You're also assuming that the "terrorists" would use the same tactic. You're playing Whack-a-mole game at that point. If you only stop what has been known to work, then you will never adapt. Look at Israel -- they publicly denounced the machines as entirely too expensive and ineffectual. You know what works for them? Better trained personnel. They are able to adapt and watch the people through training and identify problems.
If you change this argument into a bits and bytes argument -- We can apply a lot of the same things with what is going on here to the ongoing fight against "pirates." I see a lot of the same things going on with DRM and with the current airport security. Both are a theater, just a pretense of making people feel more secure. Both only impact the legitimate customers. Want to get a copy of any game, music or other DRM'd software? Just check the various bit torrent websites. Want to easily hijack a plane? Bypass the security and get a private jet, or walk with 12" razor blades through the scanners (See a prior post about Adam Savage as well as many other links online). If you look at the statistics, the terrorists have "won" because we simply keep feeding the fear. 150,000 + died from homicide in the USA in the last nine years. More people have died from Cancer, heart attack, etc. You know how we are actually safer now in the airplanes? #1 locked cockpit doors and a loaded weapon in the cabin. #2 passengers now know that if they don't do something, they will still die. They won't put up and/or shut up because they think they will still live. At this point, there is no fear of dying, and the bad guys are going to lose. On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 2:22 PM, CKoerner <[email protected]> wrote: > > It's a yes or no question that doesn't have any premise. Interesting you > > choose not to answer it :-) > > Cedric, if a plane was brought down by X and there are two planes, one > where everyone is scanned for X and one where no one was, I would get > on the plane where everyone was scanned for X... > > Unless I felt the methods used to 'Scan for X' were not right, then I > would get on the other plane. > > But the whole premise is false because these scans do not prevent X, > they only lessen its possibility, so your asking for a binary result > from an analog input. > > -- > 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. > > -- 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.
