3 ms·

Like lupatus mentioned in the other response, there is considerable variability in the risk from terrorism. I would guess - while tragic, and my profound symp

by 3am 13y ago

Like lupatus mentioned in the other response, there is considerable variability in the risk from terrorism. I would guess - while tragic, and my profound sympathies to anyone reading this who has been touched by either - that SIDS and infant/toddler choking deaths are much more consistent year over year (and there is a lot of educational material out there on preventing SIDS with sleep positions, and huge federal regulation on childrens' toys for, eg BuckyBalls). I would instead use the analogy of weather in the context of urban planning around floodplains, building standards, etc. These are typically based on 50 or 100 year storm events. If you look at a 15 year average, these standards look like overkill. EDIT: Lo and behold, another downvote. What in the way I've structured my argument or my logic is flawed? Or is it just more satisfying to downvote those you disagree with? Anyway, downvote away, you're only lowering yourself. I don't care.

incongruity 13y ago
The risk from terrorism is, most greatly, the fear of terrorism and the effort a society will expend on trying to stop future terrorism, which in itself generates fear and adds to the likelihood of spending more on preventing terrorism... In short, it's all too easy to let it become a vicious cycle that simply is not justified based on the actual damage done by terrorism. To circle back to your analogy to floods – I'm not sure about what you're suggesting. Are you saying we need to look at a larger timeframe? If so, I would point out that I was considering precisely the timeframe you suggested. But, beyond that, looking over the last 100 years, SIDS and choking have certainly killed more... and I would expect they'd continue to do so over the next 100, even if the current anti-terrorism measures were never enacted.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
regularfry 13y ago
> Like lupatus mentioned in the other response, there is considerable variability in the risk from terrorism. "Considerable variability" doesn't begin to cut it. Deaths from terror attacks follow a power law. That's why it doesn't make sense to compare them to fundamentally linear phenomena like traffic or smoking deaths. Coincidentally (or not), flood levels also follow a power law. The thing about a power law phenomenon is that you can use it to justify an arbitrarily high prevention spend, because given the sample you have, you can guarantee an event lying outside it. Repeat ad infinitum.
- alphydan 13y ago
  > Deaths from terror attacks follow a power law. [citation needed]
  - regularfry 13y ago
    http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/01/the_power_law_o.html http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/01/the_power_law_...
lupatus 13y ago
Don't fret too much about the down votes. I once got voted down to something like -182 karma for giving supported arguments that a gay illegal immigrant journalist should be deported. After that, pg stopped showing karma scores in the comments.
MaysonL 13y ago
How about lifetimes worth of wasted hours due to security theater? I would bet that those are substantially greater than the number of lifeyears lost to terrorist attacks.

by 3am 13y ago

incongruity 13y ago

The risk from terrorism is, most greatly, the fear of terrorism and the effort a society will expend on trying to stop future terrorism, which in itself generates fear and adds to the likelihood of spending more on preventing terrorism... In short, it's all too easy to let it become a vicious cycle that simply is not justified based on the actual damage done by terrorism. To circle back to your analogy to floods – I'm not sure about what you're suggesting. Are you saying we need to look at a larger timeframe? If so, I would point out that I was considering precisely the timeframe you suggested. But, beyond that, looking over the last 100 years, SIDS and choking have certainly killed more... and I would expect they'd continue to do so over the next 100, even if the current anti-terrorism measures were never enacted.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

regularfry 13y ago

> Like lupatus mentioned in the other response, there is considerable variability in the risk from terrorism. "Considerable variability" doesn't begin to cut it. Deaths from terror attacks follow a power law. That's why it doesn't make sense to compare them to fundamentally linear phenomena like traffic or smoking deaths. Coincidentally (or not), flood levels also follow a power law. The thing about a power law phenomenon is that you can use it to justify an arbitrarily high prevention spend, because given the sample you have, you can guarantee an event lying outside it. Repeat ad infinitum.

alphydan 13y ago
> Deaths from terror attacks follow a power law. [citation needed]
- regularfry 13y ago
  http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/01/the_power_law_o.html http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/01/the_power_law_...

lupatus 13y ago

Don't fret too much about the down votes. I once got voted down to something like -182 karma for giving supported arguments that a gay illegal immigrant journalist should be deported. After that, pg stopped showing karma scores in the comments.

MaysonL 13y ago

How about lifetimes worth of wasted hours due to security theater? I would bet that those are substantially greater than the number of lifeyears lost to terrorist attacks.