[quote]Chushin wrote:
Not saying I disagree with the sentiments expressed here, but how would you explain the relative lack of terror attacks on airplanes so far? If current measures are as impotent as many think, why aren’t planes falling out of the sky everywhere?
Again, not disagreeing; just asking.[/quote]
Because there are not that many people who are out to get you as you are led to believe?
[quote]Chushin wrote:
Not saying I disagree with the sentiments expressed here, but how would you explain the relative lack of terror attacks on airplanes so far? If current measures are as impotent as many think, why aren’t planes falling out of the sky everywhere?
Again, not disagreeing; just asking.[/quote]
I honestly think a lot of it has to do with luck.
I’m not sure how many legitimate terror attempts get stopped at security checkpoints, but the last few that I listed all occurred in-flight, and it was only thanks to the heroic actions of fellow passengers or the stupidity of the perpetrators that those planes actually made it to the ground in one piece.
Sooner or later, somebody is going to make it through and succeed. And I’ll bet dollars to donuts they will do so by exploiting some new security hole that is at least in part actually created by our current policy of trying to stick our finger in every hole in the dyke.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Chushin wrote:
Not saying I disagree with the sentiments expressed here, but how would you explain the relative lack of terror attacks on airplanes so far? If current measures are as impotent as many think, why aren’t planes falling out of the sky everywhere?
Again, not disagreeing; just asking.[/quote]
Because there are not that many people who are out to get you as you are led to believe?
[/quote]
Ah! Then there is a solution which would appeal to the unfettered capitalist in you.
Let’s start an airline which is guaranteed to be “scan free.” No one gets scanned.
That should appeal to all freedom-lovers. Let’s see how many people sign up and how long that airline flies.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Chushin wrote:
Not saying I disagree with the sentiments expressed here, but how would you explain the relative lack of terror attacks on airplanes so far? If current measures are as impotent as many think, why aren’t planes falling out of the sky everywhere?
Again, not disagreeing; just asking.[/quote]
Because there are not that many people who are out to get you as you are led to believe?
[/quote]
Ah! Then there is a solution which would appeal to the unfettered capitalist in you.
Let’s start an airline which is guaranteed to be “scan free.” No one gets scanned.
That should appeal to all freedom-lovers. Let’s see how many people sign up and how long that airline flies.[/quote]
Actually, I would be all for that.
Let the airlines determine how much security they will provide and how much they charge for it.
If the plane deviates from its route and is no longer responding to calls, let the government shoot it down.
maybe because the short-term goal of the terrorists is not to make planes falling out of the sky everywhere right now, but to recruit more radicals and further their influence in muslim countries.
the “heroic aura” they got the 9/11/2001 (which was first and foremost a “proof of concept” for Al Qaeda) is enough to do that.
no need to do it again.
for now.
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Actually, I would be all for that.
Let the airlines determine how much security they will provide and how much they charge for it.
If the plane deviates from its route and is no longer responding to calls, let the government shoot it down.
[/quote]
Why do MY tax dollars have to be spent to shoot it down?[/quote]
Because it might fall on your head?
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Actually, I would be all for that.
Let the airlines determine how much security they will provide and how much they charge for it.
If the plane deviates from its route and is no longer responding to calls, let the government shoot it down.
[/quote]
Why do MY tax dollars have to be spent to shoot it down?[/quote]
Because it might fall on your head?
[/quote]
You and your nanny-state-ism.
I don’t need the government to take my money to “take care” of me.[/quote]
Fine.
Then make shoot-down-insurance mandatory.
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Actually, I would be all for that.
Let the airlines determine how much security they will provide and how much they charge for it.
If the plane deviates from its route and is no longer responding to calls, let the government shoot it down.
[/quote]
Why do MY tax dollars have to be spent to shoot it down?[/quote]
Because it might fall on your head?
[/quote]
You and your nanny-state-ism.
I don’t need the government to take my money to “take care” of me.[/quote]
Fine.
Then make shoot-down-insurance mandatory.
[/quote]
Who’s going to monitor & enforce this “mandatory” program, the tax-payer-funded government?
There goes my money and (and my self-determination!) again…[/quote]
Yeah, but I am totally on board with forcing you to pay for an army and a police force.
Thats right, I have just shown my totalitarian colors.
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Yeah, but I am totally on board with forcing you to pay for an army and a police force.
Thats right, I have just shown my totalitarian colors.
[/quote]
Why is it OK to FORCE me to do those things, but not others???[/quote]
Because it is unwise to compound necessary evils with unnecessary one?
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Chushin wrote:
Not saying I disagree with the sentiments expressed here, but how would you explain the relative lack of terror attacks on airplanes so far? If current measures are as impotent as many think, why aren’t planes falling out of the sky everywhere?
Again, not disagreeing; just asking.[/quote]
Because there are not that many people who are out to get you as you are led to believe?
[/quote]
Ah! Then there is a solution which would appeal to the unfettered capitalist in you.
Let’s start an airline which is guaranteed to be “scan free.” No one gets scanned.
That should appeal to all freedom-lovers. Let’s see how many people sign up and how long that airline flies.[/quote]
Actually, I would be all for that.
Let the airlines determine how much security they will provide and how much they charge for it.
If the plane deviates from its route and is no longer responding to calls, let the government shoot it down.
[/quote]
But that is not what would happen.
The person who objects to searches does so freely, because others have been screened, and thus profits while others have reduced his own risk at their own inconvenience. Others’ adherence to the hated rules make his travel safer and slightly more inconveient. Would that person truly choose ScanFree airlines and bear his own risk?
So that is why there is screening, however imperfect. The value to each may be greater than the cost to any.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Chushin wrote:
Not saying I disagree with the sentiments expressed here, but how would you explain the relative lack of terror attacks on airplanes so far? If current measures are as impotent as many think, why aren’t planes falling out of the sky everywhere?
Again, not disagreeing; just asking.[/quote]
Because there are not that many people who are out to get you as you are led to believe?
[/quote]
Ah! Then there is a solution which would appeal to the unfettered capitalist in you.
Let’s start an airline which is guaranteed to be “scan free.” No one gets scanned.
That should appeal to all freedom-lovers. Let’s see how many people sign up and how long that airline flies.[/quote]
Actually, I would be all for that.
Let the airlines determine how much security they will provide and how much they charge for it.
If the plane deviates from its route and is no longer responding to calls, let the government shoot it down.
[/quote]
But that is not what would happen.
The person who objects to searches does so freely, because others have been screened, and thus profits while others have reduced his own risk at their own inconvenience. Others’ adherence to the hated rules make his travel safer and slightly more inconveient. Would that person truly choose ScanFree airlines and bear his own risk?
So that is why there is screening, however imperfect. The value to each may be greater than the cost to any.
[/quote]
So Scanfree Airlines is bound to fail?
Well, dont found it then.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Chushin wrote:
Not saying I disagree with the sentiments expressed here, but how would you explain the relative lack of terror attacks on airplanes so far? If current measures are as impotent as many think, why aren’t planes falling out of the sky everywhere?
Again, not disagreeing; just asking.[/quote]
Because there are not that many people who are out to get you as you are led to believe?
[/quote]
Ah! Then there is a solution which would appeal to the unfettered capitalist in you.
Let’s start an airline which is guaranteed to be “scan free.” No one gets scanned.
That should appeal to all freedom-lovers. Let’s see how many people sign up and how long that airline flies.[/quote]
Actually, I would be all for that.
Let the airlines determine how much security they will provide and how much they charge for it.
If the plane deviates from its route and is no longer responding to calls, let the government shoot it down.
[/quote]
But that is not what would happen.
The person who objects to searches does so freely, because others have been screened, and thus profits while others have reduced his own risk at their own inconvenience. Others’ adherence to the hated rules make his travel safer and slightly more inconveient. Would that person truly choose ScanFree airlines and bear his own risk?
So that is why there is screening, however imperfect. The value to each may be greater than the cost to any.
[/quote]
So Scanfree Airlines is bound to fail?
Well, dont found it then.
[/quote]
As you well know, the example is to illustrate the reason to apply “security” universally, and not to point out the failure of ScanFree Airlines.
Every passenger wants the security, but a few want others to bear the inconvenience or embarassment of the searches from which they derive a benefit.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Chushin wrote:
Not saying I disagree with the sentiments expressed here, but how would you explain the relative lack of terror attacks on airplanes so far? If current measures are as impotent as many think, why aren’t planes falling out of the sky everywhere?
Again, not disagreeing; just asking.[/quote]
Because there are not that many people who are out to get you as you are led to believe?
[/quote]
Ah! Then there is a solution which would appeal to the unfettered capitalist in you.
Let’s start an airline which is guaranteed to be “scan free.” No one gets scanned.
That should appeal to all freedom-lovers. Let’s see how many people sign up and how long that airline flies.[/quote]
Actually, I would be all for that.
Let the airlines determine how much security they will provide and how much they charge for it.
If the plane deviates from its route and is no longer responding to calls, let the government shoot it down.
[/quote]
But that is not what would happen.
The person who objects to searches does so freely, because others have been screened, and thus profits while others have reduced his own risk at their own inconvenience. Others’ adherence to the hated rules make his travel safer and slightly more inconveient. Would that person truly choose ScanFree airlines and bear his own risk?
So that is why there is screening, however imperfect. The value to each may be greater than the cost to any.
[/quote]
So Scanfree Airlines is bound to fail?
Well, dont found it then.
[/quote]
As you well know, the example is to illustrate the reason to apply “security” universally, and not to point out the failure of ScanFree Airlines.
Every passenger wants the security, but a few want others to bear the inconvenience or embarassment of the searches from which they derive a benefit.
[/quote]
And that would be a problem?
I doubt it.
I am sure someone will figure it out if he is able to make a buck off off it.
U.S. Marshals in a Florida Federal courthouse saved 35,000 [bodyscan] images.
Nice.
Judging from the grainy quality, some Marshals still have 56kdialup modems.
Or are simply on another level of pervyness.
Just bend over so them children be safe tonight.