Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Polls on the front page of Slashdot? Is the world coming to an end?! Nope; read more about it. ×

Comment: Re:You don't stop terrorists by patting people dow (Score 1) 301

As to the pilot having his gun taken from him... we need to clarify where and how that happens.

If the gun is being taken while the pilot is off the airplane, I can come up with a lot of really easy ways to make the gun useless off the plane.

If we're talking about the gun being taken from the pilot WHILE he is on the plane... I don't see that because you'd have to get into the cabin to do that.

So what is your concern? Off the plane or on the plane? If you can get into the pilot's cabin to take his gun then you're already too close.

Main concern is off the plane. Agreed that if you can take the gun away in-cabin, the gun doesn't really make a difference one way or the other.

As to electrified clothing... if they get close enough to touch me, I'm calling that a total failure.

Yes, that's why I included all staff in this; it would be more useful for attendants, to make them another large self-aware obstacle between the attacker and the cockpit.

As to depressurizing the cabin and forcing the hijacker to sit in a seat sucking oxygen... that's a good point. I'd still recommend the defense training and the taser.

Me too :)

Comment: Huh? (Score 1) 1

by Em Adespoton (#49826097) Attached to: Study proves adults can learn 'perfect pitch'

I've been training people to recognize pitch for years. I'm not sure who the "we" is here, but I've had no problems teaching adults pitch OR tempo, which is actually more difficult to master, and goes away faster than pitch if not practiced.

The techniques behind mastering pitch and tempo are hardly new, and have been used for centuries. Maybe the newbie developmental psychologists just forgot to involve musicians in their previous studies?

Comment: Re:Why hide it? (Score 1) 104

by Em Adespoton (#49825863) Attached to: FBI Is Behind Mysterious Flights Over US Cities

Why hide this behind shell companies if it's all above board, authorized and legal? Oh, wait, anything that law enforcement does must be legal right? /sarcasm Wouldn't it be a more effective crime deterrent if the aircraft had large bold block letter lighted signs that said FBI on them?

The same reason that you don't go around blabbing your bank account number and transit number, even though it's likely public record.

When things are too easy to know, a larger percentage of the population will take advantage of the knowledge.

And you already knew that the FBI's mandate wasn't to deter crime... it's in their TLA ;)

Comment: Re:From who? (Score 1) 104

by Em Adespoton (#49825839) Attached to: FBI Is Behind Mysterious Flights Over US Cities

This statement also screams "we'd rather obfuscate what we're doing so the guy who sees our plane flying around his building doesn't google the registration and figure out instantly that it's the FBI, and they've found him and are monitoring his actions."

Thing is, the only groups who fly planes in these circles are government agencies. They should really switch to drones :D

Comment: Re:Wait a second guys! (Score 1) 301

Except dogs DO have useful context awareness (just not enough) -- unlike a chemical scanner that flags specific reactions, dogs know the difference between fertilizer + earth and explosives sans earth. Chemical testers don't check to see what other smells are also present.

But yeah; in that setting, sniffers don't work. Too many variables to account for.

Comment: Re:America next? (Score 1) 212

by circletimessquare (#49825043) Attached to: Professional Russian Trolling Exposed

well said and absolutely correct

furthermore, it trains critical minds to be exposed to everything. in this world, there is only one guarantor of truth: you. and you only get a good mind that can smell out bullshit by being exposed to all the different bullshit

although, there are minds that would have been great, in less free countries, but those minds are weak and flabby: hopelessly cynical

it is just as dangerous to reject everything as it is to be naive and believe everything. and such once-great minds get that way by being in an environment they see is all lies, but offered nothing valid as an alternative, anywhere. so they become hopeless cynics

such minds in the west can find other sources, and find out the truth, before they become blind kneejerk cynics. by seeing all the different perspectives

all perspectives have an agenda, but by seeing many agendas and perspectives, the depiction of an event can be seen for what it is by comparing the differences. in a controlled environment, with only one perspective, you either are a hopelessly trusting moron, or a hopelessly distrusting cynic, both equally hobbling

only with a plethora of sources and choices is the critical mind trained and maintained

Comment: Re: America next? (Score 1) 212

by circletimessquare (#49824915) Attached to: Professional Russian Trolling Exposed

it's a continuum in all countries

1. the naive, who believe what the official channels say

2. the genuinely critical and intellectually honest

3. the hopelessly cynical. too much automatic distrust is not intelligent, it's actually a personality disorder hobbling in the same way naivete is, to automatically reject all info, even something that might be true

the point is, in the west, those who are genuinely critical have more information sources to peruse, and therefore are better able to find out the truth. in controlled environments, places where fear dominates, the critically minded have less chance to find the truth and, as you say, often wind of hopelessly jaded and cynical and don't believe anything

this is weakness, not strength

Comment: Re:You don't stop terrorists by patting people dow (Score 1) 301

As to the training, glad we agree.
As to the weapon... you can come up with reasons why people shouldn't have ice cream or reasons why alternating tuesdays should have people standing out side balancing on their hands. Coming up with reasons for things doesn't mean they're good reasons.

In your case, you're saying having a weapons there might create problems. Sure. Giving your passangers sodas can cause problems too. the issue is do they actually matter?

Yeah; I agree with this too. It's all a measure of calculated risk. And yes, the question is: is the risk worth taking?

First, you have the gun be controlled by the pilot when he boards and debarks. The gun does not stay on the plane. It goes with the pilot.

Second, as the to the TSA regs being useless if the pilot can bring a gun through... bullshit. The pilot would have dispensation to do that and you the passanger would not. Air marshals take guns through the TSA lines on to those planes. Or at least I dont' think anyone would really argue the TSA was useless if they flashed their badge and did it.

I think you missed my point here, although the "goes with the pilot" is a good clarification. What I'm saying is that unlike air marshals who are anonymous, pilots carrying guns makes them a target, as everyone knows they're carrying a gun. This means that any attacker can leave their gun at home, and get one off the pilot after they've gone through security. It doesn't even have to be the pilot for the plane they're boarding, as long as they incapacitate the victim pilot for long enough that their plane can get in the air.

Third, as to the pilot focusing on the plane and not on the gun. The issue is that the pilot could hurt people on the plane if he jukes the plane all over the place. Lets say there is someone at the door and they some how snuck a pocket blow torch onto the plane. What are you going to do? Juke around? Good luck with that especially if they just hold on back there. You have to keep in mind that in tight spaces you're not that vulnerable to being shook up because you're not going very far in any direction. YOu can wedge yourself into that entry way and just work on the door.

Now what? I'm saying... give the pilot something say "here's Johnny!" to the would be hijacker.

You're worried about the bullets going through the plane and hurting people... again... subsonic rounds are not going to do that. I suggested subsonic rounds. They have less powder in them, the don't go as fast.

If this bothers you... let me suggest at the very least, a taser. A good one. Something you could make the guy really ride the lightning with... is that acceptable? I want some sort of stand off supremacy weapon that a pilot could use to stop an attacker cold.

I think I already covered this one. The pilot can depressurize the cabin. Doing so would not only deprive the attacker of oxygen, it would also deprive the blow torch of oxygen. No need for a gun where the shots could cause more damage. Subsonic rounds are great, but if they hit the wrong person, they're still going to do damage -- and subsonic rounds can actually do MORE damage in some cases, as instead of a clean puncture, they can cause greater internal damage.

Your taser suggestion is actually really good -- Tasers are great for close quarters, and are usually a one-use weapon, which means that the attacker can't then take the taser and turn it on someone else.

This is a weapon that will also be of less use if taken off a pilot who has gone through security but not yet boarded. Good idea all around :)

Another idea I was thinking about was outfitting pilots and cabin crew with these: http://www.gizmag.com/go/2357/ -- 80,000 volts when armed should be enough to deter most attackers.

Comment: Re: America next? (Score 1) 212

by circletimessquare (#49824517) Attached to: Professional Russian Trolling Exposed

there is propaganda and there always will be. but in a more free speech environment, you breed more critical minds, because you expose the minds to more bullshit. as opposed to walled gardens in countries with less free speech, which breeds weak minds

that's all i'm saying. the west is not perfect and never will be. it's just *better*

and people like you seem to think because you can't get perfection, then everything is the same. but it's not the same. therefore your criticisms are useless

more free speech means more critical minds. that actually means something. if you rejec tthat as useless, you only announce yourself as naive

Comment: Re:America next? (Score 3, Insightful) 212

by circletimessquare (#49824483) Attached to: Professional Russian Trolling Exposed

it's a continuum. the west falls for plenty of bullshit. it's just that, on the average, the west falls for less

every single example of the west falling for shit you just gave me, can also be shown in countries with less free speech. and they fall for *more*

the perfect is not the enemy of the good. if you gauge all countries against an ideal perfection of a populace of everyone being perfectly rational critical minds, which does not exist and never will, then your criticisms are useless

the west simply edges out countries with less free speech because they train more critical minds. the west is not perfect and never will be. it's just that, until countries that now have very little free speech get more, the west will simply do better than them, not perfect

Comment: Re:America next? (Score 1) 212

by circletimessquare (#49824301) Attached to: Professional Russian Trolling Exposed

there are no absolutes anywhere. it would be easy to find a person more level headed in russia and china than some people in the usa. but i'm talking about trends and averages

i'm talking about the media environment and what it does to a critical mind. an environment where anything goes means that critical mind is exercised more, exposed to more bullshit and gets more sophisticated and powerful

but a walled garden, where a government controls more of what is officially (and unofficially, as the existence of government troll brigades shows) said, you breed uncritical minds. that muscle is simply less developed because it is worked less

it's a continuum. the west simply edges out other countries on the continuum

i'm not denying that the usa has plenty of hysterical, propagandized morons, and plenty of uncritical minds. it does. a lot of them self-select and out of prideful ignorance choose to live in an ideological bubble where only ideas that support their prejudices is allowed.. *by them*, not by their government. they self-select to remain ignorant. if they hear something that challenges their beliefs, they immediately reject it

but the existence of such losers is an unchanging baseline across all countries: the propagandized fool. you can't do anything about such uncritical minds, and every country has them

we're talking about another population here

there will always be a regular crop of some people who are still intellectually honest and will seek out alternative narratives and alternative sources of news. such people in the west will simply find that a lot easier, and so there will be more critical minds in the west than in countries with less free speech protections. because such intellectually honest minds in more authoritarian countries will not find it as easy to find alternative views, they are trapped. and so they will not develop, and they will fall back into fear and propaganda. their government is purposefully creating a general population of uncritical, weak minds. it's a colossal weakness. the effort is just too hard (and sometimes dangerous) for those *initially* intellectually honest to see more critical views, more alternative views, because their government makes it hard, in countries with few free speech protections. and so such people, who would be the best minds in those countries, fall back into fear and propaganda, and never develop. not so in the west

in the west, the self-selecting propagandized morons will never seek out views that challenge them, yes, but we're not talking about such useless people, and such people exist in all countries

on the average, amongst all minds, not just closed ones, more free speech protections means you are breeding more critical minds, simply because such minds exist in a media environment in the west where they can be challenged more and better develop that muscle

Comment: Re:America next? (Score 3, Insightful) 212

by circletimessquare (#49824035) Attached to: Professional Russian Trolling Exposed

the USA has better free speech protections. therefore, nonsense on the internet has less power

i am certain there is organized political trolling in the USA as well, by the government and by organizations with agendas, but it is less effective in the west

countries with less free speech protection (like china and their 50 cent bullshit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5... ) will rely on this sort of organized trolling as a means of persuasion and control, domestically and internationally. more than the west, simply because the west has less need to manipulate these whisper campaigns because nonsense on the internet has less power because are exposed to it more in a free speech environment and are more resistant to it. they simply have better trained more critical minds

the governments of authoritarian countries fear provocative opinions more, therefore they engage in this sort of nonsense more, because they view controlling people's opinions as important. their people wind of living in a walled garden of controlled opinion with less options to consider, and a state that officially endorses and pushes weak minded opinions and fear. the west simply doesn't give a fuck. the opinions and lies of random morons on the internet is exactly that, and most people can see that for what it is. you have to live in a paranoid insecure state to give much credence to inflammatory bullshit from random whispers on the internet

in the end, it weakens these countries, because you are breeding people with weak, easily manipulated minds. people in the west simply have better and more healthy bullshit meters. simply because when you can say anything, people do

expose a socially and psychologically normal person to 4chan for a month, and what do you get? a crackpot? no, a jaded experienced mind that can see bullshit coming from a mile away

exposure to the kind of thinking and commentary that resembles mental illness, amongst the more rational choices of speech, gives one a more critical eye and healthy skepticism. the ability to see the difference between credible words and manipulated words

but in countries where paranoid schizophrenic theories are actually supported and endorsed by the government's official media agencies as a means of control, you breed people to live in panic and fear. weak minds. it's a shame to weaken people's minds like this. russia, china, iran, etc., reap a side effect of their manipulations: a general population more susceptible to idiocies most westerners (not all) would easily reject, simply because westerners (even though some choose to stay within ideological bubbles and never consider other sides out of prideful ignorance, some personality types are universal, but limited) can, and do, see other sources of narrative, good or bad

If it wasn't for Newton, we wouldn't have to eat bruised apples.

Working...