As long as the missiles we're defending against are inoperable, our defenses should be iron clad.

The contents of this comment are secret for national security purposes.

I can't mod you up more, but totally agree. The enlightenment beliefs underly to the US constitution believed that sharing scientific and industrial information would allow for greater progress.

That's a little like saying it's up to the victim to secure their safety. If that same person walked into a patient's room and started fiddling with their heart pump or dialysis machine, I could see charging them with attempted murder. We don't say 'gee, we'd better not charge him because the hospital didn't put a lockable steel cage over the panel to the dialysis machine to keep people out.' Just because the network is the means of intrusion, as opposed to going into the room, doesn't give someone a pass if there are security holes in the software. You're still f**king with someone's life. That being said, it is *is* incumbent upon the hospital to ensure your safety, especially when you cannot react (i.e. unconscious). It is up to the device manufacturer to make a safe product. In both those instances I think you should be able to take the manufacturer or hospital to court. From that standpoint, fear of losing their shorts in a law-suit and subsequent bad press, I think that they may pay more attention to security.

But you could say that about a lot of things. For example, buying an inexpensive car, like a Honda fit, as opposed to an SUV. Or spending money on games, etc. What's missing is the good but affordable option so that a decent option is available at lower price points. It seems like a lot of phone plans or cable plans are almost bait and switch. It might have a cheap plan but only if you order the more expensive bundle.

It depends on where you live. $200 a month is 2,400 a year. When it's 1-2% of your income, it probably doesn't matter. So, you do a little less saving. When it's more like 10%, then it's a problem because you greatly reduce your ability to save.

Were you the only person who got the reference to impending doom?

There are some judges who have a clue.

I think it's important to realize that companies are run for the interest of their shareholders. Google, Apple and Microsoft have all had their good and bad moments. A lot of people make a point of Apple being for or against standards, or a walled garden. Microsoft made you pay for DOS/windows with every computer purchased, even if you had no intention of running either. It was only stopped after the courts said it's an illegal tying agreement, but even then they were able to exert such pressure on their 'partners' that Gasse couldn't even give the BeOS away. Maybe in the great pantheon of evil business practices MS gets a 3.5 out 5 (they never killed anyone), Apple gets a 3.3. I don't know if I have a score for Google yet, but some times they're pushing 3.0 at least.

Keep in mind that both the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber were stopped after they unsuccessfully tried to light their bombs. Had they succeeded the "passengers will stop them" argument would show itself to be the non-starter it really is. They may never attempt to take over another plane, but they will probably try to bring one down.

I'm not going to argue we didn't get what we needed. What we got was a mutant hybrid that may not be producing no better an outcome than the old system. A lot of people recognized the old system was a large, potential security hole. Low paid, under trained people with no job security are ripe for social engineering. Trained, reasonably paid, people with a measure of job security are less likely (although not immune) from social engineering. Professionalizing screeners should improve the situation from that end. Having national guardsmen standing by screening checkpoints was a reaction. Improving the screening process seems like a logical, even necessary idea. Hopefully, the combination of decent standards, training, and professionalism would lead to a better outcome. It hasn't and no one is arguing that.

Second, if someone does try to hijack a plane and the hijack is foiled, or just downs a plane, you will have people questioning the safety of air travel. When Richard Reed tried to light is shoe on fire, or Abdulmutallab tried to ignite his underwear, people questioned 'how did they get on the plane, in the first place.' The next question is if they can get that on a plane, are planes safe? Should I be flying? People are horrible and judging risk and even if the odds of dying from dozens of other, more realistic, events many times more likely than dying from a terrorist attack, they will react by not flying. Airline safety isn't so high because of the altruism of the airlines or the aircraft makers (although many care very deeply about the safety of their products) but because airline crashes are bad for business. Even as rare an event as they are, they cause people to not fly.

Having passengers and crew overreact because they feel that security is 'up to them,' is not a good idea. Passenger reactions are important, but only after all the other mechanisms failed. Simple screening of passengers seems like a perfectly reasonable idea. Applying technology, such as sniffing for organic materials (explosives) seems like a perfectly reasonable idea. The problem is the execution of these perfectly reasonable ideas has been a disaster. I wouldn't say a complete and total disaster, but, it's not a 'win.' The larger problem is the political intransigence that will saddle us with this mess for many years to come, and maybe even exacerbate it.

So, the TSA was formed, in part, because after 9/11 we found out that many of the airports relied on contractors that were borderline. Little to no training. Enormous turnover. Effectively no ability to arrest or detain people. Subject to pressure from the airlines, etc. So someone had, what was probably a good idea, hire people as full time, highly trained screeners that could server or coordinate with law enforcement. Sure, it might cost a little more in the short run, but less than if people viewed airlines as unsafe and refused to fly. Much like the movie "The Fly" that idea morphed into the mess that we have now. With congressmen saying that "agent" should not be used to refer to a TSA worker because that demeans other law enforcement agents. But let's say, for sake of argument, that the Obama administration tries to do something about it. "He's soft on terror" or "He's making us less safe," or "He's helping the terrorists". Likewise, if Romney wins and his administration tries to do something: "He's in the pocket of the airlines," or "He's making us less safe because it's costing the airlines money." Those are both ridiculous claims, but they will be made.