you live. If I'm in Detroit, then yes, I will be a little more apprehensive about walking on the streets alone at night. It's just common sense. "Fear of someone spiking your Tylenol" If someone hacked i…

> I actually would love for the US to stop all military actions and then have a major terrorist attack. I know I would be the first to blame all of the people who said we were too "paranoid". So you'd happily see thousands of people killed as long as it proves you right? Classy.

"Classy."

It would shut everyone on HN (and the US) up that seem to think that we don't need TSA security.