391 karma · joined December 12, 2008
* having tax-subsidized government entities competing with private business doesn't exactly lead to a vibrant competitive marketplace
* I'd rather not have any facet of government in an easy position to monitor my internet traffic.Thus, securing the cockpit gets you more bang for the buck by removing a whole avenue of attack, with relatively low cost (the lock and the gun). While I agree that firing a gun in a pressurized cabin isn't the best idea, having it there makes it very likely that the pilots would have an advantage over any potential hijacker, since keeping other guns off the plane is relatively easy, and doesn't require overly invasive searching.
Medicaid: $290 billion HUD Programs: $47.5 billion Unemployment: $106 billion Any part of the giant 'Other mandatory' block (~$600 billion) which makes up Food Stamps, WIC, Welfare, etc.
Your pejorative reading of "complicated" is far out of proportion to the original comment. Like it or not, gender differences extend beyond just having different sex organs. Men and women differ in lots of ways, including in typical emotional response. It's entirely reasonable to point out that women may respond differently to visual depictions of nudity in the same way that it's reasonable to point out that they tend to be less hairy.
Do you have a solid resume? Do you know your stuff backwards and forwards? Are you willing to relocate pretty much anywhere for the right job? If so, pick the companies you'd _most_ like to work for (even if you think you'd never get hired there), and apply directly. If the company has a job listing on their website that matches well with your skill set, then all the better ( ex. http://www.google.com/intl/en/jobs/uslocations/new-york/swe/... )
If you're just starting out, or have a weak/varied work history, then your goal should be to end up somewhere where you can grow your skills, or where you can work your way into managing some larger projects. Even if the pay isn't great, or the commute sucks, a job can be worth if it fills some otherwise lacking spot in your resume.
Also, try to think outside the box. Do you have other bits of expertise in your background that might make you particularly attractive to a particular niche industry? i.e., if you know a bit about cars, then try to find a company that does something related to cars, and see if they have an internal development team. Often, domain-specific knowledge can make all the difference.
I've never really understood why people get worked up over landfills. Digging a giant hole and filling it with trash is a perfectly rational solution. It isn't as if we're importing mass from space and converting it to trash...we're digging up stuff from the ground, using it for awhile, and then putting it back in a slightly different form. If we ever find a use for the styrofoam in landfills, we can mine it back out again.
McKusick's 'Kernel Internals' class is based on this, and is well worth your time (though it's a bit pricey to purchase the videos on your own: https://www.mckusick.com/courses/advorderform.html)
Imagine the cost of a Big Mac in a hypothetical world in which fast-food workers are paid 10x as much.
The poster has correctly identified the value proposition that causes companies to locate their manufacturing facilities elsewhere, and points out (also correctly) that making our tax codes as unfriendly to business as our labor laws will only encourage _those_ bits of the business to relocate as well.
You cannot have all of:
* high wages for manufacturing workers
* cheap products for consumers
* high taxes on business
* large profits that make it attractive to operate a company.
You would probably respond by saying that you'd prefer higher priced products and low-profit corporations, to which I'd reply that: * cheap products for consumers = higher standard of living.
* higher profit potential = more business growth.That being said, I'm also not sure I buy the 'terrorists hate freedom, so they want more big-brother security' theory. That seems much more likely to be a combination of a frightened populace and opportunistic government.
If they had 18 people willing to act as suicide bombers, why not cruise ships or trains, where security is much lighter?
The UK liquid terror plot resulted in 25 arrests: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_transatlantic_aircraft_plo... It was complex, required coordination, and failed utterly, resulting in 0 casualties.
In contrast, the Lod airport massacre ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lod_Airport_massacre ) was only 3 guys. It was a pretty simple plan, which would have been hard to foil completely, and resulted in 26 dead and 80 wounded.
There are backwoods meth labs that display at least as much coordination as would be required for the type of attack I'm describing.
You're asserting that no terrorist organization has the resources to coordinate a group of 10 people to act in concert.
The alleged U.K. 'liquid explosives' plot resulted in 25 arrests: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_transatlantic_aircraft_plo...
My core question is: why would terrorists choose such a complicated, risky, hard to execute method of terror when easier avenues are available?
* pay well enough that the coyotes would forget their principles
* provision their agents well enough to cross on their own.
Or, leave Mexico aside. Why not Canada? Why not Cuba? via boat from Haiti, landing in some god-forsaken part of Louisiana? I can't accept the proposition that getting into the country presents any serious difficulty for someone with means and motive.Or why not Canada? Hundreds of miles of rural, unguarded border.
I'll counter by saying that if no terror group exists that is capable of obtaining:
* 10 people willing to kill for their beliefs
* 10 hand grenades
* 10 cell phones
Then we have been vastly oversold on the dangers presented by terrorism.Forget the hand grenades. Just 10 suicidal guys with semi-automatic rifles. This seems stupidly simple to pull off and impossible to defend against.
Schneier asserts that "It's hard to sneak terrorists into the U.S.", which is hard to swallow given the essentially unchecked flow of immigrants coming across the Mexican border every day. Why would a terrorist fly into a major US airport, when he could just as easily fly into Mexico and then walk across the border (carrying as much cargo as he liked). Think of the vast drug shipments that cross this border, and then tell me that sneaking across a small suitcase of biological agents would be difficult.
I also disagree that "small attacks aren't enough". If you and 9 of your friends coordinate to roll grenades into 10 elementary schools in 10 different cities, I can assure you that you'd make headlines, and bring daily life to a standstill as parents refused to send their children to school.
It's also increasingly bizarre to me that terrorists would target airports or airplanes at all. Airports are the one place where security is most concentrated. Practically speaking, blowing up a plane is probably the most difficult option you could choose if you wanted to kill 300 people. Why not pick one of the other myriad unguarded 'soft' targets where people gather?
Either terrorists are incredibly stupid, vanishingly small in number, or both.