Perhaps more to the point,

http://apps.microsoft.com/wind...

tells us to "Get Windows 8.1 to run this app"

You crazy anti-vaxxer! Who let Jenny McCarthy in here?

Well, they gave the Westerners syphillis, so... call it even.

"Application Programming" is today done in things like Excel spreadsheets. You don't need to write a COBOL app* to keep track of interest payments and such. I'd argue that computers are more accessible than ever, and thanks to Google routine coding often becomes this exercise in searching for already-solved problems and applying the solutions to your similar problem.

* Ahhhh, dear God, "app"? Why did I type that?

Are you arguing that they can keep their security procedures static because the results are good enough? I'd argue that you need to keep changing along with the threats.

If it's 97% of the world's scientists, that's just a fallacious appeal to authority as only some scientists are climate experts. Example of a false authority: Bill Nye.

I will respond with data.

From TFA (the friendly article, or whatever other F-word you prefer) . . .
> In the old days there was a respected profession of application programming.
> There was a minority of elite system programmers who built infrastructure and tools
> that empowered the majority of application programmers.

I think it is still that way. But now there is a third class who think that breaking into the application programming is some kind of godlike elite skill because it requires you to actually know more than the mere syntax of a language. Programming is racist and sexist because it requires you to even learn the syntax of a programming language. Why can't the computer just do what they say? Why do they need a special language? Why should it be necessary to learn to design complex databases, and understand in memory data structures and algorithms? Why focus on gaining lots of insight in order to come up with vastly superior algorithms?

In short, from what I see on some programming boards, what some people seem to want is a high paying position where an untrained monkey could get a computer to do what the boss wants, and then collect a paycheck -- um, no. Direct deposit.

That may be true, but you miss the deeper underlying issue that TFA (the friendly article) is whining about.

They want to be able to be a programming superstar by reading a book such as:
* Learn Programming in 24 Hours!
* Learn Brain Surgery in 24 Hours!
* Learn Rocket Science in 24 Hours!
* Learn To Be A Concert Pianist in 10 EASY Lessons!

Various programming boards are flooded with people who want to know how to break into programming for big bucks, quick, overnight, but don't want to actually do the hard learning.

Some companies only look for people with MSc's or a PhD, but then there are those companies which only consider those with higher qualifications for non-programming jobs. So it's something to think about if you consider doing a MSc as as "refresher" to learn new skills when the job market is tight.

Using the presence of a working device in addition to an x-ray scanner, as well as manual and residue inspection as warranted. And for all I know, dogs.

It's hard for me to make that judgement without knowing what the threat is.

Most shoes and liquids don't have batteries.

So what? We are both discussing this without any real data in front of us.

Of course they are feasible - they are using them right now. If you mean are they feasible for this particular threat... well, I don't even know what this alleged threat is and neither do you.

It certainly is not convenient, I'll give you that! Air travel is no fun at all.

I don't want to quibble about how stupid the puddle stepper was or how good the bombmaker was so much as to point out that it represents a complication that increased security forced upon their plan. Their plan failed where a simpler plan may not have.

It cannot be made automatic because the apparatus would arouse suspicion. At that point, you are better off trying to smuggle the finished product.

They might, but:
- do you have enough trained dogs right now for sensible coverage?
- do you have enough dog handlers right now for sensible coverage?
- how much more does it cost to train a dog and hire a handler vs. tell people to charge their phone?

Won't be there. Boris and Natasha were Potsylvanian, not Russian.

They aren't using a discharged battery to detect explosives.

I know nearly nothing about security, but even I know that security is best applied in layers. You will never get 100% coverage from any single technology, even if such a magical thing existed. You have to adapt your security to changing threats. I have no inside knowledge as to what caused the TSA to take this step. It's possible that it is just stupid, but in the past (shoes, liquids, etc) there has been some legitimate threat.

I have no idea what it would take to put dogs at every checkpoint, but I imagine it is expensive, time consuming to train them, and prone to failure: terrorist waits around until the dog has to poop, etc. I have no idea. Presumably they would use dogs if it was feasible - they already use them for cargo. Remember that they have to make their rules and procedures simple enough for complete dolts to follow (both the agents and the passengers). There is not a lot of room for nuance or judgement.

Then we are talking past one another. They are almost certainly different people. I agree with you.

I am saying that the bomb carrier can no longer just be a useful idiot. They need to have some level of technical knowledge or they are liable to, say, step in a puddle. Or they have to mix various ingredients together (unsuccessfully, as in the underwear bomb). The operation becomes more complex, and by definition more prone to failure.