4 ms·

What would you have them do instead? edit: I was unaware that asking an honest question was frowned upon. Lesson learned, thanks.

by castis 10y ago

ceejayoz 10y ago
I'd have us do several things: * Accept that terror attacks will get through sometimes. * Spend a large part of the trillions of dollars spent on ineffective security theater (it's not all security theater - some bits like reinforced cockpit doors are cheap and effective) on preventing stuff like heart disease and car accidents that kill multiple 9/11s worth each day. * Ban laptops from carry-ons across the board if an undetectable laptop bomb (that can't be triggered in the cargo hold) is credible and likely. (Thus far the only incident we know of resulted in minor damage and a dead bomber.)
- castis 10y ago
  Accept that terror attacks will get through sometimes. I don't disagree with you but this would be difficult for any one person to pass down from wherever it is the person making these decisions sits. They'd have to accept that people are going to die and that by rolling back precautions, they take that on themselves. The other 2 I wholly agree with.
  - lb1lf 10y ago
    > They'd have to accept that people are going to die and that by rolling back precautions, they take that on themselves. -Oh, we already do in other aspects of life, so why not? An example: Driving a car has become ridiculously safe; as long as you don't head-on another car, chances are you'll survive. (As long as you don't do silly stuff like drive at 120mph, skip seatbelts and such). If we had separate lanes all over, there wouldn't be more head-on collisions. Lives saved. Only, we decided it wasn't worth the expense and inconvenience. We only have barriers between opposing lanes on the most accident-prone stretches of road. Personally, I'd be inclined to vote for just about anyone who had the balls to tell the public that bad things happen. Well, if they did it prior to something bad happening, at any rate.

What would you have them do instead? edit: I was unaware that asking an honest question was frowned upon. Lesson learned, thanks.

by castis 10y ago

What would you have them do instead? edit: I was unaware that asking an honest question was frowned upon. Lesson learned, thanks.

ceejayoz 10y ago

I'd have us do several things: * Accept that terror attacks will get through sometimes. * Spend a large part of the trillions of dollars spent on ineffective security theater (it's not all security theater - some bits like reinforced cockpit doors are cheap and effective) on preventing stuff like heart disease and car accidents that kill multiple 9/11s worth each day. * Ban laptops from carry-ons across the board if an undetectable laptop bomb (that can't be triggered in the cargo hold) is credible and likely. (Thus far the only incident we know of resulted in minor damage and a dead bomber.)

castis 10y ago
Accept that terror attacks will get through sometimes. I don't disagree with you but this would be difficult for any one person to pass down from wherever it is the person making these decisions sits. They'd have to accept that people are going to die and that by rolling back precautions, they take that on themselves. The other 2 I wholly agree with.
- lb1lf 10y ago
  > They'd have to accept that people are going to die and that by rolling back precautions, they take that on themselves. -Oh, we already do in other aspects of life, so why not? An example: Driving a car has become ridiculously safe; as long as you don't head-on another car, chances are you'll survive. (As long as you don't do silly stuff like drive at 120mph, skip seatbelts and such). If we had separate lanes all over, there wouldn't be more head-on collisions. Lives saved. Only, we decided it wasn't worth the expense and inconvenience. We only have barriers between opposing lanes on the most accident-prone stretches of road. Personally, I'd be inclined to vote for just about anyone who had the balls to tell the public that bad things happen. Well, if they did it prior to something bad happening, at any rate.