As a thought experiment... If the goal of "enhanced security" is to prevent terrorist attacks, and the goal in preventing terrorist attacks is a reduction in the injuries and loss of life that they cause; but these checks will "drive" more and more people to use road transport, and traffic accidents are one of the biggest causes of death and injury in the US.
To what degree then, will the effect of these (rather expensive) checks be to cause MORE death and injury, the very things they're allegedly seeking to reduce. On 23 November 2010 20:32, CKoerner <[email protected]> wrote: > > People have their own beliefs, > > so if they feel so strongly against it, they should not fly. Flying is > not > > mandatory. > > Neither is riding a bus, or driving a car. However realistically > flying is the only method in which people cover large distances in > short periods of time. > > It would be better if every passenger stripped completely and flew > totally naked. Afterall, if they don't like it, they don't have to > fly. > > At what point do you stand up for your rights? When the next bomber > has it up his rectum will it be okay for randomly pull people aside > for rectal exams? After all, they don't have to fly. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "The Java Posse" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]<javaposse%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. > > -- Kevin Wright mail / gtalk / msn : [email protected] pulse / skype: kev.lee.wright twitter: @thecoda -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
