Steve Jobs is a Freemason Satanist Piece of Shit and It's Time for This Clown to GO
ArchDeaconMalli
secretly track everywhere you go with your iPhone.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/apr/20/iphone-tracking-prompts-privacy-fears
It's been known for a long time that Wozniak is a satan-worshi[ping
freemason criminal, but you need to know that Jobs is too. Boycott
this shitty company, and all of their defective "made in china"
garbage products. This arrogant little shit needs to be put out of
business.
Their computers used to be OK, but now they are made in China at a
factory dozens of workers have committed suicide because of the
horrible and hopeless conditions that slavemaster Jobs has them
working in. This guy is an arrogant little punk acid freak, and I've
had enough of his freemason occultist horseshit.
Jobs is also the largest stakeholder in the homosexual jew porno
company called Disney. It's time to put both of these shitty companies
out of business. NEVER buy a new product from Apple. ALWAYS buy used,
or buy some other brand. Teach these freemason scum a lesson.
ArchDeaconMalli
> Steve Jobs and the other satanist freemason garbage bags of Apple
> secretly track everywhere you go with your iPhone.
>
>
> It's been known for a long time that Wozniak is a satan-worshi[ping
> freemason criminal, but you need to know that Jobs is too. Boycott
> this shitty company, and all of their defective "made in china"
> garbage products. This arrogant little shit needs to be put out of
> business.
>
> Their computers used to be OK, but now they are made in China at a
> factory dozens of workers have committed suicide because of the
> horrible and hopeless conditions that slavemaster Jobs has them
> working in. This guy is an arrogant little punk acid freak, and I've
> had enough of his freemason occultist horseshit.
>
> Jobs is also the largest stakeholder in the homosexual jew porno
> company called Disney. It's time to put both of these shitty companies
> out of business. NEVER buy a new product from Apple. ALWAYS buy used,
> or buy some other brand. Teach these freemason scum a lesson.
While you were busy "thinking different" and thinking that Apple was
this real groovy 'countercultural" company, Jobs and his satanist
buddies were tracking you through their defective broken made in china
garbage products. This company needs to be DESTROYED.
Don Stockbauer
We had a large oak limb fall and shatter the brickwork around our BBQ
pit in he backyard. I was wondering if any of you know a freemason
who could put the bricks back in order? I want a freemason because I
don't want to pay for it, just like my nonexstent CofSG subscription.
Sorry if this post in any way sounds flirtaceous.
Gdansk.
- Don
Uncle Steve
> In article
> <f68fea31-6381-4c64...@o26g2000vby.googlegroups.com>,
> ArchDeaconMalli <archdea...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Steve Jobs and the other satanist freemason garbage bags of Apple
>
>
> >or buy some other brand. Teach these freemason scum a lesson.
>
>
> --
> Tim
>
> "That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
> nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" -- Bill of Rights 1689
FFS, don't give them any ideas.
Regards,
Uncle Steve
--
Should a professional politician be charged with molestation if he
kisses babies while attending political rallies?
Lewis
> Steve Jobs and […] Apple secretly track everywhere you go with your iPhone.
First off, it's not a secret and hasn't been for a long time. second of
all, this data lives only on your phone and in your phone backup. It's not
anywhere else. Third of all, it's pretty cool.
--
this is not a signture
Warren Oates
<55261d89-9702-4f3e...@z27g2000prz.googlegroups.com>,
Don Stockbauer <donsto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> We had a large oak limb fall and shatter the brickwork around our BBQ
> pit in he backyard. I was wondering if any of you know a freemason
> who could put the bricks back in order? I want a freemason because I
> don't want to pay for it, just like my nonexstent CofSG subscription.
I too am a bit fan of open source masonry.
--
If you could teach a cat to dance,
you'd never have to leave the house.
-- Pat Sajak
Wes Groleau
Are you saying that if I lose my hat, I can look in my iPhone or its
backup to see where I've been?
--
Wes Groleau
There are two types of people in the world …
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/barrett?itemid=1157
Tom Stiller
Wes Groleau <Grolea...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
> On 04-21-2011 03:42, Lewis wrote:
> > ArchDeaconMalli<archdea...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Steve Jobs and […] Apple secretly track everywhere you go with your iPhone.
> >
> > First off, it's not a secret and hasn't been for a long time. second of
> > all, this data lives only on your phone and in your phone backup. It's not
> > anywhere else. Third of all, it's pretty cool.
>
> Are you saying that if I lose my hat, I can look in my iPhone or its
> backup to see where I've been?
But not where your hat's been.
--
Tom Stiller
PGP fingerprint = 5108 DDB2 9761 EDE5 E7E3 7BDA 71ED 6496 99C0 C7CF
Wes Groleau
> Wes Groleau<Grolea...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
>> Are you saying that if I lose my hat, I can look in my iPhone or its
>> backup to see where I've been?
>
> But not where your hat's been.
My hat has been where I have been. When and where it stopped being
where I have been was when and where I lost it. And without a hat to
hold the marbles in, ....
Uncle Steve
> In article <9192300831...@gmail.com>, Uncle Steve
> <stev...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Should a professional politician be charged with molestation if he
> > kisses babies while attending political rallies?
>
>
> airports ‹ against the expressed wishes of the kid and the parent?
Kiddie fondlers everywhere ought to be dealt with in proportion to the
severity of their crime. Why does this seem too difficult for the
average government worker? You'd think they would be able to handle
such a simple concept reasonably.
Lewis
> In article <9192300831...@gmail.com>, Uncle Steve
> <stev...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Should a professional politician be charged with molestation if he
>> kisses babies while attending political rallies?
>
>
> Interesting. But what about the security guards frisking children at
> airports ‹ against the expressed wishes of the kid and the parent?
I would say yes, and would call the police if any TSA shitheads ever
touches my kids.
Lewis
> On 04-21-2011 03:42, Lewis wrote:
>> ArchDeaconMalli<archdea...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Steve Jobs and […] Apple secretly track everywhere you go with your iPhone.
>>
>> First off, it's not a secret and hasn't been for a long time. second of
>> all, this data lives only on your phone and in your phone backup. It's not
>> anywhere else. Third of all, it's pretty cool.
>
> Are you saying that if I lose my hat, I can look in my iPhone or its
> backup to see where I've been?
Yep!
Paul Sture
Wes Groleau <Grolea...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
> On 04-21-2011 03:42, Lewis wrote:
> > ArchDeaconMalli<archdea...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Steve Jobs and [馨 Apple secretly track everywhere you go with your iPhone.
> >
> > First off, it's not a secret and hasn't been for a long time. second of
> > all, this data lives only on your phone and in your phone backup. It's not
> > anywhere else. Third of all, it's pretty cool.
>
> Are you saying that if I lose my hat, I can look in my iPhone or its
> backup to see where I've been?
I have come across one suggestion claiming that.
--
Paul Sture
Olaf Zhirinovsky
wrote:
I searched for usenet kook on youtube and this was 3rd one listed. But
I'm sure you already have seen it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0L5Tf0FHC0Q
Wes Groleau
> I would say yes, and would call the police if any TSA shitheads ever
> touches my kids.
In today's world, I have three choices:
1. Unacceptable levels of privacy violation
2. Unacceptable levels of safety risk
3. Not flying
For anyone who rejects #3, our democracy has rejected #2 on your behalf.
--
Wes Groleau
How much Liberty is Essential?
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/WWW?itemid=4086
Tim McNamara
Wes Groleau <Grolea...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
> On 04-22-2011 03:57, Lewis wrote:
> > I would say yes, and would call the police if any TSA shitheads ever
> > touches my kids.
>
> In today's world, I have three choices:
>
> 1. Unacceptable levels of privacy violation
> 2. Unacceptable levels of safety risk
> 3. Not flying
>
> For anyone who rejects #3, our democracy has rejected #2 on your behalf.
The funny thing is that if these searches were being done under the Bush
Administration the right wing would be defending a robust effort to
protect Americans' safety, our freedom and our values from Those Who
Hate Us For Our Freedom. Those who opposed such searches would be
sympathizers with our Enemies and UnAmericans. But since it's under the
Obama Administration, the right wing has attacked the searches as
perverse attacks on our freedom and autonomy. Idiocracy is not dead.
--
"It is not unfrequent to hear men declaim loudly upon liberty, who, if we may
judge by the whole tenor of their actions, mean nothing else by it but their
own liberty ‹ to oppress without control or the restraint of laws all who
are poorer or weaker than themselves." Samuel Adams
Wes Groleau
> Wes Groleau<Grolea...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
>> On 04-21-2011 03:42, Lewis wrote:
>>> ArchDeaconMalli<archdea...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> First off, it's not a secret and hasn't been for a long time. second of
>>> all, this data lives only on your phone and in your phone backup. It's not
>>> anywhere else. Third of all, it's pretty cool.
>>
>> Are you saying that if I lose my hat, I can look in my iPhone or its
>> backup to see where I've been?
>
> I have come across one suggestion claiming that.
Well, I took a look at mine. As others have hinted, it's not useful
for the "lost hat" scenario. With the map visualization offered, the
"big picture" shows what states I've been in. But zoom in on any of the
clusters and I find what looks like a pegboard at a hardware store.
Little markers _evenly_spaced_ and covering the entire county and beyond.
The grid spacing is interesting. In the on-screen maps, location
services has an ASININE "feature" of not showing the true location, but
instead indicating that you are standing in the middle of the nearest
street.
But the location visualizer either uses too few significant
digits, or the data itself provides too few.
Kurt Ullman
Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
> The funny thing is that if these searches were being done under the Bush
> Administration the right wing would be defending a robust effort to
> protect Americans' safety, our freedom and our values from Those Who
> Hate Us For Our Freedom. Those who opposed such searches would be
> sympathizers with our Enemies and UnAmericans. But since it's under the
> Obama Administration, the right wing has attacked the searches as
> perverse attacks on our freedom and autonomy. Idiocracy is not dead.
And the left would be in full howling mode (and indeed were) about the
intrusions on freedom and slippery slopes and other such things. If you
want consistency, I wouldn't spend a lot of time around politicians.
--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke
JF Mezei
> But the location visualizer either uses too few significant
> digits, or the data itself provides too few.
The open sourced app that you downloaded ( iphone tracker.app ) has
logic to purposefully add errors to location data and does not provide
date/time.
You need to find another app which does not purposefully induce errors,
apparently the data is fairly accurate.
George Kerby
On 4/22/11 2:02 PM, in article
timmcn-F54E83....@news.iphouse.com, "Tim McNamara"
<tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
> In article <iosip8$45t$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Wes Groleau <Grolea...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
>
>> On 04-22-2011 03:57, Lewis wrote:
>>> I would say yes, and would call the police if any TSA shitheads ever
>>> touches my kids.
>>
>> In today's world, I have three choices:
>>
>> 1. Unacceptable levels of privacy violation
>> 2. Unacceptable levels of safety risk
>> 3. Not flying
>>
>> For anyone who rejects #3, our democracy has rejected #2 on your behalf.
>
> Idiocracy is not dead.
As your post surely proves...
Jeffrey Goldberg
> On 04-22-2011 03:57, Lewis wrote:
>> I would say yes, and would call the police if any TSA shitheads ever
>> touches my kids.
>
> In today's world, I have three choices:
>
> 1. Unacceptable levels of privacy violation
> 2. Unacceptable levels of safety risk
> 3. Not flying
>
> For anyone who rejects #3, our democracy has rejected #2 on your behalf.
Except of course that 2 really isn't one of the choices. Even counting
all of the air travel deaths in 2001, it was still one of the safest
ways to travel.
There were more "additional" traffic deaths in the months following 9/11
than in the 9/11 attacks on their own.
I do agree that with of the threats to liberty in the response to 9/11
"gate rape" is really a minor one. It just seems to be the one that has
grabbed the public's attention.
-j
--
Jeffrey Goldberg http://goldmark.org/jeff/
I rarely read HTML or poorly quoting posts
Reply-To address is valid
Jeffrey Goldberg
> But the location visualizer either uses too few significant
> digits, or the data itself provides too few.
The authors specifically state that they have deliberately blurred the
data (both in time and space). If you download their source code, it
isn't to hard to adjust the precision and the time blocks.
The data in the actual file is very precise (though it may be inaccurate).
Cheers,
Jeffrey Goldberg
> The open sourced app that you downloaded ( iphone tracker.app ) has
> logic to purposefully add errors to location data and does not
> provide date/time.
The source is easy to modify so that it reveals additional precision
both in location and time. For example the released version just narrows
down the time to "within a week", but you can break that down to seconds
if you wish.
> You need to find another app which does not purposefully induce errors,
> apparently the data is fairly accurate.
<pedant-mode>
It would be more accurate to say "precise" instead of "accurate". They
location data, when it is based on cell phone towers and not GPS, can be
very inaccurate. But the locations that it gives are precise to within a
few meters.
</pedant-mode>
nospam
Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
> > > In today's world, I have three choices:
> > >
> > > 1. Unacceptable levels of privacy violation
> > > 2. Unacceptable levels of safety risk
> > > 3. Not flying
> > >
> > > For anyone who rejects #3, our democracy has rejected #2 on your
> > > behalf.
> >
> > Except of course that 2 really isn't one of the choices. Even counting
> > all of the air travel deaths in 2001, it was still one of the safest
> > ways to travel.
>
> I think he was referring to radiation hazard from the full-body scanners.
> Radiation is cumulative, and if (like a friend of mine) you had a number of
> medical x-rays, the radiation from one of those airport machines could tip
> the it over into the too-many-rads category.
and even if you haven't.
there have been no objective tests on the safety of the scanners (just
a lot of propaganda) and numerous doctors and radiologists think
they're not safe at all, they are *less* effective and slower than
other methods (at dfw, guns were successfully smuggled through a body
scanner multiple times in a test) and they also false a lot so you end
up getting a grope-down anyway.
they are a complete waste of money. the reason they're there is because
ex-dhs michael chertoff is a consultant to the scanner manufacturers.
he basically cut a deal and made himself some money.
Jeffrey Goldberg
> In article <91elii...@mid.individual.net>,
> Jeffrey Goldberg <nob...@goldmark.org> wrote:
>>> 2. Unacceptable levels of safety risk
behalf.
>>
>> Except of course that 2 really isn't one of the choices. Even counting
>> all of the air travel deaths in 2001, it was still one of the safest
>> ways to travel.
>
> I think he was referring to radiation hazard from the full-body scanners.
Oh. That's different. Never mind!
Jeff (Emily Latella) Goldberg
Wes Groleau
> I think he was referring to radiation hazard from the full-body scanners.
> medical x-rays, the radiation from one of those airport machines could tip
> the it over into the too-many-rads category.
No, I was referring to the alleged risk of terrorist actions.
Lewis
> In article <91elii...@mid.individual.net>,
> Jeffrey Goldberg <nob...@goldmark.org> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> 1. Unacceptable levels of privacy violation
>>>
>>> For anyone who rejects #3, our democracy has rejected #2 on your
>>
>> Except of course that 2 really isn't one of the choices. Even counting
>> all of the air travel deaths in 2001, it was still one of the safest
>> ways to travel.
>
> Radiation is cumulative, and if (like a friend of mine) you had a number of
> medical x-rays, the radiation from one of those airport machines could tip
> the it over into the too-many-rads category.
Especially since they lied about the radiation level, under reporting by at
least 10x
Tim McNamara
Kurt Ullman <kurtu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <timmcn-F54E83....@news.iphouse.com>,
> Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
>
> > The funny thing is that if these searches were being done under the
> > Bush Administration the right wing would be defending a robust
> > effort to protect Americans' safety, our freedom and our values
> > from Those Who Hate Us For Our Freedom. Those who opposed such
> > searches would be sympathizers with our Enemies and UnAmericans.
> > But since it's under the Obama Administration, the right wing has
> > attacked the searches as perverse attacks on our freedom and
> > autonomy. Idiocracy is not dead.
>
> And the left would be in full howling mode (and indeed were) about
> the intrusions on freedom and slippery slopes and other such things.
> If you want consistency, I wouldn't spend a lot of time around
> politicians.
LOL!! 'Struth!
Paul Sture
JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
I have been told that the file is in SQLite format, though earlier
versions were something else.
I don't have an iPhone so cannot verify this.
--
Paul Sture
Two Beans
> secretly track everywhere you go with your iPhone.
>
>
> It's been known for a long time that Wozniak is a satan-worshi[ping
> freemason criminal, but you need to know that Jobs is too. Boycott
> this shitty company, and all of their defective "made in china"
> garbage products. This arrogant little shit needs to be put out of
> business.
>
> Their computers used to be OK, but now they are made in China at a
> factory dozens of workers have committed suicide because of the
> horrible and hopeless conditions that slavemaster Jobs has them
> working in. This guy is an arrogant little punk acid freak, and I've
> had enough of his freemason occultist horseshit.
>
> Jobs is also the largest stakeholder in the homosexual jew porno
> company called Disney. It's time to put both of these shitty companies
> out of business. NEVER buy a new product from Apple. ALWAYS buy used,
> or buy some other brand. Teach these freemason scum a lesson.
Plus, OSX (and iOS - its retard offspring) is a piece of shit. I guess
the only way you can really fuck up UNIX is hand it to Apple devs.
Paul Fuchs
> On 11-04-22 3:31 PM, JF Mezei wrote:
>
> > The open sourced app that you downloaded ( iphone tracker.app ) has
> > logic to purposefully add errors to location data and does not
> > provide date/time.
>
> The source is easy to modify so that it reveals additional precision
> both in location and time. For example the released version just narrows
> down the time to "within a week", but you can break that down to seconds
> if you wish.
>
> > You need to find another app which does not purposefully induce errors,
> > apparently the data is fairly accurate.
>
> <pedant-mode>
> It would be more accurate to say "precise" instead of "accurate". They
> location data, when it is based on cell phone towers and not GPS, can be
> very inaccurate. But the locations that it gives are precise to within a
> few meters.
> </pedant-mode>
>
> Cheers,
>
> -j
Accurate enough to make a nifty homing beacon for a Tomahack missile?
--
During times of universal deceit, telling the truth
becomes a revolutionary act.
George Orwell
Paul Fuchs
> On 04-22-2011 03:57, Lewis wrote:
> > I would say yes, and would call the police if any TSA shitheads ever
> > touches my kids.
>
> In today's world, I have three choices:
>
> 1. Unacceptable levels of privacy violation
> 2. Unacceptable levels of safety risk
> 3. Not flying
>
> For anyone who rejects #3, our democracy has rejected #2 on your behalf.
Regarding #2, if you eliminate 9/11 as still pending (whether it was
caused by Al Queda or Al Cheney [Dick's brother}), just how many planes
have been downed by planted bombs or highjackings in the past 15 years
that resulted in at least one fatality?
Jeffrey Goldberg
> Accurate enough to make a nifty homing beacon for a Tomahack missile?
Only if the missiles can fly back in time. The data file shows where the
phone *was*.
Alan Browne
> On 11-04-22 2:14 PM, Wes Groleau wrote:
>
>> But the location visualizer either uses too few significant
>> digits, or the data itself provides too few.
>
> The authors specifically state that they have deliberately blurred the
> data (both in time and space). If you download their source code, it
> isn't to hard to adjust the precision and the time blocks.
>
> The data in the actual file is very precise (though it may be inaccurate).
The iphone nav software seems to have accuracy comparable to GPS, that
is, better than 10 metres, most of the time (at least when I bother
playing with it outside). For most "privacy" issues, 10 metres is more
than compromising enough...
The plot on the utility, when compared on G.Earth, puts the points on
1/100 of a degree (latitude), or 1111 metres. (I didn't check longitude
wise, if it's degree/100 based, there there would be convergence towards
the polls, but I digress).
I'd guess that it could be at least 100 times more accurate in most
cases (probably 300 times).
The iphone time data seems to be within 1 s of UTC per my computer (NTP
on the Met Canada 2nd tier server) and is probably accurate to the ms or
better level. (Cheap GPS receivers can easily get to 1 us, even below
100 ns wrt to UTC).
With the source code you describe (I haven't pulled it) one should be
able to determine the data resolution, and what parts of the code are
truncating (that's how the data looks to me when plotted) the positions.
And of course how the code can be "improved" before one gets real snoopy.
--
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.
Kurt Ullman
pf@porkain'tkosher.oink (Paul Fuchs) wrote:
> Regarding #2, if you eliminate 9/11 as still pending (whether it was
> caused by Al Queda or Al Cheney [Dick's brother}), just how many planes
> have been downed by planted bombs or highjackings in the past 15 years
> that resulted in at least one fatality?
There have been at least 3 or 4 that could have if the bombmakers
were half as good as they thought they were. A shoe bomb, an underwear
bomb, and a few in printer cartridges. So it ain't from lack of trying.
Paul Fuchs
> In article <1k06l1i.xbno4817x3z36N%pf@porkain'tkosher.oink>,
> pf@porkain'tkosher.oink (Paul Fuchs) wrote:
>
> > Regarding #2, if you eliminate 9/11 as still pending (whether it was
> > caused by Al Queda or Al Cheney [Dick's brother}), just how many planes
> > have been downed by planted bombs or highjackings in the past 15 years
> > that resulted in at least one fatality?
>
> There have been at least 3 or 4 that could have if the bombmakers
> were half as good as they thought they were. A shoe bomb, an underwear
> bomb, and a few in printer cartridges. So it ain't from lack of trying.
My count is three. The Iranian international passenger jet downed in
the Gulf by an American warship; Lockerbie, "officially" Libyan hit but
probably really Iranian blow back; and a Russian domestic jet a couple
of years ago, probably Chechnya bomb.
Wes Groleau
> Wes Groleau<Grolea...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
>>
>> 1. Unacceptable levels of privacy violation
>> 2. Unacceptable levels of safety risk
>> 3. Not flying
>>
>> For anyone who rejects #3, our democracy has rejected #2 on your behalf.
>
> Regarding #2, if you eliminate 9/11 as still pending (whether it was
> caused by Al Queda or Al Cheney [Dick's brother}), just how many planes
> have been downed by planted bombs or highjackings in the past 15 years
> that resulted in at least one fatality?
The premise, whether we agree or not, to this whole thing is that the
thousands of deaths on 9-11 prove that we had an unacceptable level of
risk then. The current system purports to make a recurrence impossible.
Paul Sture
pf@porkain'tkosher.oink (Paul Fuchs) wrote:
> Kurt Ullman <kurtu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <1k06l1i.xbno4817x3z36N%pf@porkain'tkosher.oink>,
> > pf@porkain'tkosher.oink (Paul Fuchs) wrote:
> >
> > > Regarding #2, if you eliminate 9/11 as still pending (whether it was
> > > caused by Al Queda or Al Cheney [Dick's brother}), just how many planes
> > > have been downed by planted bombs or highjackings in the past 15 years
> > > that resulted in at least one fatality?
> >
> > There have been at least 3 or 4 that could have if the bombmakers
> > were half as good as they thought they were. A shoe bomb, an underwear
> > bomb, and a few in printer cartridges. So it ain't from lack of trying.
>
> My count is three. The Iranian international passenger jet downed in
> the Gulf by an American warship; Lockerbie, "officially" Libyan hit but
> probably really Iranian blow back; and a Russian domestic jet a couple
> of years ago, probably Chechnya bomb.
Lockerbie was in 1988.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103>
--
Paul Sture
Jeffrey Goldberg
> In article <1k06l1i.xbno4817x3z36N%pf@porkain'tkosher.oink>,
> pf@porkain'tkosher.oink (Paul Fuchs) wrote:
> There have been at least 3 or 4 that could have if the bombmakers
> were half as good as they thought they were. A shoe bomb, an underwear
> bomb, [...]
Both of those plots were actually *successes* of airport screening. In
both cases the bombers were able to get explosives on board but could
not get detonators on board. It is not a coincidence that both attempts
failed because they couldn't set off their bombs quickly enough.
The X-ray check of carry-on and metal detectors were sufficient to deter
bombers from trying to sneak reliable detonators through. It will be
bad news when they figure that tinkered with laptop batteries could make
effective detonators.
Jeffrey Goldberg
> The premise, whether we agree or not, to this whole thing is that the
> thousands of deaths on 9-11 prove that we had an unacceptable level of
> risk then.
I suppose that you are right. What we find acceptable risk for
automobile travel (or even walking) is far far greater than what we
accept for air travel. So, although our notion of "acceptable" isn't
rational, you are probably correct the minuscule risk of a terrorism
air-traffic fatality is "unacceptable".
> The current system purports to make a recurrence impossible.
The full-body scanners pose a minuscule (not non-zero) health risk. The
risk of dying as a result of one scan is about the same as the risk of
dying in a terrorism attack during air travel.
At the risk of joining the conspiracy theory folks around here, we need
to remember that government funded "security" is huge growth area for
business. Seeing Chertoff on TV touting the full-body scanners with the
caption "Former Director of Dept of Homeland Security" infuriated me.
The caption should have been "Earns income from body-scanner manufacturers".
Security theater is not harmless. It costs money and it takes away
resources and attention from where there really are things that can be
done to improve security (although not so visibly).
I traveled by air in the months after 9/11 and there were national
guardsman in the secure area of the airports with rifles. This way,
plotters wouldn't even need to get weapons through the screening as the
government already brought them in. (I was extremely relieved to learn
that the national guardsmen's weapons weren't actually loaded.)
There may be a legitimate case for the body-scanners, but in my mind the
TSA and DHS have destroyed their credibility to the point where I do not
give them the benefit of the doubt.
Lewis
> In article <1k06l1i.xbno4817x3z36N%pf@porkain'tkosher.oink>,
> pf@porkain'tkosher.oink (Paul Fuchs) wrote:
>
>> Regarding #2, if you eliminate 9/11 as still pending (whether it was
>> caused by Al Queda or Al Cheney [Dick's brother}), just how many planes
>> have been downed by planted bombs or highjackings in the past 15 years
>> that resulted in at least one fatality?
>
> There have been at least 3 or 4 that could have if the bombmakers
> were half as good as they thought they were. A shoe bomb, an underwear
> bomb, and a few in printer cartridges. So it ain't from lack of trying.
Bullshit. None of those could have done more than injure the idiot
'bomber'.
Kurt Ullman
Jeffrey Goldberg <nob...@goldmark.org> wrote:
>
> There may be a legitimate case for the body-scanners, but in my mind the
> TSA and DHS have destroyed their credibility to the point where I do not
> give them the benefit of the doubt.
>
> Cheers,
>
> -j
The major lessen the bureaucrats REALLY took from 9/11 is that
everyone is going to all 20/20 hindsight on them. Both of these
departments reside in an area where no bureaucrat wants to be... 100%
preventing the 100% unpreventable. In an area where it is mainly when,
not if, something nasty happens, then the bureaucrat (quite naturally to
my mind) looks at how best to minimize HIS risk of being held
responsible for the when. So, they do the high level, very public stuff.
Of course, the problem with that is when it occurs, it will be somewhere
not so public and the 20/20 hindsight crowd will want to know why they
did see "the inevitable". Just like after 9/11.
Not enough money in the world to get me into either at a high level.
Kurt Ullman
pf@porkain'tkosher.oink (Paul Fuchs) wrote:
> Kurt Ullman <kurtu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <1k06l1i.xbno4817x3z36N%pf@porkain'tkosher.oink>,
> > pf@porkain'tkosher.oink (Paul Fuchs) wrote:
> >
> > > Regarding #2, if you eliminate 9/11 as still pending (whether it was
> > > caused by Al Queda or Al Cheney [Dick's brother}), just how many planes
> > > have been downed by planted bombs or highjackings in the past 15 years
> > > that resulted in at least one fatality?
> >
> > There have been at least 3 or 4 that could have if the bombmakers
> > were half as good as they thought they were. A shoe bomb, an underwear
> > bomb, and a few in printer cartridges. So it ain't from lack of trying.
>
> My count is three. The Iranian international passenger jet downed in
> the Gulf by an American warship; Lockerbie, "officially" Libyan hit but
> probably really Iranian blow back; and a Russian domestic jet a couple
> of years ago, probably Chechnya bomb.
Successful, yes. But as I mentioned it isn't for lack of trying . It
was the incompetence of the bombmaker and the not the competence of
security that stopped the other three. So, it could very easily been at
least an additional 3 (not sure how many flights had the Yemeni "cargo"
bombs.
George Kerby
On 4/24/11 1:43 AM, in article
1553245295325320200.0...@news.eternal-september.org,
"Lewis" <g.k...@gmail.com> wrote:
And blow a hole in the aircraft fuselage, eventually ripping it apart.
Tim McNamara
Kurt Ullman <kurtu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <1k06yuc.18fmp7j8nrfepN%pf@porkain'tkosher.oink>,
> pf@porkain'tkosher.oink (Paul Fuchs) wrote:
>
> > Kurt Ullman <kurtu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <1k06l1i.xbno4817x3z36N%pf@porkain'tkosher.oink>,
> > > pf@porkain'tkosher.oink (Paul Fuchs) wrote:
> > >
> > > > Regarding #2, if you eliminate 9/11 as still pending (whether
> > > > it was caused by Al Queda or Al Cheney [Dick's brother}), just
> > > > how many planes have been downed by planted bombs or
> > > > highjackings in the past 15 years that resulted in at least one
> > > > fatality?
> > >
> > > There have been at least 3 or 4 that could have if the bombmakers
> > > were half as good as they thought they were. A shoe bomb, an
> > > underwear bomb, and a few in printer cartridges. So it ain't from
> > > lack of trying.
> >
> > My count is three. The Iranian international passenger jet downed
> > in the Gulf by an American warship; Lockerbie, "officially" Libyan
> > hit but probably really Iranian blow back; and a Russian domestic
> > jet a couple of years ago, probably Chechnya bomb.
>
> Successful, yes. But as I mentioned it isn't for lack of trying . It
> was the incompetence of the bombmaker and the not the competence of
> security that stopped the other three. So, it could very easily been
> at least an additional 3 (not sure how many flights had the Yemeni
> "cargo" bombs.
Two flights with cargo bombs (hidden in printers) in 2010 are known,
AFAIK. In both cases it was the competence of security personnel that
identified and removed the explosives. In both cases Saudi Arabian
intelligence tipped off the the search- even providing tracking numbers
and delivery addresses for the packages. One bomb was found by British
security; they inadvertently disarmed the bomb by removing the toner
cartridge, not realizing at the time that the explosives were in the
cartridge. They didn't discover this until the US made several requests
for them to examine the contents of the cartridge. The other printer
cartridge bomb was intercepted in Dubai and never made it into Western
airspace. These scenarios highlight several things about dealing with
terrorism.
First is that military is limited in its effectiveness and most of the
war on terrorism is mostly a waste of lives and resources. But it was a
great soundbite for the Bush Administration to use to push its agenda of
intrusion and control over American private lives (unfortunately since
this mindset still defines the narrative about national security, the
Obama Administration and the Democrats seem happy to go along with it so
that they can't be accused of being "weak on security). Military action
is designed to kill enemies and destroy their infrastructure, but it's
not very good at finding out what the enemy is doing in sneaky ways. It
is very good at inspiring anger at the West and fueling the Al Qaeda
narrative that the Islamic world is under attack by the West, which in
turn self-justifies their violence as being in the defense of Islam.
Second is that international cooperation is critical to preventing
terrorism when the terrorists are acting internationally. Intelligence
gathering and sharing is fundamental. This means that the useful
approach against terrorism is much closer to police work than to
military intervention.
In the mean time, in the US obesity, diabetes, heart attacks, stroke,
car accidents and cancer are several orders of magnitude greater risks
to American life and limb.
Tim McNamara
George Kerby <ghost_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/24/11 1:43 AM, in article
> 1553245295325320200.0...@news.eternal-september.org
The reality of holes in airplane fuselages is nowhere near as dramatic
as is portrayed in movies. There have been a number of recent incidents
showing that it is possible to have holes in the fuselage and still
safely land the plane.
The bombs carried by the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber, if they
were seated next to the window, could very well have blown a pretty big
hole in the fuselage and killed or injured a large ring of people near
them. The loss of life would have been considerable, even if it did not
cause an airplane crash. It's good they failed. They were carrying one
of the most powerful explosives known (PETN which is, incidentally,
odorless so bomb-sniffing dogs probably wouldn't detect it). The
underwear bomber apparently had 80 grams of PETN, enough to blow up a
house. The shoe bomber's payload was a total of 283 grams, not sure how
much of that was PETN and how much of it was TAPT as the detonator.
These terrorists are serious. They want to kill Westerners and are
pretty creative. That said, it doesn't seem obvious to me that scanners
and body searches are sure-fired success stories. The scanners are not
a risk-free methodology in terms of health. As far as the searches,
IMHO people are choosing to over-react and ramping up the crazy in
response.
Jeffrey Goldberg
> It was the incompetence of the bombmaker and the not the competence of
> security that stopped the other three.
I disagree. Two were stopped because regular airport screening meant
that they couldn't get a reliable detonator on board, and thus were
caught in the process of crappy detonation.
I really don't like how airport security is being handled, but I do
acknowledge that the foiling of those two attempts should be credited to
passenger and carry-on screening.
The printer cartridge bombs were prevented by old fashioned spying.
Jeffrey Goldberg
> In article <91httk...@mid.individual.net>,
> The major lessen the bureaucrats REALLY took from 9/11 is that
> everyone is going to all 20/20 hindsight on them. Both of these
> departments reside in an area where no bureaucrat wants to be... 100%
> preventing the 100% unpreventable.
Yes. A few politicians and bureaucrats have tried to state this obvious
fact, but were shouted down.
> In an area where it is mainly when,
> not if, something nasty happens, then the bureaucrat (quite naturally to
> my mind) looks at how best to minimize HIS risk of being held
> responsible for the when. So, they do the high level, very public stuff.
Exactly, this is known as "Cover Your Ass" security.
Democracy is tough business. There are some smart good people in the
business, but when they can't really go to far away from what the public
expects. And people respond badly to fear.
nospam
> The full-body scanners pose a minuscule (not non-zero) health risk. The
> risk of dying as a result of one scan is about the same as the risk of
> dying in a terrorism attack during air travel.
actually, the scanners are a higher risk than terrorism, based on the
tsa's own numbers, which are of course biased to make the machines look
safer than they really are. some radiologists consider them to be very
unsafe, not just a little unsafe.
> At the risk of joining the conspiracy theory folks around here, we need
> to remember that government funded "security" is huge growth area for
> business. Seeing Chertoff on TV touting the full-body scanners with the
> caption "Former Director of Dept of Homeland Security" infuriated me.
> The caption should have been "Earns income from body-scanner manufacturers".
yep. chertoff is a paid consultant for the scanner makers. that's why
the explosive trace detectors, aka puffers, have disappeared, replaced
with *less* effective and more invasive scanners.
> Security theater is not harmless. It costs money and it takes away
> resources and attention from where there really are things that can be
> done to improve security (although not so visibly).
right.
> I traveled by air in the months after 9/11 and there were national
> guardsman in the secure area of the airports with rifles. This way,
> plotters wouldn't even need to get weapons through the screening as the
> government already brought them in. (I was extremely relieved to learn
> that the national guardsmen's weapons weren't actually loaded.)
that was one big show too, especially since it was announced that the
guns were not loaded. what were they supposed to do if the bad guys
bring guns that *are* loaded?
> There may be a legitimate case for the body-scanners,
there is none.
> but in my mind the
> TSA and DHS have destroyed their credibility to the point where I do not
> give them the benefit of the doubt.
yep.
nospam
<nob...@goldmark.org> wrote:
> > There have been at least 3 or 4 that could have if the bombmakers
> > were half as good as they thought they were. A shoe bomb, an underwear
> > bomb, [...]
>
> Both of those plots were actually *successes* of airport screening.
that's preposterous.
it was a total and complete failure that either of them were anywhere
*near* a plane, let alone the airport.
underwear bomber's own father warned authorities that he might do
something. he was on a watch list. they knew about him already. they
still let him on the plane. fail.
shoe bomber was stopped from flying on the first day, so he tried again
the next day and got on. fail.
> In both cases the bombers were able to get explosives on board but could
> not get detonators on board. It is not a coincidence that both attempts
> failed because they couldn't set off their bombs quickly enough.
the fact that they got explosives on board *is* a failure.
explosives are supposedly what they're looking for (after shampoo,
toothpaste and water bottles, that is).
Kurt Ullman
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <91httk...@mid.individual.net>, Jeffrey Goldberg
> <nob...@goldmark.org> wrote:
>
> > The full-body scanners pose a minuscule (not non-zero) health risk. The
> > risk of dying as a result of one scan is about the same as the risk of
> > dying in a terrorism attack during air travel.
>
> actually, the scanners are a higher risk than terrorism, based on the
> tsa's own numbers, which are of course biased to make the machines look
> safer than they really are. some radiologists consider them to be very
> unsafe, not just a little unsafe.
>
>
Those of who are of A Certain Age, can remember the high point of
going to the shoe store... when we put our feet in the X-ray machine
most had in the store until someone caught on. Cool beans. Or as an RN
with a false positive on the TB test who was subjected to yearly Chest
X-rays mandated by OSHA, the Joint Commission and others until someone
caught on in the mid-90s.
I am sorta surprised at times that I don't glow in the dark..
Kurt Ullman
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
> > In both cases the bombers were able to get explosives on board but could
> > not get detonators on board. It is not a coincidence that both attempts
> > failed because they couldn't set off their bombs quickly enough.
>
> the fact that they got explosives on board *is* a failure.
>
> explosives are supposedly what they're looking for (after shampoo,
> toothpaste and water bottles, that is).
And I don't take a lot of comfort in the fact that security kept off the
first choice detonator, because that means that they got the second
choice detonator on.
nospam
McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
> > And blow a hole in the aircraft fuselage, eventually ripping it
> > apart.
>
> The reality of holes in airplane fuselages is nowhere near as dramatic
> as is portrayed in movies. There have been a number of recent incidents
> showing that it is possible to have holes in the fuselage and still
> safely land the plane.
right. the roof ripped off of aloha airlines 243 and it landed safely.
southwest 812 had a hole in the roof, also landed safely.
> These terrorists are serious. They want to kill Westerners and are
> pretty creative. That said, it doesn't seem obvious to me that scanners
> and body searches are sure-fired success stories. The scanners are not
> a risk-free methodology in terms of health.
the scanners are less effective and far more invasive as well as being
much slower (longer lines) and unsafe. it's actually easier to smuggle
explosives and even guns through a body scanner than with other
systems. however, it did make chertoff rich.
> As far as the searches,
> IMHO people are choosing to over-react and ramping up the crazy in
> response.
actually no they aren't. they're going through the scanners and not
objecting at all.
nospam
<nob...@goldmark.org> wrote:
> > It was the incompetence of the bombmaker and the not the competence of
> > security that stopped the other three.
>
> I disagree. Two were stopped because regular airport screening meant
> that they couldn't get a reliable detonator on board, and thus were
> caught in the process of crappy detonation.
sure, let's just allow all explosives on board and ban only detonators.
> I really don't like how airport security is being handled, but I do
> acknowledge that the foiling of those two attempts should be credited to
> passenger and carry-on screening.
true, the *passengers* stopped the bombers (and will continue to in the
future if anyone tries even the slightest thing unusual). it's still a
huge ass failure that the bombers were even on the plane at all, with
explosives.
George Kerby
On 4/24/11 10:33 AM, in article
timmcn-7B7E09....@news.iphouse.com, "Tim McNamara"
<tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
This is true. Aloha Flight 243 and, more recently, Southwest Flight 812
prove that can be done - only if over land mass. Air France flight 447
didn't have that benefit, even though that is thought to be a meteorological
event.
>
> The bombs carried by the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber, if they
> were seated next to the window, could very well have blown a pretty big
> hole in the fuselage and killed or injured a large ring of people near
> them. The loss of life would have been considerable, even if it did not
> cause an airplane crash. It's good they failed. They were carrying one
> of the most powerful explosives known (PETN which is, incidentally,
> odorless so bomb-sniffing dogs probably wouldn't detect it). The
> underwear bomber apparently had 80 grams of PETN, enough to blow up a
> house. The shoe bomber's payload was a total of 283 grams, not sure how
> much of that was PETN and how much of it was TAPT as the detonator.
>
> These terrorists are serious. They want to kill Westerners and are
> pretty creative. That said, it doesn't seem obvious to me that scanners
> and body searches are sure-fired success stories. The scanners are not
> a risk-free methodology in terms of health. As far as the searches,
> IMHO people are choosing to over-react and ramping up the crazy in
> response.
Agreed and agreed. But we are too P.C. to "Profile" passengers, like Israel,
who have never had such terrorist problems on El-Al flights, does routinely.
Lewis
Bullshit. Aircraft are not made of tissue paper.
Lewis
This is incorrect. Neither had enough explosives to even ensure they
themselves would be killed.
Paul Fuchs
> On 04-23-2011 17:24, Paul Fuchs wrote:
> > Wes Groleau<Grolea...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
> >> In today's world, I have three choices:
> >>
> >> 1. Unacceptable levels of privacy violation
> >> 2. Unacceptable levels of safety risk
> >> 3. Not flying
> >>
> >> For anyone who rejects #3, our democracy has rejected #2 on your behalf.
> >
> > Regarding #2, if you eliminate 9/11 as still pending (whether it was
> > caused by Al Queda or Al Cheney [Dick's brother}), just how many planes
> > have been downed by planted bombs or highjackings in the past 15 years
> > that resulted in at least one fatality?
>
> The premise, whether we agree or not, to this whole thing is that the
> thousands of deaths on 9-11 prove that we had an unacceptable level of
> risk then. The current system purports to make a recurrence impossible.
Well, I established that premise to that sub-thread.
Wes Groleau
> At the risk of joining the conspiracy theory folks around here, we need
> to remember that government funded "security" is huge growth area for
> business. Seeing Chertoff on TV touting the full-body scanners with the
Well, if you want to talk conspiracy, I have no doubt that the talk
on both sides of the political aisle about safety and security
covers up an unspoken satisfaction with the additional power and
control the situation provides.
--
Wes Groleau
There are two types of people in the world …
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/barrett?itemid=1157
Wes Groleau
> In article<taidnaouNMAKzCnQ...@earthlink.com>,
> Kurt Ullman<kurtu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Those of who are of A Certain Age, can remember the high point of going
>> to the shoe store... when we put our feet in the X-ray machine most had
>> in the store until someone caught on.
>
Which is merely an X-ray machine using an immediate-view screen
instead of film.
Wes Groleau
> Wes Groleau<Grolea...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
>
>> On 04-23-2011 17:24, Paul Fuchs wrote:
>>> Regarding #2, if you eliminate 9/11 as still pending (whether it was
>>> caused by Al Queda or Al Cheney [Dick's brother}), just how many planes
>>> have been downed by planted bombs or highjackings in the past 15 years
>>> that resulted in at least one fatality?
>>
>> The premise, whether we agree or not, to this whole thing is that the
>> thousands of deaths on 9-11 prove that we had an unacceptable level of
>> risk then. The current system purports to make a recurrence impossible.
>
> Well, I established that premise to that sub-thread.
Oh. I thought you were trying to say we should evaluate the
situation _without_ considering the incidents that were the
excuse for instituting it.
Tim McNamara
George Kerby <ghost_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/24/11 10:33 AM, in article
> timmcn-7B7E09....@news.iphouse.com, "Tim McNamara"
> <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
>
> > In article <C9D999B0.6B69E%ghost_...@hotmail.com>,
> > George Kerby <ghost_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 4/24/11 1:43 AM, in article
> >> 1553245295325320200.0...@news.eternal-september.
Still, I suppose that *where* the hole is in the fuselage makes a
difference on survivability. I'm not and engineer and have no training
in this. Was Aloha 243 the one where part of the top of the fuselage
peeled away a few years back?
> > The bombs carried by the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber, if
> > they were seated next to the window, could very well have blown a
> > pretty big hole in the fuselage and killed or injured a large ring
> > of people near them. The loss of life would have been
> > considerable, even if it did not cause an airplane crash. It's
> > good they failed. They were carrying one of the most powerful
> > explosives known (PETN which is, incidentally, odorless so
> > bomb-sniffing dogs probably wouldn't detect it). The underwear
> > bomber apparently had 80 grams of PETN, enough to blow up a house.
> > The shoe bomber's payload was a total of 283 grams, not sure how
> > much of that was PETN and how much of it was TAPT as the detonator.
> >
> > These terrorists are serious. They want to kill Westerners and are
> > pretty creative. That said, it doesn't seem obvious to me that
> > scanners and body searches are sure-fired success stories. The
> > scanners are not a risk-free methodology in terms of health. As
> > far as the searches, IMHO people are choosing to over-react and
> > ramping up the crazy in response.
>
> Agreed and agreed. But we are too P.C. to "Profile" passengers, like
> Israel, who have never had such terrorist problems on El-Al flights,
> does routinely.
The problem with profiling is that it targets a lot of innocent people
and steers attention away from people who don't obviously fit the
profile. Terrorists are smart enough to work that out eventually and to
send agents out who don't match the stereotypes. The morality of
profiling aside, it is also simply an ineffective strategy with too many
false positives and a high risk of false negatives.
Kurt Ullman
Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
> > > The reality of holes in airplane fuselages is nowhere near as
> > > dramatic as is portrayed in movies. There have been a number of
> > > recent incidents showing that it is possible to have holes in the
> > > fuselage and still safely land the plane.
> >
> > This is true. Aloha Flight 243 and, more recently, Southwest Flight
> > 812 prove that can be done - only if over land mass. Air France
> > flight 447 didn't have that benefit, even though that is thought to
> > be a meteorological event.
>
> Still, I suppose that *where* the hole is in the fuselage makes a
> difference on survivability. I'm not and engineer and have no training
> in this. Was Aloha 243 the one where part of the top of the fuselage
> peeled away a few years back?
Yeah, but the problem with the hole in the fuselage isn't the
explosive decompression blowing a hole in the side (with the Aloha
flight big enough to suck out at flight attendant), but rather the very
quick loss of consciousness when the oxygen leaves the plane. Some of
the early reports suggest that was already occurring on the SW flight
before they got the oxygen masks on, with a FA getting giddy. At 39K
feet you have a useful level consciousness for probably about 15
seconds.
> >
> > Agreed and agreed. But we are too P.C. to "Profile" passengers, like
> > Israel, who have never had such terrorist problems on El-Al flights,
> > does routinely.
>
> The problem with profiling is that it targets a lot of innocent people
> and steers attention away from people who don't obviously fit the
> profile. Terrorists are smart enough to work that out eventually and to
> send agents out who don't match the stereotypes. The morality of
> profiling aside, it is also simply an ineffective strategy with too many
> false positives and a high risk of false negatives.
But a lot of these profiling things, at least as El Al does them,
are less related to backgrounds and more related to the automatic
processes in the body. Signs of stress, or in some cases lack of an
appropriate amount of stress. These are much harder to control and it
doesn't matter about stereotypes.
There is no morality with either kind of profiling. You look at a
sample of people doing something, find out what links them together, and
then look for that in others. My favorite alleged racial profiling was
the black woman who threatened to sue IND. She was taken to a side place
and questioned at length. Of course to the papers, it was only because
she was Black and it wasn't until the 9 paragraph that you got to the
part about how she bought a one-way ticket and the airport, on the day
of the flight, with cash and had to luggage. That would have gotten
Mother Teresa pulled to the side.
Those going against properly done profiling are doing a
disservice. And if they were truly serious, they would be picketing the
offices of Criminal Minds since pretty much every week the profile of
the perp starts off "He is probably a white male...."
Tim McNamara
Kurt Ullman <kurtu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <timmcn-430CCA....@news.iphouse.com>,
> Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
>
>
> > > > The reality of holes in airplane fuselages is nowhere near as
> > > > dramatic as is portrayed in movies. There have been a number
> > > > of recent incidents showing that it is possible to have holes
> > > > in the fuselage and still safely land the plane.
> > >
> > > This is true. Aloha Flight 243 and, more recently, Southwest
> > > Flight 812 prove that can be done - only if over land mass. Air
> > > France flight 447 didn't have that benefit, even though that is
> > > thought to be a meteorological event.
> >
> > Still, I suppose that *where* the hole is in the fuselage makes a
> > difference on survivability. I'm not and engineer and have no
> > training in this. Was Aloha 243 the one where part of the top of
> > the fuselage peeled away a few years back?
>
> Yeah, but the problem with the hole in the fuselage isn't the
> explosive decompression blowing a hole in the side (with the Aloha
> flight big enough to suck out at flight attendant), but rather the
> very quick loss of consciousness when the oxygen leaves the plane.
> Some of the early reports suggest that was already occurring on the
> SW flight before they got the oxygen masks on, with a FA getting
> giddy. At 39K feet you have a useful level consciousness for probably
> about 15 seconds.
Yes, oxygen as it turns out is a good thing. ;-) I recall there being
reports that one of the early indications of problems on the recent
flight was people passing out.
> > > Agreed and agreed. But we are too P.C. to "Profile" passengers,
> > > like Israel, who have never had such terrorist problems on El-Al
> > > flights, does routinely.
> >
> > The problem with profiling is that it targets a lot of innocent
> > people and steers attention away from people who don't obviously
> > fit the profile. Terrorists are smart enough to work that out
> > eventually and to send agents out who don't match the stereotypes.
> > The morality of profiling aside, it is also simply an ineffective
> > strategy with too many false positives and a high risk of false
> > negatives.
> But a lot of these profiling things, at least as El Al does them, are
> less related to backgrounds and more related to the automatic
> processes in the body. Signs of stress, or in some cases lack of an
> appropriate amount of stress. These are much harder to control and it
> doesn't matter about stereotypes.
I have no idea how those things work. How do you measure autonomic
markers of stress of someone in the middle of a crowd?
> There is no morality with either kind of profiling. You look at a
> sample of people doing something, find out what links them together,
> and then look for that in others. My favorite alleged racial
> profiling was the black woman who threatened to sue IND. She was
> taken to a side place and questioned at length. Of course to the
> papers, it was only because she was Black and it wasn't until the 9
> paragraph that you got to the part about how she bought a one-way
> ticket and the airport, on the day of the flight, with cash and had
> to luggage. That would have gotten Mother Teresa pulled to the side.
Maybe, but if that person was blond and blue eyed maybe not. We had an
interesting situation of racial profiling here when a city councilman,
who had taken his granddaughter to a city park, was stopped and
questioned simply because he was a black man in a city park. Or an
Italian biddy- born and raised in the US- who gets questioned about his
citizenship status because he looks like he could be from Mexico.
I have worked with many Muslims- some from the Middle East, most from
Africa, some born and raised here in the US- over the past 15 years and
have been horrified by their stories of being harassed and in some cases
attacked by Americans, especially after the first bombing of the World
Trade Center and then again after 9/11. Some of them took to doing
things like grocery shopping at 3:00 AM to avoid people as much as
possible, some had their homes and cars vandalized, etc.
Racial profiling is most often done by white guys and most often the
subjects of such profiling aren't white guys. We're not out profiling
for the next Timothy McVeigh, we're doing it for Middle Easterners
presumed to be terrorists and Mexicans. According to the FBI, Islamic
terrorism in the US is a small percentage of the terrorist incidents in
the US- about 6% IIRC:
<http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-2002-2005/terro
r02_05>
http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/01/not-all-terrorists-are-muslims/
The majority of terrorist incidents in this country are from whacko
groups born and bred in the US. But these folks aren't as obvious from
a distance as a traditional Muslim. It's easier to spot them and
not-Caucasians, so that's who we profile. There is an implicit racism
in the way profiling is done in the US (but then there is a lot of
implicit racism in the US in general- talk to your non-Caucasian friends
about it).
That's not to say that there are not bad Muslims out there, of course.
There are. But the framers of our Constitution and subsequent leaders
of democracy established some important principles like probable cause,
due process and protection from illegal search and seizure for very good
reasons. Since 9/11 there has been a tendency to want to throw those
things in the garbage for anyone who looks like a Muslim, driven by fear
and xenophobia incited and fed by certain politicians and pundits.
Don't fall for it- the principles of freedom are important and of
necessity apply to everyone. If not upheld scrupulously, those
principles apply to no one. Once upon a time it was the conservatives
that were the defenders of those principles.
> Those going against properly done profiling are doing a disservice.
> And if they were truly serious, they would be picketing the offices
> of Criminal Minds since pretty much every week the profile of the
> perp starts off "He is probably a white male...."
LOL. I've never watched that show for more than about four minutes.
I'm a psychologist and watching badly written psych stuff on TV is
annoying. I'm sure the same holds true for computer scientists,
doctors, lawyers, police officers, etc. when they see their fields
mangled on a TV show or in a movie. The psychologist on "Bones" bugs
the hell out of me when he starts spouting psychobabble in outdated
Freudian terminology. Hasn't *any* Hollywood script writer read about
cognitive therapy or any other development in psychology in the past
century except primal scream?
Paul Fuchs
> On 04-24-2011 14:59, Paul Fuchs wrote:
> > Wes Groleau<Grolea...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On 04-23-2011 17:24, Paul Fuchs wrote:
> >>> Regarding #2, if you eliminate 9/11 as still pending (whether it was
> >>> caused by Al Queda or Al Cheney [Dick's brother}), just how many planes
> >>> have been downed by planted bombs or highjackings in the past 15 years
> >>> that resulted in at least one fatality?
> >>
> >> The premise, whether we agree or not, to this whole thing is that the
> >> thousands of deaths on 9-11 prove that we had an unacceptable level of
> >> risk then. The current system purports to make a recurrence impossible.
> >
> > Well, I established that premise to that sub-thread.
>
> Oh. I thought you were trying to say we should evaluate the
> situation _without_ considering the incidents that were the
> excuse for instituting it.
That phrase was sent in error. I started to write a follow-up, but then
thought better of it, and I thought I killed it. MacSoup makes it
easy to post stuff by mistake. I have studied 9/11 in great detail over
quite a few years, and I do not subscribe in the least to the official
government dogma on it, but I do not feel that this site would be an
appropriate place to carry on a discussion.
JF Mezei
> Yeah, but the problem with the hole in the fuselage isn't the
> explosive decompression blowing a hole in the side (with the Aloha
> flight big enough to suck out at flight attendant), but rather the very
> quick loss of consciousness when the oxygen leaves the plane. Some of
> the early reports suggest that was already occurring on the SW flight
> before they got the oxygen masks on, with a FA getting giddy. At 39K
> feet you have a useful level consciousness for probably about 15
> seconds.
There was a cypriot crash due to Bush Jr(tying this into 911) and due to
maintenance problem. The cabin pressurisation switch had been left in
the wrong position. Pilots didn't realise it and as aircraft climbed,
they lost consciousness as did most of passengers are crew. On flight
attendant had better than average lungs and remained conscious, but was
unable to enter the cockpit due to the 911 "safety" doors that were
forced on all airlines. He did manage to enter the cockpit when the
aircraft ran out of fuel (generators failed, so door magnets failed) but
it was too late.
Thet flight attendent was taking piloting courses, so if he could have
gotten into the cockpit, he could have saved the plane and all those aboard.
In the case of a hole in fuselage, pilots quickly descend to 10,000feet
altitude. So in the movies, the plane which started to quickly "dive in"
is actually true, but not because the plane is out of control, but
rather because pilots are descedning to 10k feet as fast as they can.
Rule #1 is that pilots must first don oxygen masks. (those are different
from the ones for passengers) and then descend to 10,000 feet.
737s don't normally climb to 39k feet. They are normally at 30-33kfeet.
So people can stay conscious for longer before they require additional
oxygen.
Normally, an aircraft cabin is pressurised to simulate atmopsphere at
8000 feet altitude.
Jeffrey Goldberg
> In article <91hsto...@mid.individual.net>, Jeffrey Goldberg
> <nob...@goldmark.org> wrote:
>
>>> There have been at least 3 or 4 that could have if the bombmakers
>>> were half as good as they thought they were. A shoe bomb, an underwear
>>> bomb, [...]
>>
>> Both of those plots were actually *successes* of airport screening.
>
> that's preposterous.
>
> it was a total and complete failure that either of them were anywhere
> *near* a plane, let alone the airport.
You are right. Airport screening is for when all else fails. Sorry, I
should have qualified what I meant. I was just trying to say that the
two cases were people (who never should have gotten on board) got on
board with explosive (which shouldn't have happened either) were
thwarted because they weren't able to get reliable detonators on board.
That last part does represent success in the context of a series of
failures.
The other big change is that since 9/11 hijacking is out of the
question. Passengers respond differently than in the past, and that also
played a role. But passenger intervention would have not been an option
had these guys had reliable detonators.
Tim McNamara
Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
LOL! "Italian biddy..." I hope he doesn't read this! I really have to
do a better job of prufreading.
nospam
> The problem with profiling is that it targets a lot of innocent people
> and steers attention away from people who don't obviously fit the
> profile.
actually the opposite. the problem with treating everyone the same is
that you are in effect looking for a needle in a haystack. to be
effective, you *must* focus your search on those who are suspicious and
possibly up to no good.
> Terrorists are smart enough to work that out eventually and to
> send agents out who don't match the stereotypes.
which is why you look for a number of things, not just where they're
born.
> The morality of
> profiling aside, it is also simply an ineffective strategy with too many
> false positives and a high risk of false negatives.
it's actually much more effective than the nonsense that they're doing
now.
nospam
<nob...@goldmark.org> wrote:
> >>> There have been at least 3 or 4 that could have if the bombmakers
> >>> were half as good as they thought they were. A shoe bomb, an underwear
> >>> bomb, [...]
> >>
> >> Both of those plots were actually *successes* of airport screening.
> >
> > that's preposterous.
> >
> > it was a total and complete failure that either of them were anywhere
> > *near* a plane, let alone the airport.
>
> You are right. Airport screening is for when all else fails.
it's actually a charade for the masses. it has to look like they're
doing something, however ineffective it may be. force passengers to
remove all shoes and confiscate their shampoo, meanwhile cargo is not
fully screened.
> Sorry, I
> should have qualified what I meant. I was just trying to say that the
> two cases were people (who never should have gotten on board) got on
> board with explosive (which shouldn't have happened either) were
> thwarted because they weren't able to get reliable detonators on board.
> That last part does represent success in the context of a series of
> failures.
they were stopped by other passengers.
> The other big change is that since 9/11 hijacking is out of the
> question. Passengers respond differently than in the past, and that also
> played a role.
true. 9/11 cannot happen again.
the cockpit is secured with a reinforced door, the crew no longer
cooperates with hijackers (where previously they were required to as a
matter of policy) and anyone that does anything unusual will have the
crap beaten out of them by other passengers before they have a chance
to do anything.
in fact, there was a hijack attempt just yesterday, where the
passengers and flight crew stopped the person.
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13184416>
> But passenger intervention would have not been an option
> had these guys had reliable detonators.
passenger intervention was why both underwear and shoe attempts failed
and that is going to continue to be the main defense. the tsa has yet
to find a single terrorist, let alone stop one.
Kurt Ullman
Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
>
>
> I have no idea how those things work. How do you measure autonomic
> markers of stress of someone in the middle of a crowd?
El al spends time actually looking at people and asking them
questions. Looking for tells such as too much nervousness, etc. Some of
these you could also pick up on the security cameras, although obviously
more for screening and follow up. Poker players use tells, really the
same basic concept.
>
> > There is no morality with either kind of profiling. You look at a
> > sample of people doing something, find out what links them together,
> > and then look for that in others. My favorite alleged racial
> > profiling was the black woman who threatened to sue IND. She was
> > taken to a side place and questioned at length. Of course to the
> > papers, it was only because she was Black and it wasn't until the 9
> > paragraph that you got to the part about how she bought a one-way
> > ticket and the airport, on the day of the flight, with cash and had
> > to luggage. That would have gotten Mother Teresa pulled to the side.
>
> Maybe, but if that person was blond and blue eyed maybe not. We had an
> interesting situation of racial profiling here when a city councilman,
> who had taken his granddaughter to a city park, was stopped and
> questioned simply because he was a black man in a city park. Or an
> Italian biddy- born and raised in the US- who gets questioned about his
> citizenship status because he looks like he could be from Mexico.
Which isn't any form of profiling, assuming these are as vanilla as
they seem. Profiling, by definition, turns not on singular
characteristics, but on a conglomeration of them. They are indicators,
symptoms if you will. You generally don't diagnose illnesses on one
symptom.
>
> I have worked with many Muslims- some from the Middle East, most from
> Africa, some born and raised here in the US- over the past 15 years and
> have been horrified by their stories of being harassed and in some cases
> attacked by Americans, especially after the first bombing of the World
> Trade Center and then again after 9/11. Some of them took to doing
> things like grocery shopping at 3:00 AM to avoid people as much as
> possible, some had their homes and cars vandalized, etc.
By cops and Homeland Security, who knew? It isn't profiling, it is
bigotry and being afraid of what we don't understand.
>
> Racial profiling is most often done by white guys and most often the
> subjects of such profiling aren't white guys. We're not out profiling
> for the next Timothy McVeigh, we're doing it for Middle Easterners
> presumed to be terrorists and Mexicans. According to the FBI, Islamic
> terrorism in the US is a small percentage of the terrorist incidents in
> the US- about 6% IIRC:
There is no such thing as racial profiling. Period. Profiling
means many indicators, when there is only race involved in the decision,
then it is bigotry and racism.
> The majority of terrorist incidents in this country are from whacko
> groups born and bred in the US. But these folks aren't as obvious from
> a distance as a traditional Muslim. It's easier to spot them and
> not-Caucasians, so that's who we profile. There is an implicit racism
> in the way profiling is done in the US (but then there is a lot of
> implicit racism in the US in general- talk to your non-Caucasian friends
> about it).
>
Ah, but there is a well-accepted profile for the local terrorists,
too. Widely circulated, but since white skin heads aren't viewed by many
as a naturally oppressed minority, and there is little fund raising and
voter potential in this group, the talking heads ignore it. bTW, it
includes, among many other things, the fact they are most likely white.
> > Those going against properly done profiling are doing a disservice.
> > And if they were truly serious, they would be picketing the offices
> > of Criminal Minds since pretty much every week the profile of the
> > perp starts off "He is probably a white male...."
>
> LOL. I've never watched that show for more than about four minutes.
> I'm a psychologist and watching badly written psych stuff on TV is
> annoying. I'm sure the same holds true for computer scientists,
> doctors, lawyers, police officers, etc. when they see their fields
> mangled on a TV show or in a movie. The psychologist on "Bones" bugs
> the hell out of me when he starts spouting psychobabble in outdated
> Freudian terminology. Hasn't *any* Hollywood script writer read about
> cognitive therapy or any other development in psychology in the past
> century except primal scream?
As a Psych RN, I wondered much the same. You also would never know
that, on average, psychiatric patients are less violent then those
considered "normal".
Kurt Ullman
Jeffrey Goldberg <nob...@goldmark.org> wrote:
> You are right. Airport screening is for when all else fails. Sorry, I
> should have qualified what I meant. I was just trying to say that the
> two cases were people (who never should have gotten on board) got on
> board with explosive (which shouldn't have happened either) were
> thwarted because they weren't able to get reliable detonators on board.
> That last part does represent success in the context of a series of
> failures.
I'd have to disagree because they still got the detonators on board. I
don't take any comfort in knowing they got their second choice on board.
It was still happenstance that it did not blow.
>
> The other big change is that since 9/11 hijacking is out of the
> question. Passengers respond differently than in the past, and that also
> played a role. But passenger intervention would have not been an option
> had these guys had reliable detonators.
>
Which is why they are trying to blow them out of sky immediately
instead of flying them around and into buildings.
Tim McNamara
Kurt Ullman <kurtu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <timmcn-2904B1....@news.iphouse.com>,
> Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
>
> >
> > I have no idea how those things work. How do you measure autonomic
> > markers of stress of someone in the middle of a crowd?
> >
> El al spends time actually looking at people and asking them
> questions. Looking for tells such as too much nervousness, etc. Some
> of these you could also pick up on the security cameras, although
> obviously more for screening and follow up. Poker players use tells,
> really the same basic concept.
They interview all the passengers? Oh, *that* would go well in the US...
> > > There is no morality with either kind of profiling. You look at a
> > > sample of people doing something, find out what links them
> > > together, and then look for that in others. My favorite alleged
> > > racial profiling was the black woman who threatened to sue IND.
> > > She was taken to a side place and questioned at length. Of course
> > > to the papers, it was only because she was Black and it wasn't
> > > until the 9 paragraph that you got to the part about how she
> > > bought a one-way ticket and the airport, on the day of the
> > > flight, with cash and had to luggage. That would have gotten
> > > Mother Teresa pulled to the side.
> >
> > Maybe, but if that person was blond and blue eyed maybe not. We
> > had an interesting situation of racial profiling here when a city
> > councilman, who had taken his granddaughter to a city park, was
> > stopped and questioned simply because he was a black man in a city
> > park. Or an Italian biddy- born and raised in the US- who gets
> > questioned about his citizenship status because he looks like he
> > could be from Mexico.
>
> Which isn't any form of profiling, assuming these are as vanilla as
> they seem. Profiling, by definition, turns not on singular
> characteristics, but on a conglomeration of them. They are
> indicators, symptoms if you will. You generally don't diagnose
> illnesses on one symptom.
Profiling as done by the FBI involves a conglomeration of factors. That
simply doesn't apply here or in airports. Profiling as done on the
ground by police officers and TSA workers turns on one or two
characteristics according to snap judgment (a.k.a. a hunch).
> > I have worked with many Muslims- some from the Middle East, most
> > from Africa, some born and raised here in the US- over the past 15
> > years and have been horrified by their stories of being harassed
> > and in some cases attacked by Americans, especially after the first
> > bombing of the World Trade Center and then again after 9/11. Some
> > of them took to doing things like grocery shopping at 3:00 AM to
> > avoid people as much as possible, some had their homes and cars
> > vandalized, etc.
> >
> By cops and Homeland Security, who knew? It isn't profiling, it is
> bigotry and being afraid of what we don't understand.
Cops yes. Homeland Security not that I have heard. And random
passers-by.
> > Racial profiling is most often done by white guys and most often
> > the subjects of such profiling aren't white guys. We're not out
> > profiling for the next Timothy McVeigh, we're doing it for Middle
> > Easterners presumed to be terrorists and Mexicans. According to
> > the FBI, Islamic terrorism in the US is a small percentage of the
> > terrorist incidents in the US- about 6% IIRC:
>
> There is no such thing as racial profiling. Period.
Maybe you should ask some non-Caucasians about this.
> Profiling means many indicators, when there is only race involved in
> the decision, then it is bigotry and racism.
Unfortunately profiling in actual practice on our streets and in our
airports is exactly this. There are two types of profiling- one is
specific to trying to identify a perpetrator of a crime that has been
committed to aid in his or her apprehension. Law enforcement agencies
develop these types of profiles.
The other type of profiling is prospective aimed at identifying would-be
bad actors and getting them before they commit a crime. The parameters
of this type of profiling are of necessity pretty generic; race and
appearance rank very highly in this. The net cast is very wide. If
there is a tip-off that something may be happening with information
about the would-be perpetrator, it is possible to tighten up the profile.
> > The majority of terrorist incidents in this country are from whacko
> > groups born and bred in the US. But these folks aren't as obvious
> > from a distance as a traditional Muslim. It's easier to spot them
> > and not-Caucasians, so that's who we profile. There is an implicit
> > racism in the way profiling is done in the US (but then there is a
> > lot of implicit racism in the US in general- talk to your
> > non-Caucasian friends about it).
>
> Ah, but there is a well-accepted profile for the local terrorists,
> too. Widely circulated, but since white skin heads aren't viewed by
> many as a naturally oppressed minority, and there is little fund
> raising and voter potential in this group, the talking heads ignore
> it. bTW, it includes, among many other things, the fact they are
> most likely white.
Hmmm. Maybe you should read some of the data on this. 42% of terrorist
actions in the US were perpetrated by Hispanics. The next largest group
of terrorists, IIRC, is left-wing extremist groups like the ALF and ELF
(I suspect most of those folks are white). Jewish terrorist actions in
the US are just a touch more common (7% of terrorist events) than Muslim
terrorist actions (6% of terrorist events). Since 9/11/01 there have
been no American civilian deaths in the US from Muslim terrorists; 14 US
service personnel were killed by Muslim terrorists, 13 of those
occurring at Fort Hood in a single incident by a single terrorist (or
unhinged whacko who happened to be Muslim, it's not clear yet).
> > > Those going against properly done profiling are doing a
> > > disservice. And if they were truly serious, they would be
> > > picketing the offices of Criminal Minds since pretty much every
> > > week the profile of the perp starts off "He is probably a white
> > > male...."
> >
> > LOL. I've never watched that show for more than about four
> > minutes. I'm a psychologist and watching badly written psych stuff
> > on TV is annoying. I'm sure the same holds true for computer
> > scientists, doctors, lawyers, police officers, etc. when they see
> > their fields mangled on a TV show or in a movie. The psychologist
> > on "Bones" bugs the hell out of me when he starts spouting
> > psychobabble in outdated Freudian terminology. Hasn't *any*
> > Hollywood script writer read about cognitive therapy or any other
> > development in psychology in the past century except primal scream?
> As a Psych RN, I wondered much the same. You also would never know
> that, on average, psychiatric patients are less violent then those
> considered "normal".
Facts are not allowed to stand in the way of a plot line. In this
regard TV fiction and US politics have a lot in common! ;-)
Tim McNamara
Kurt Ullman <kurtu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <91kaa7...@mid.individual.net>,
> Jeffrey Goldberg <nob...@goldmark.org> wrote:
>
>
> > You are right. Airport screening is for when all else fails.
> > Sorry, I should have qualified what I meant. I was just trying to
> > say that the two cases were people (who never should have gotten on
> > board) got on board with explosive (which shouldn't have happened
> > either) were thwarted because they weren't able to get reliable
> > detonators on board. That last part does represent success in the
> > context of a series of failures.
>
> I'd have to disagree because they still got the detonators on board.
> I don't take any comfort in knowing they got their second choice on
> board. It was still happenstance that it did not blow.
More like chemistry. The explosive chosen can be hard to set off
directly; usually it is detonated by a primary mechanism such as an
easier explosive.
That said, the goal of course is to not let these things get onto
planes. Like you I don't find much comfort in relying on incompetence
of terrorists to defeat their plans.
> > The other big change is that since 9/11 hijacking is out of the
> > question. Passengers respond differently than in the past, and that
> > also played a role. But passenger intervention would have not been
> > an option had these guys had reliable detonators.
> >
> Which is why they are trying to blow them out of sky immediately
> instead of flying them around and into buildings.
Still a lower risk than driving home from work during rush hour.
Kurt Ullman
Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
> > El al spends time actually looking at people and asking them
> > questions. Looking for tells such as too much nervousness, etc. Some
> > of these you could also pick up on the security cameras, although
> > obviously more for screening and follow up. Poker players use tells,
> > really the same basic concept.
>
> They interview all the passengers? Oh, *that* would go well in the US...
Don't think so. They have a lot of people wandering around eyeballing
passengers, looking for the tells. They can follow up more closely on
those that make the hairs on the back of their neck stand up.
>
> Profiling as done by the FBI involves a conglomeration of factors. That
> simply doesn't apply here or in airports. Profiling as done on the
> ground by police officers and TSA workers turns on one or two
> characteristics according to snap judgment (a.k.a. a hunch).'
There are various depths of profiling. Either way, if the only
variable is race, then it isn't profiling.
> > > Racial profiling is most often done by white guys and most often
> > > the subjects of such profiling aren't white guys. We're not out
> > > profiling for the next Timothy McVeigh, we're doing it for Middle
> > > Easterners presumed to be terrorists and Mexicans. According to
> > > the FBI, Islamic terrorism in the US is a small percentage of the
> > > terrorist incidents in the US- about 6% IIRC:
> >
> > There is no such thing as racial profiling. Period.
>
> Maybe you should ask some non-Caucasians about this.
That, as I mentioned isn't profiling if race is the only factor. It
is nice to call if profiling because then you can use the "new"
definition to make any attempt at profiling a boogy man.
>
> > Profiling means many indicators, when there is only race involved in
> > the decision, then it is bigotry and racism.
>
> Unfortunately profiling in actual practice on our streets and in our
> airports is exactly this.
It isn't profiling, according to any generally accepted definition
I have seen, outside of the chattering classes and "community
activists".
> There are two types of profiling- one is
> > specific to trying to identify a perpetrator of a crime that has been
> > committed to aid in his or her apprehension. Law enforcement agencies
> > develop these types of profiles.
>
Yep. Our buddies at Criminal Minds (grin)
>
> The other type of profiling is prospective aimed at identifying would-be
> bad actors and getting them before they commit a crime. The parameters
> of this type of profiling are of necessity pretty generic; race and
> appearance rank very highly in this. The net cast is very wide. If
> there is a tip-off that something may be happening with information
> about the would-be perpetrator, it is possible to tighten up the profile.
Not really. I did some work on the early Juvenile Firesetters
profile (Back when it was still the Behavioral Sciences Unit- grin)in
the 80s. We had all sorts of stuff such as school results, early contact
with the law for things like killing small animals, too much playing
with matches, some socio economic aspects. We also delinated by four or
five different levels. But even when race ranks high it isn't the only.
And there are two VERY different profiles for the domestic terrorist
(which also includes race) from the religious terrorist.
> >
> > Ah, but there is a well-accepted profile for the local terrorists,
> > too. Widely circulated, but since white skin heads aren't viewed by
> > many as a naturally oppressed minority, and there is little fund
> > raising and voter potential in this group, the talking heads ignore
> > it. bTW, it includes, among many other things, the fact they are
> > most likely white.
>
> Hmmm. Maybe you should read some of the data on this. 42% of terrorist
> actions in the US were perpetrated by Hispanics. The next largest group
> of terrorists, IIRC, is left-wing extremist groups like the ALF and ELF
> (I suspect most of those folks are white). Jewish terrorist actions in
> the US are just a touch more common (7% of terrorist events) than Muslim
> terrorist actions (6% of terrorist events). Since 9/11/01 there have
> been no American civilian deaths in the US from Muslim terrorists; 14 US
> service personnel were killed by Muslim terrorists, 13 of those
> occurring at Fort Hood in a single incident by a single terrorist (or
> unhinged whacko who happened to be Muslim, it's not clear yet).
But it hasn't been for lack of trying that there have been no deaths
since 9-11. Some have been broken up, some like the Times Square bombing
were poorly constructed but could have done a lot killing if they went
off. The ones that triggered the discussion COULD have gone off.
I should have been more specific, since somewhere along the McVeigh
and his ilk were mentioned and I got target fixation on that group when
I made my comment about while folks. (grin>
Paul Sture
Kurt Ullman <kurtu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <timmcn-2904B1....@news.iphouse.com>,
> Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > I have no idea how those things work. How do you measure autonomic
> > markers of stress of someone in the middle of a crowd?
>
> El al spends time actually looking at people and asking them
> questions. Looking for tells such as too much nervousness, etc. Some of
> these you could also pick up on the security cameras, although obviously
> more for screening and follow up. Poker players use tells, really the
> same basic concept.
I recall a fly on the wall documentary about the work of UK customs
officers. One of them reckoned he could pick out folks worth stopping
by the way they walked. Same thing I guess.
--
Paul Sture
Walter Bushell
Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
> In the mean time, in the US obesity, diabetes, heart attacks, stroke,
> car accidents and cancer are several orders of magnitude greater risks
> to American life and limb.
Probably professional football is too. I notice not only the health
reports from ex-players, but also the number of pro footballers who keep
getting into trouble with the law. I suspect brain damage.
--
The Chinese pretend their goods are good and we pretend our money
is good, or is it the reverse?
Walter Bushell
Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
> Hasn't *any* Hollywood script writer read about
> cognitive therapy
Too sensible for good TV. Compared to Freud CT is as "sensible as a
dictionary."
Walter Bushell
Kurt Ullman <kurtu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Those of who are of A Certain Age, can remember the high point of
> going to the shoe store... when we put our feet in the X-ray machine
> most had in the store until someone caught on. Cool beans. Or as an RN
> with a false positive on the TB test who was subjected to yearly Chest
> X-rays mandated by OSHA, the Joint Commission and others until someone
> caught on in the mid-90s.
> I am sorta surprised at times that I don't glow in the dark..
I did that and also had a radium glow in the dark watch which I wore
24/7. Ah, those were the days! Much more fun that building the pyramids.
Wes Groleau
> Probably professional football is too. I notice not only the health
> reports from ex-players, but also the number of pro footballers who keep
> getting into trouble with the law. I suspect brain damage.
Yep. Having more money than you can figure out how to spend
tends to mess with your mind.
Wes Groleau
> I'm a psychologist and watching badly written psych stuff on TV is
> annoying. I'm sure the same holds true for computer scientists,
Anecdotal evidence (me) says yes.
But speaking of psychology, what is your reaction to the widespread
use of the term "psychiatrist" in situations where (to me) the correct
word is "psychologist" ?
Doesn't bother me from "the man on the street" but I find it extremely
annoying in scripted movies and TV shows.
Tim McNamara
Wes Groleau <Grolea...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
> On 04-24-2011 20:27, Tim McNamara wrote:
> > I'm a psychologist and watching badly written psych stuff on TV is
> > annoying. I'm sure the same holds true for computer scientists,
>
> Anecdotal evidence (me) says yes.
>
> But speaking of psychology, what is your reaction to the widespread
> use of the term "psychiatrist" in situations where (to me) the
> correct word is "psychologist" ?
>
> Doesn't bother me from "the man on the street" but I find it
> extremely annoying in scripted movies and TV shows.
For me it's a legal issue- when it's applied to me I have to correct it.
I am not a psychiatrist and am not licensed to prescribe medicine. I've
even had MDs not understand the difference.
I always get a kick out of psychiatrists doing psychoanalysis on TVs and
in movies. There are a few out there but they are very much in the
minority.
Wes Groleau
> I always get a kick out of psychiatrists doing psychoanalysis on TVs and
> in movies. There are a few out there but they are very much in the
> minority.
That's what I'm referring to. By what the fellow is (pretending
to be) doing or is expected to do, he is clearly a psychologist.
Yet the writers write "psychiatrist" and the so-called medical
consultant doesn't correct them.
JF Mezei
> On 04-24-2011 20:27, Tim McNamara wrote:
>> I'm a psychologist and watching badly written psych stuff on TV is
>> annoying. I'm sure the same holds true for computer scientists,
Yes. I've tried hard, but I could never get my terminal to make the same
sounds as terminals do in movies when writing text at 300 baud.
Same thing with bombs. None of the bombs I've handled go "beep" at every
second. Perhaps "beeping" bombs are common in the UK and this is why
documentaries about MI6 agents (notably 007) always feature bombs that
go "beep" at every second.
But in the 1960s, when Auric Goldfinger tried to blow up Fort Knox, the
atomic bomb was made in the USA from chinese parts, and its detonator
also went "beep" every second. So perhaps the beeping is also common
outside of the UK.
Paul Sture
Wes Groleau <Grolea...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
> On 04-24-2011 20:27, Tim McNamara wrote:
> > I'm a psychologist and watching badly written psych stuff on TV is
> > annoying. I'm sure the same holds true for computer scientists,
>
> Anecdotal evidence (me) says yes.
>
> But speaking of psychology, what is your reaction to the widespread
> use of the term "psychiatrist" in situations where (to me) the correct
> word is "psychologist" ?
I don't think most folks know the difference.
> Doesn't bother me from "the man on the street" but I find it extremely
> annoying in scripted movies and TV shows.
--
Paul Sture
Warren Buckley
news:f68fea31-6381-4c64...@o26g2000vby.googlegroups.com:
> NEVER buy a new product from Apple. ALWAYS buy used, or
> buy some other brand. Teach these freemason scum a lesson.
A Freemason shop near me has some low prices, but I'm not buying there
because it is a Freemason shop. Partly that's because I know Freemasons
like to sell sub-standard goods.
Apparently Apple cellular telephone handsets track the owner's movements.
Rev. 11D Meow!
Another Sheen Boy!! woo hoo.
Warren Buckley
news:no2dr6hp91ksui0he...@4ax.com:
> Another Sheen Boy!! woo hoo.
Maybe you should write in English, and then I could understand your
juvenile drivel?
Warren Buckley
> No, a dumbfuck like you knows nothing about anything.
Jolly Roger
Paul Sture <paul....@sture.ch> wrote:
Or care.
--
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.
JR
Don Bruder
> In article <ip5af2$vsd$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Wes Groleau <Grolea...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
>
> > On 04-24-2011 20:27, Tim McNamara wrote:
> > > I'm a psychologist and watching badly written psych stuff on TV is
> > > annoying. I'm sure the same holds true for computer scientists,
> >
> > Anecdotal evidence (me) says yes.
> >
> > But speaking of psychology, what is your reaction to the widespread
> > use of the term "psychiatrist" in situations where (to me) the correct
> > word is "psychologist" ?
>
> I don't think most folks know the difference.
Psychologist: Witch doctor.
Psychiatrist: Witch doctor with a prescription pad.
--
Email shown is deceased. If you would like to contact me by email, please
post something that makes it obvious in this or another group you see me
posting in with a "how to contact you" address, and I'll get back to you.