Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
User Journal

Journal Marxist Hacker 42's Journal: Easy answer- hard implementation 32

Journal by Marxist Hacker 42
There's an easy answer to the London Bombings- but it's an incredibly hard implementation. Lock up all male citizens of Pakistani descent between the ages of 12 and 76. A condition of their release should be submission to Brain Fingerprinting for Terrorist training. Even if they have terrorist training, they should probably be released- but from then on, watched carefully and subjected to random searches at subway stations.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Easy answer- hard implementation More

Easy answer- hard implementation

Comments Filter:
  • Won't work. Lol.

    This would not stop a Richard Reed, or a John Walker Lindh. One of the bombers two weeks ago was a convert to Islam, born in Jamaica.

    The best way to defend against radical Wahabi-ism is to work to further isolate the radicals from the mainstream of Islam that is peace-loving, or peaceful, unless attacked first. I suspect that many if not most of the opposition elements in Iraq are drawn from the "peaceful unless attacked first" group.

    • This would not stop a Richard Reed, or a John Walker Lindh. One of the bombers two weeks ago was a convert to Islam, born in Jamaica.

      True enough- race alone won't do it. But the Brain Fingerprinting identifies training that a person is trying to keep secret, not race- but there's equal problems with that as the racism (for some reason, people think their brains are private).

      The best way to defend against radical Wahabi-ism is to work to further isolate the radicals from the mainstream of Islam that is
      • Brain finger-printing? I must have missed that day in Science class. What is brain-fingerprinting?

        In the first four paragraphs of this comment I suggested a peaceful approach to isolating the wahabi-ists. [slashdot.org]

        • It's a good idea- but it would take far too long, and sooner or later all funding gets cut. We need a more permanent solution.

          As for Brain Fingerprinting, when was your Science Class? AFAIK, we didn't have the processing power for this (with less than a super computer, anyway) until we hit the 1Ghz chip. It's a relatively recent invention, that gained a good deal of press just after 9-11. I believe it's based on a combination of EKG and Voice Recognition technology.
        • Brain Fingerprinting is a method using advanced software, multimedia output, and EKG input to tell when the human brain "recognizes" certain images in a given set. Recognition happens at a subconscious level- so it's impossible to consciously lie to this machine. It's been used since 2000 by the US Navy for scurity screening on ships- but using it outside of the military presents certain legal problems. Like any other form of attacking terrorism- it would be a sacrifice of freedom for safety.
  • A condition of their release should be submission to Brain Fingerprinting for Terrorist training. Even if they have terrorist training, they should probably be released- but from then on, watched carefully and subjected to random searches at subway stations.

    Sorry, sounds like a bunch of snake oil to me.

    If it isn't snake oil then I'm not sure I want such technology widely implemented due to the other factors people will want to screen for. (thoughtcrime anyone?)
    • Sorry, sounds like a bunch of snake oil to me.

      Check the link- it's no more snake oil than voice recognition, although infinitely more complex (which is why, so far, thoughtcrime isn't a possibility- this technology tests for subconcious recognition of images and locations, nothing more, and all it can really say is that you recognize doing something or have certain types of training. It will be centuries before we have a generalized reader that can do much more than that- brainwaves are just too complex
  • Forget terrorists, crime has a much greater impact on people's day-to-day safety in the US. Probably in Britain, too.

    Statistics show that young men of a certain age are responsible for most crime... we should lock them up along with the terrorists. This country would be a lot safer if every male aged 15 to 25 was put away. (It'd cut teen pregnancy a lot, too!)

    Plus, gun owners have the means to perpetrate horrible crimes. You should brain-scan everyone and lock up anyone who has ever handled a firearm just
    • Like I said- easy to come up with, hard to implement.

      But I find it interesting that you consider Wahhabist terrorist training to be the equivalent of the New Testament in danger. When was the last time you saw a Jesus Freak fly an airplane into a building?

      There's also the difference between having a set of laws that supposedly affirms life (such as the Magna Carta, or the Constitution) and having a set of laws that requires the killing of everybody that isn't you.

      To paraphrase yet another character from
      • Like I said- easy to come up with, hard to implement.

        No, no. Not hard at all. Simply lock up anyone who presents a danger to anyone else, plus any people who object to doing so because of obsolete attachments to ideas like freedom. Then whoever is left will be safe. It's a real winner!

        To paraphrase yet another character from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy series, our enemy is very honorable. They believe in peace, justice, family, sports, and the violent obliteration of other cultures, such as Isl
        • Minor changes make such a big difference, don't they?

          Not at all- because even the most rabid Christian evangelicals actually want to wipe out Islam as a religion. I don't even go that far. Islam as a religion isn't the problem- Islam as a government is. One can separate the two because the existance of moderate Islamics. Moderate Islamics don't make the Hajj a central part of their religion. Moderate Islamics don't want their religion to be the government. Moderate Islamics work for true justice- no
          • I understand why they hate enough to kill, although I don't agree. What I don't understand is why you hate enough to kill.
            • Simple- reaction to threat. No actual hate involved- in fact I'd much prefer just cutting off all contact with them. One does not need hate to kill- sometimes love is enough. If you still don't understand, I'd recommend you find an English translation of _City of God_ by Augustine of Hippo, written ~438 CE, it explains the basic theory behind the Just War.

              I've also taken some pains to avoid human death, while still attacking the basic theology- that's where the idea of nuking Mecca comes from, since it
              • "Simple- reaction to threat."

                What threat? They killed three thousand people a couple years ago. That's tragic, but let's keep it in perspective. We lose more people than that to smoking-related illness every year, and we're not spraying agent orange on tobacco country are we? Hell, we still subsidize the growers.

                You have allowed them to make you afraid, and your fear has made you... well, daft, honestly. You have been Terrorized. Mission Accomplished, Mr. Atta; StalinistHacker42 is afraid of you.

                Now you
                • What threat? They killed three thousand people a couple years ago. That's tragic, but let's keep it in perspective.

                  If you think the foolish al-Qaida is the only part of this threat, then you haven't bothered to learn the theology behind the attacks. And also- that has NOT been the only attack on us- or on cultures other than their own.

                  We lose more people than that to smoking-related illness every year, and we're not spraying agent orange on tobacco country are we?

                  We should be- tabacco as an agribusi
                  • "We need them to actively fight back against the fundamentalists"

                    What you propose may well unite the moderates and fundamentalists against us. Whoops. Nothing like a common enemy to bring people together.

                    I mean, full marks for the paternalistic encouragement for them to "grow up". Generous, if incredibly arrogant. But you may have noticed that masses of people are notoriously unpredictable. What if they don't react to your stimulus the way you hope? What if we nuke Mecca and China gets mad over it?

                    You s
                    • But you may have noticed that masses of people are notoriously unpredictable. What if they don't react to your stimulus the way you hope?

                      They will- it's in their theology and their culture to do so. In a way, they already have- this is how Islam got started to begin with.

                      What if we nuke Mecca and China gets mad over it?

                      They've already stated their intention to attack us anyway- it's just a matter of time.

                      You say you are trying to reach moderates. Well, there are lots of ways to reach moderates. (T
                    • "We've been trying the lower risk ideas for 20 years now- it ain't working."

                      20 years. 1985. What did we do in 1985? Live Aid? New Coke? Iran-Contra? If you think the last twenty years have been an example of our good intentions, or that a mere twenty years might be enough, then you should look at what happened during that time... and what came before.

                      The US started seriously meddling in the Middle East no later than 1953, [angelfire.com] when we engineered the overthrow of the democratically-elected Prime Minister of Ir
                    • 20 years. 1985. What did we do in 1985? Live Aid? New Coke? Iran-Contra? If you think the last twenty years have been an example of our good intentions, or that a mere twenty years might be enough, then you should look at what happened during that time... and what came before.

                      Low risk=Low Cost. What we started doing in 1985 with Iran-Contra was a reversal of our previous 80 years in the area- we stopped supporting dictators. This led us into DIRECT conflict with Saddam Hussien by 1992. Good intentions
                    • Tell me if I'm misinterpreting... or simply redundant... I think what peacefinder is saying is that our present actions and what you propose is going to turn the moderates against us, not the terrorists. In fact I believe it is turning some of our more traditional allies against us as well(Spain and Italy being the most newsworthy. France and Germany were against the war due to the lost opportunity of seeing lots of petro-euros). We cannot contain the problem that way. If we want a real coalition of the tru
                    • I guess what you're both missing is the way I see it- the moderates are guilty for not speaking up sooner. As guilty as a Southern Baptist in the 1850s for not speaking up against slavery, which gave rise to the KKK. Until they see that there are consequences for that silence, they won't speak up either- and there is NO way to win this war with us on either the attack or the defense, because without the help of the moderates, there's no way to separate out the terrorists until *after* the attack.

                      Some mod
                    • I guess what you're both missing is the way I see it...

                      I thought that was exactly what we are talking about. That you see it differently than I do. I'll grant your knowledge of history, and that's why I look to you to tell me where I'm going wrong. But since neither side(in the war) is willing to bring even a little civility into the matter, it's distorting the whole picture. Which leads to all sorts of mis-interpretations. If we wnat the moderates to condemn the terrorists, it would be hypocritical not to
                    • Very possible. However, I am of the mindset that believes that an "eye for an eye" will indeed make the whole world blind, and does nothing but continue the circle of violence...as evidenced in the Middle East on the TV. Both sides are falsely claiming "self defense".

                      The real problem is- the terrorists are the very culture that invented "an eye for an eye". The more we don't hold them to their own standards of justice, the more they're going to walk all over us- until your wife has to wear a burka to do
                    • I understand, but this is where we disagree. I want to give a truly "virtuous" coalition a chance to prove otherwise. They can not take control against people who are willing to work collectively to defend themselves. But it must be true self defense. That is simply not the case at this time. They only comprise a billion, and the vast majority of them are against the terrorists. The terrorists also have to win hearts and minds to accomplish their mission. And under the present circumstances, that's not too
                    • I don't want different results- I want the same results we've had in the past when we dealt hard with terrorists. How many Branch Davidians are there anymore? When Rome destroyed Jerusalem, the Zealots were less than 10% of the Jews in the province- but by destroying Jerusalem it was 1,975 years before Zionism was able to take hold in the area again.

                      There can be no virtuous coalition- because in the eyes of even moderate muslims, anybody not ummah is by definition a sinfull infidel. Nobody other than ot
                    • There can be no virtuous coalition- because in the eyes of even moderate muslims, anybody not ummah is by definition a sinfull infidel.

                      I'm not as concerned how the Muslims see it as I am about those of us outside their community. These are the ones I want to coalese. We still outnumber them by a long shot. But we are so horribly divided. It is those divisions amongst ourselves that strengthens the other side. As long as so many of us are as war like as they are, nothing good can come of it. If there must be
                    • I'm not as concerned how the Muslims see it as I am about those of us outside their community. These are the ones I want to coalese. We still outnumber them by a long shot. But we are so horribly divided. It is those divisions amongst ourselves that strengthens the other side. As long as so many of us are as war like as they are, nothing good can come of it. If there must be war against the Muslims, then so be it. But unless we can unite, we will lose.

                      Actually- that's the same mistake the radical muslims
  • Habeus corpus...

    Why not just start running a death camp?

    • Not a bad idea- but shouldn't your moderate Muslims start doing it first? After all, the west are only secondary targets in this war.
    • Speaking of which- Brain Fingerprinting can be considered sufficient due process. I think what you really mean is a presumption of innocence- what the terrorists have proven is that assuming innocence is a downright dangerous thing. And I'm not limiting that to physical terrorists- Ecconomic ones like Warren Buffet, Kenneth Lay, Bill Gates and George W. Bush have also done much to prove that an assumption of innocence is stupid at best- and deadly at worst.
  • In that case shouldn't we lock up all American white males because of OKC and the bombings of various church and abortion clinics and olympic events? In fact shouldn't all radical idealists of the religious variety be locked up? I can think of few that we could start with. Some of them are very powerful people. Should we try to do what was done in "A Clockwork Orange"? "Terrorist Training"...that would include much of the world's military personnel. Some of the more powerful countries call it "Anti-Terroris
    • More devil's advocate. But that's why I said hard to implement. I personally supported the Brain Fingerprinting technology since I first heard about it in October 2001- in more ways than one (I saw it as a potential way out of the high tech depression- providing plenty of work for programmers and DBAs). But the racial profiling just comes from the community that the four terrorists for the original London Bombing came from.

      I wouldn't mind the original suggestion, which was that we use brain fingerprinti

Slashdot Top Deals

FORTUNE'S FUN FACTS TO KNOW AND TELL: A black panther is really a leopard that has a solid black coat rather then a spotted one.

Close