I think you're confounding "TSA" with specific methods introduced with the TSA like body scanning and enhanced pat downs that are of dubious value.
No, I am specifically talking about those methods. You have yet to establish that there is anything to deter. You've just declared that the TSA protects us (while stealing shit).
It's an easily supportable assertion, unless you insist that I prove a negative assertion *by example*, which is of course impossible to do.
Well, we can look at the number of hijackings/attacks in the decade leading up to 9/11 (on us flights) and in the decade after. I count 1 attempt before (someone hijacked a cargo jet in 1994 so they could fly it into fedex HQ) and 2 or 3 attempts (shoe guy and underwear guy) with zero effectiveness from the TSA for the after, so we do see some attempts being made, but the TSA did nothing to detect/preent them. With that level of egg on their face, you would expect them to crow loudly about anything they actually did right, but instead, they're trying to harass train travelers. basically, they don't do shit, so why do we have them?
Given that we *know* there are people out there who would like to hijack American planes, and there haven't been any attempts made, we have to assume that *some* of what TSA is doing is an effective deterrence to attempts.
No we don't, and if anything, we should be comparing them against what we did before - metal detectors, bomb sniffers. They're a whole lot more invasive and they don't do shit.
For example, metal detectors combined with the inspection of carry-on luggage are surely an effective deterrent to carrying on firearms and other weapons.
I was talking to an old timer in the TSA line; he said that in the 70s, you could bring guns on the plane - they had a locker that they'd store your gun in for you.
Bureaucratic pig-headedness is bad customer service, but it is necessary for deterrence.
Unsupported assertion. We had plenty of deterrence on 9/10/2001
It is not about the training, it is about being able to substantiate your skills. Quality certification enables you to publicly substantiate your skill set
This isn't relevant to anything I wrote, but what the hell: most certs suck, so how is this true, and why should I spend $$$ to prove that I know SQL? You should be able to get an idea about someone's ability to work in an hour or two or you can't interview anyway.
you are relying on references from you current company, somewhat tricky
I don't tell my boss, I ask my coworkers, who have little incentive to lie one way or the other.
For those coders treated like mushrooms (kept in the dark and fed bullshit), with no public recognition, shifting jobs is difficult especially if you also want to shift localities, another state or country.
Not so much in my experience, although getting exposure certainly helps.
When was the last time you didn't know more about new trends than your prof?
Why the hell would an undergrad prof be teaching new trends? And yes, the prof usually knows a lot more than me in the area he teaches, that's why he's the prof and I go to his class. Meanwhile, training is focused on something small, like SVN or a dev methodology. No profs anywhere.
I'm looking for a "stupid" charming sales person for my own voip company, we perfectly replace something people are paying $120 a month for with a $10 a month system, guess how many customers we have
Charge $30/mo and see if more people sign up.
"The fundamental principle of science, the definition almost, is this: the sole test of the validity of any idea is experiment." -- Richard P. Feynman