Comment Re: 666 (Score 1) 753
Yes, but gold also fluctuates with respect to the CPI.
http://www.macrotrends.net/134...
Yes, but gold also fluctuates with respect to the CPI.
http://www.macrotrends.net/134...
Are you arguing that they can keep their security procedures static because the results are good enough?
Yes, there are many sayings about both corner cases and not fixing what isn't broken. Do you honestly think we can improve on a rate of 6-9's? Do you honestly believe the routine humiliation and violations are worth it?
How effective does it need to be for you? 1%, 10%, 90%? There aren't numbers on how effective the screening is, but there are numbers on flights and bombings (and that's all bombs, not just shoe bombs of which there was one). Roughly 0.00005% (about 10 in 19 million) of all flights (where part of the flight lands in the US) are at risk of bombing annually.
This source seems to think differently. In either event, explosives aren't something you really want passengers to have, and multiple passengers could have multiple shoes. Are you seriously suggesting that they not screen shoes now?
The linked source agrees with me, 50g would not be enough to do serious damage, you need to have 100g to do serious damage to a car, which (for explosives as opposed to impact) is not much stronger than an airplane fuselage. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/854...
Being required to check your own bag is OK. Although some of the searches bags are subject to is questionable, but that's a slightly different topic.
Shoe screening has never been acceptable, especially because it's ineffective.
If the measures were actually successful, the TSA should be tooting it's own horn. From what I can tell all of the bombing plots in the 2000s were avoided by either misfires or security measures in place since the mid 90s. Also 50g of PETN in a shoe bomb would have been ineffective even if it had detonated.
So putting "non-existent" as a criteria means that you will always fail.
That is exactly my point. Security does not have to be perfect to be valuable.
And you will never know if the money being spent is not being wasted because there incidents are so rare already.
There are many places where traditional methods of statistical research will fail. This is one of them. Instead we have to learn from our experience. For instance: some incompetent people were recruited to light bombs in their shoes - now shoes go through the x-ray machine. People found a way to mix the explosives behind security - now we can't have substantial amounts of liquids. People hijacked airliners with box cutters - now we have reinforced doors and pocket knife restrictions.
Now I'll concede that it is entirely possible that this latest regulation is based upon some scenario in some bureaucrat's mind. It is also possible that, like the liquids regulation, it is done for a perfectly good reason. Only time will tell.
None of the regulations you cited are actually reasonable. The vanishingly small amount of security we gained is not worth the large amount of freedom we've given up for it.
Yes, but that peanut butter isn't cheap.
Sorry for the reply to myself, but that number conflicts with the estimate for the formation of the sun given in Wikipedia (4.567 billion years, but looking at the references that estimate seems to be indirect).
Curious that within two separate articles about the age of the earth, no estimate is given at all. The only mention of an actual age is given in a footnote to the sciencedaily article (which says the earth must be younger than ~4.6 billion years).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
About 4,533 million years. So I'm guessing the new estimate would push it to ~4,593 million years.
because in the entire history of the planet, there will always have to have been at least one species who was a) the most intelligent at the time and b) the most intelligent to have developed up to that point.
I think you mean or, it is possible for a species to go extinct that satisfied both a) and b), leaving the second place finisher to satisfy a), but not b).
OK, I think I misread. A different way to read it would be that even after a species is extinct, they continue to hold both a) and b) records until a new species evolves that beats them. I'm not sure what to make of the argument, though.
because in the entire history of the planet, there will always have to have been at least one species who was a) the most intelligent at the time and b) the most intelligent to have developed up to that point.
I think you mean or, it is possible for a species to go extinct that satisfied both a) and b), leaving the second place finisher to satisfy a), but not b).
If one's body chemistry were such that blood were the only useful nourishment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...
So, maybe.
there is no such thing as "keeping up with the flow of traffic." when it is in excess of the posted legal speed limit
Actually that varies by state. The California law explicitly states "Notwithstanding the prima facie speed limits". https://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vc...
Shopping on the Internet is quick and convenient, and international. Using a credit card, charges appear as if you had made a purchase from wherever their merchant account lists as their address. In general, your location (as provided by your IP address) is not taken into account. This has already caused me problems with an overzealous bank that doesn't believe I would be shopping in Germany or Japan. Now if they can see that I'm obviously still in the US (via my cellphone), well then.
using Emacs or vi.
Don't Mode Me In
"No matter where you go, there you are..." -- Buckaroo Banzai
