11 ms·

What does a broken record sound like? Read the first line of the ruling: http://i.imgur.com/y8LZQUM.png http://i.imgur.com/y8LZQUM.png

by pvnick 13y ago

sanderjd 13y ago
Ugh no kidding. 9/11 happened on my 16th birthday. I can't believe I'm almost 30 and it is still used to justify so much of our policy.
- rtpg 13y ago
  I don't get how referencing a singular event often is actually an issue. the Great Depression showed us how important it is to have an insurance on personal bank accounts, to disincentive bank runs. While one might counter that there have been other economic crises and bank runs, there have also been many other terrorist attacks aimed at US interests and allies. We still cite the great depression all the time because it was kind of a big deal. I don't want to comment on how its being used in this policy decision but acting like 9/11 isn't somehow a big deal is strange.
  - smokeyj 13y ago
    > I don't get how referencing a singular event often is actually an issue. Because it's a reactionary and not derived in principle? How exactly do you counter "I know what's best for you based on a single event"?
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
  - mikeash 13y ago
    The difference is that the depression was a big deal on its own, while 9/11 is a big deal in a circular way: it's important largely because we consider it to be important. The actual damage done by the attack itself was not all that significant in the grand scheme of things. Yes, it was a massive tragedy, but neither the lives lost nor the property destroyed are noticeable on a national scale. Most of the damage by far was the reaction to the attack, not the attack itself. It was the national equivalent of an allergic reaction. Imagine if people were in charge of your immune system and they decided that the immune system must react strongly to bee stings. In defending their policy on bee stings, they bring up the last time you got stung by a bee, when it put you in the hospital. What makes it a problem is that they put you in the hospital themselves, not the bee sting by itself. The bee sting would have hurt, but wouldn't have required medical attention if it weren't for the allergic reaction to it.
    - czr80 13y ago
      The US reaction was not smart, but in fairness 9/11 was a big deal because it forced a recalibration of the tail risk from a terrorist attack - a whole bunch of scenarios (dirty bomb, chem or bio attack) that require complex planning and resources are much easier to believe post-911.
      - mikeash 13y ago
        That strikes me as more of the same overreaction. 9/11 didn't really demonstrate complex planning and resources. It took a bit of cash, not a lot, and 20 people. The scale was big, but it wasn't exactly complex. The main difficulties of the other attacks you mention are obtaining the materials and getting them into the US, and ability at neither was demonstrated by 9/11. The mention of a dirty bomb rather reinforces my point, I think. A dirty bomb isn't much more destructive than a regular bomb. Yet, we consider it to be a vastly greater threat. Why? Because we'd vastly overreact to it. Why? Because we consider it to be a huge threat. And so on in circles.
        czr80 13y ago
        Before 9/11 the idea that terrorists could destroy two skyscrapers by simultaneously coordinating multiple hijackings was ridiculous - a B-movie plot or paranoid fantasy. Today, not so much. What ridiculous fantasy will be true in 10 years time? Again, none of this means that the reactions were smart - but the idea that there needs to be some reaction is not a priori stupid, and to try to characterize it as such weakens your argument (imho).
        mikeash 13y ago
        The basic scenario wasn't really outlandish. The general idea was featured in a bestselling novel about a decade prior, and an actual real-life terrorist hijacking (thwarted) that same year. And of course the concept of destroying valuable stuff by crashing airplanes into it on purpose dates back much farther. Yes, despite all that it was unexpected. However, I have no sympathy for your "what ridiculous fantasy will be true in 10 years time?" argument. It's a complete non sequitur. There was a failure of imagination before in which terrorists were more capable than we thought, therefore we're doing the same thing now? I would argue that currently the exact opposite is happening. 9/11 seems to be the peak of their capabilities. Now, while we're imagining apocalyptic scenarios in which terrorists destroy entire cities, their actual capabilities seem to be limited to badly-constructed IEDs. The point is that there was precedent for 9/11, even if people didn't realize it. There is no precedent for the sort of vastly worse attack you posit, nor is there any other reason to think that such a thing could be carried out in a way that makes it vastly worse than previous attacks. (The Aum Shinrikyo nerve gas attack does provide precedent for terrorist attacks involving chemical weapons, but it also demonstrates that such attacks aren't really all that severe. Again, they are worse because we react to them more strongly, and we react to them more strongly because they are worse.) I'm not saying that all reaction would be stupid, only that it should be proportional. A normal human body does react to a bee sting, but it does so appropriately, by eliminating the poison and handling foreign substances. Likewise, a sane reaction to 9/11 involving tracking down those responsible and bringing them to justice would have been wise. What's stupid is not any reaction, but a massive overreaction, and then justifying the overreaction by pointing to the massive damage done, when that damage was mostly done by the overreaction.
  - mbesto 13y ago
    > I don't get how referencing a singular event often is actually an issue. Because it's irrational and doesn't represent the real probability of an event happening again. The argument is therefore that we are shaping policy (with ramifications on economics, privacy and politics) based on poor statistical analysis. I'd recommend reading Kahneman's Thinking, Fast and Slow if you're interested in understanding how irrational our minds are. http://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/0374533555 http://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/...
- talmand 13y ago
  One day you'll join the rest of us and stop doing math like that. Anyway, I still can't believe we're trade partners with Japan. I mean, after all, Pearl Harbor?
  - sanderjd 13y ago
    I'm having trouble parsing your comment... I read your last sentence in one of two ways: 1) it is sarcastic and you are pointing out that we can move past terrible tragedies, in which case, that's the same point I was making, so I don't really understand the first sentence, or 2) you really can't believe we're trade partners with Japan because of Pearl Harbor, in which case we just actually disagree.
    - talmand 13y ago
      It's the first one. The first sentence is a reference to getting old.
- chrismcb 13y ago
  My problem with the 9/11 anecdote, is the Judge believes 9/11 could have been prevented if we had known someone's phone number. Although he didn't provide any evidence to suggest that knowing his phone number would have helped, or that we knew he would be involved. What is also interesting is, the claim that because we didn't know his phone number, we assumed he was overseas. I fail to see how knowing that he was in San Diego would have made a difference. Or why they automatically assumed he was overseas. Or even why he was a suspect, and if he WAS a suspect, why do nothing other than throw their hands up in the air and say "well he is overseas, oh well"
x0054 13y ago
A quote from Benjamin Franklin comes to mind: Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
- codex 13y ago
  In what way have my liberties been reduced? On the ground, nothing has changed. Now five organizations have my metadata instead of four.
  - praxulus 13y ago
    I think the government is fundamentally different than a private company or semi-public utility. Their control of law enforcement and military forces are the most relevant here.
    - chris_mahan 13y ago
      Which is why the Bill of Rights in the Constitution is so important, because there is no way for the citizenry to force the government to act or not act. The armed forces and law enforcement swear to uphold the Constitution for that reason.
      - ballard 13y ago
        The last bit is the key point. There is zero accountability: it's asking the fox to guard the hen house. Mumbling words soon forgotten that can't be said with a straight face. In short: it's a real accountability gap by the people that preach ostensible "accountability" and "transparency." USG needs a 4th branch made of veterans, privacy and industry leaders (people that are both sharp and straight shooters) that have total access to surprise audit, defund and compel changes to any secret program. The only goal is to change behavior to "I probably shouldn't do [horrible thing] because [people more powerful than my CO/president] will find out." Even if it's just a phony whitehouse press release by the Yes Men.
    - ballard 13y ago
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
codex 13y ago
He who forgets history is doomed to repeat it.
- Crito 13y ago
  Some history cannot be repeated. That particular action failed to be repeated the fourth time it was attempted on 9/11/2001. The only people who need to do any "remembering" are passengers and pilots of airplanes.
  - baffle 13y ago
    Let's roll. Preemptive is now the default.
- PavlovsCat 13y ago
  History is full of tyranny using alleged external threats as an excuse for power and money grabs. So, yeah.

What does a broken record sound like? Read the first line of the ruling: http://i.imgur.com/y8LZQUM.png http://i.imgur.com/y8LZQUM.png

by pvnick 13y ago

What does a broken record sound like? Read the first line of the ruling: http://i.imgur.com/y8LZQUM.png http://i.imgur.com/y8LZQUM.png

sanderjd 13y ago

Ugh no kidding. 9/11 happened on my 16th birthday. I can't believe I'm almost 30 and it is still used to justify so much of our policy.

rtpg 13y ago
I don't get how referencing a singular event often is actually an issue. the Great Depression showed us how important it is to have an insurance on personal bank accounts, to disincentive bank runs. While one might counter that there have been other economic crises and bank runs, there have also been many other terrorist attacks aimed at US interests and allies. We still cite the great depression all the time because it was kind of a big deal. I don't want to comment on how its being used in this policy decision but acting like 9/11 isn't somehow a big deal is strange.
- smokeyj 13y ago
  > I don't get how referencing a singular event often is actually an issue. Because it's a reactionary and not derived in principle? How exactly do you counter "I know what's best for you based on a single event"?
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- mikeash 13y ago
  The difference is that the depression was a big deal on its own, while 9/11 is a big deal in a circular way: it's important largely because we consider it to be important. The actual damage done by the attack itself was not all that significant in the grand scheme of things. Yes, it was a massive tragedy, but neither the lives lost nor the property destroyed are noticeable on a national scale. Most of the damage by far was the reaction to the attack, not the attack itself. It was the national equivalent of an allergic reaction. Imagine if people were in charge of your immune system and they decided that the immune system must react strongly to bee stings. In defending their policy on bee stings, they bring up the last time you got stung by a bee, when it put you in the hospital. What makes it a problem is that they put you in the hospital themselves, not the bee sting by itself. The bee sting would have hurt, but wouldn't have required medical attention if it weren't for the allergic reaction to it.
  - czr80 13y ago
    The US reaction was not smart, but in fairness 9/11 was a big deal because it forced a recalibration of the tail risk from a terrorist attack - a whole bunch of scenarios (dirty bomb, chem or bio attack) that require complex planning and resources are much easier to believe post-911.
    - mikeash 13y ago
      That strikes me as more of the same overreaction. 9/11 didn't really demonstrate complex planning and resources. It took a bit of cash, not a lot, and 20 people. The scale was big, but it wasn't exactly complex. The main difficulties of the other attacks you mention are obtaining the materials and getting them into the US, and ability at neither was demonstrated by 9/11. The mention of a dirty bomb rather reinforces my point, I think. A dirty bomb isn't much more destructive than a regular bomb. Yet, we consider it to be a vastly greater threat. Why? Because we'd vastly overreact to it. Why? Because we consider it to be a huge threat. And so on in circles.
      - czr80 13y ago
        Before 9/11 the idea that terrorists could destroy two skyscrapers by simultaneously coordinating multiple hijackings was ridiculous - a B-movie plot or paranoid fantasy. Today, not so much. What ridiculous fantasy will be true in 10 years time? Again, none of this means that the reactions were smart - but the idea that there needs to be some reaction is not a priori stupid, and to try to characterize it as such weakens your argument (imho).
        mikeash 13y ago
        The basic scenario wasn't really outlandish. The general idea was featured in a bestselling novel about a decade prior, and an actual real-life terrorist hijacking (thwarted) that same year. And of course the concept of destroying valuable stuff by crashing airplanes into it on purpose dates back much farther. Yes, despite all that it was unexpected. However, I have no sympathy for your "what ridiculous fantasy will be true in 10 years time?" argument. It's a complete non sequitur. There was a failure of imagination before in which terrorists were more capable than we thought, therefore we're doing the same thing now? I would argue that currently the exact opposite is happening. 9/11 seems to be the peak of their capabilities. Now, while we're imagining apocalyptic scenarios in which terrorists destroy entire cities, their actual capabilities seem to be limited to badly-constructed IEDs. The point is that there was precedent for 9/11, even if people didn't realize it. There is no precedent for the sort of vastly worse attack you posit, nor is there any other reason to think that such a thing could be carried out in a way that makes it vastly worse than previous attacks. (The Aum Shinrikyo nerve gas attack does provide precedent for terrorist attacks involving chemical weapons, but it also demonstrates that such attacks aren't really all that severe. Again, they are worse because we react to them more strongly, and we react to them more strongly because they are worse.) I'm not saying that all reaction would be stupid, only that it should be proportional. A normal human body does react to a bee sting, but it does so appropriately, by eliminating the poison and handling foreign substances. Likewise, a sane reaction to 9/11 involving tracking down those responsible and bringing them to justice would have been wise. What's stupid is not any reaction, but a massive overreaction, and then justifying the overreaction by pointing to the massive damage done, when that damage was mostly done by the overreaction.
- mbesto 13y ago
  > I don't get how referencing a singular event often is actually an issue. Because it's irrational and doesn't represent the real probability of an event happening again. The argument is therefore that we are shaping policy (with ramifications on economics, privacy and politics) based on poor statistical analysis. I'd recommend reading Kahneman's Thinking, Fast and Slow if you're interested in understanding how irrational our minds are. http://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/0374533555 http://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/...
talmand 13y ago
One day you'll join the rest of us and stop doing math like that. Anyway, I still can't believe we're trade partners with Japan. I mean, after all, Pearl Harbor?
- sanderjd 13y ago
  I'm having trouble parsing your comment... I read your last sentence in one of two ways: 1) it is sarcastic and you are pointing out that we can move past terrible tragedies, in which case, that's the same point I was making, so I don't really understand the first sentence, or 2) you really can't believe we're trade partners with Japan because of Pearl Harbor, in which case we just actually disagree.
  - talmand 13y ago
    It's the first one. The first sentence is a reference to getting old.
chrismcb 13y ago
My problem with the 9/11 anecdote, is the Judge believes 9/11 could have been prevented if we had known someone's phone number. Although he didn't provide any evidence to suggest that knowing his phone number would have helped, or that we knew he would be involved. What is also interesting is, the claim that because we didn't know his phone number, we assumed he was overseas. I fail to see how knowing that he was in San Diego would have made a difference. Or why they automatically assumed he was overseas. Or even why he was a suspect, and if he WAS a suspect, why do nothing other than throw their hands up in the air and say "well he is overseas, oh well"

x0054 13y ago

A quote from Benjamin Franklin comes to mind: Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

codex 13y ago
In what way have my liberties been reduced? On the ground, nothing has changed. Now five organizations have my metadata instead of four.
- praxulus 13y ago
  I think the government is fundamentally different than a private company or semi-public utility. Their control of law enforcement and military forces are the most relevant here.
  - chris_mahan 13y ago
    Which is why the Bill of Rights in the Constitution is so important, because there is no way for the citizenry to force the government to act or not act. The armed forces and law enforcement swear to uphold the Constitution for that reason.
    - ballard 13y ago
      The last bit is the key point. There is zero accountability: it's asking the fox to guard the hen house. Mumbling words soon forgotten that can't be said with a straight face. In short: it's a real accountability gap by the people that preach ostensible "accountability" and "transparency." USG needs a 4th branch made of veterans, privacy and industry leaders (people that are both sharp and straight shooters) that have total access to surprise audit, defund and compel changes to any secret program. The only goal is to change behavior to "I probably shouldn't do [horrible thing] because [people more powerful than my CO/president] will find out." Even if it's just a phony whitehouse press release by the Yes Men.
  - ballard 13y ago

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

codex 13y ago

He who forgets history is doomed to repeat it.

Crito 13y ago
Some history cannot be repeated. That particular action failed to be repeated the fourth time it was attempted on 9/11/2001. The only people who need to do any "remembering" are passengers and pilots of airplanes.
- baffle 13y ago
  Let's roll. Preemptive is now the default.
PavlovsCat 13y ago
History is full of tyranny using alleged external threats as an excuse for power and money grabs. So, yeah.