Brad Ideas - Air Travel - Comments

"Much of what is done in the

LevelHeaded — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 09:26:57 -0800

"Much of what is done in the name of security doesn’t actually enhance it, it just gives the appearance of doing so, and the appearance of security is what the public actually craves." I couldn't agree more. I feel that the ProVision millimeter wave scanners that I'm now encountering at airports are a prime example of this.

I can't believe you came up

LevelHeaded — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 09:09:13 -0800

I can't believe you came up with this idea in 2004 and they still haven't implemented it. The last paragraph is spot on.

The problem for America is

Anonymous — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 00:32:41 -0800

The problem for America is that it causes thousands of dollars worth of damage with millions of dollars worth of bombs - then gives the terrorists millions of dollars of free advertising and influence every time they make idle threats to attack something like a sporting event.

Not saying don't sweat it

brad — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 12:59:17 -0800

The article in question is not saying “Terrorism kills few, so don’t worry about it.” It is saying that in deciding what we are going to spend our resources stopping (personal and governmental) we should examine the real risks and dangers and compare them to the cost of dealing with them.

In particular, we must try not to act out of fear, for that is just what the terrorists hoped for.

What this says is not that you should not take steps to prevent terror. However it does say that it is not rational to spend billions — and sacrifice civil rights — to prevent a small number of people dying from terrorism (or other crimes) when you could save far, far, far more people in other ways with that money (and without those losses of freedom.)

The point of that article is that our reaction to terrorism is out of proportion, way out, not that it should not exist at all. And, to cap it off, that this out of proportion response may be just what they want (even if only to impress their fellow terrorists.)

The agenda

brad — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 11:01:04 -0800

You’re right that it is not their agenda to scare people, but my point is that it is not their agenda to kill random people. They have their agenda (see the paper in the prior comment for some radical thoughts on that) and their methodology is terror. Their means to terror is, sometimes, random killing and violence. My point is that the terrorist doesn’t want to kill you, he wants to scare other people by killing you.

My point about the borders was to describe what we sometimes do. We don’t close Logan airport because the terrorists boarded there, of course, everybody agrees that would be crazy. But what the TSA does do is make everybody take their shoes off because one guy put a bomb in his shoe.

My point was that this creates a no-win situation in the common thinking on terrorism. The terrorists have done the shoe thing, they have no big need to do it again, nor is there any reports that they have. However, if they did do it again, the public would be very scared and critical of the security people.

Interesting paper

brad — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 10:54:40 -0800

Though I would debate a few of its points. I don’t believe terrorists are wild-eyed crazies, but I do believe they are often fanatics, willing to give up almost everything for some reason, be it the false hope of helping their cause or even impressing other terrorists as the paper suggests. However, at best this thesis applies only to the terrorist leaders, and not the suicide bomber footsoldiers who obviously are not hoping to gain better ties with other terrorists.

I agree terrorism is not chosen as a last resort, but rather would say it is chosen as the most extreme resort available to those who feel oppressed by democracies. Terrorists do not attack autocracies, there would be little point. Only when civilians are the government does it seem effective to target civilians.

But you clearly can’t substitute Rotary Club for a terrorist organization and keep them happy. Terrorism does not spring up where there is not some seed for it.

Different issue

Phillip Helbig — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 03:22:19 -0800

"This is spelled out fairly well in this blog post."

This addresses a different issue. Yes, it does make the valid
point that many, many more people in the US are killed by handguns,
in traffic accidents, by disease etc than by terrorists. This is
essentially the same argument many people used in England when
CJD was killing people: don't worry about it, more people die in
other ways.

Of course, the US is a special case, with ten times 9/11 killed
every year due to the right to keep and bear arms (upheld by, among
others such as born-again Christians, the libertarians). However,
this is basically true. The point is, it is irrelevant. It's like
saying why worry about getting polio if more people die of cancer?
The correct answer is that one should try to avoid ALL dangers.
Of course, the effort must be in proportion to the gain, but in some
cases increased security in the US (like requiring ID) is something
which is a NON-ISSUE in many countries. Getting uptight about that
is just not believable, unless there is a hidden agenda.

Another issue is that people who smoke are aware of the risks and it is
their own fault if they get lung cancer. Most people killed in traffic
accidents acted irresponsibly, whether or not the accident was legally
their fault. Even the innocent people who die realise they are taking
a risk, and feel that it is worth it. With a terrorist attack, the people
endangered have no say in the matter; it's not a voluntary risk. That's
the huge difference. Especially if the risk can be reduced by something
as simple as a THz scanner. Anyone who has a problem with a monochrome
silhouette being seen by an airport security guard does not have the right
to decrease my security by saying he is embarrassed.

Consider the following: Each year, a government selects one person at random
from the population, who is publicly drawn and quartered. Perhaps some revenue
can be generated by selling tickets. Most people would say that this is morally
wrong and should be prevented. The libertarian crowd might say "don't sweat it,
your chance of being selected are much less than the chance of being struck by
lightning". In other words, the argument "other stuff is more dangerous" just
doesn't cut it.

"Terrorists are not out to

Phillip Helbig — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 02:58:27 -0800

"Terrorists are not out to kill random people they don’t know."

This is simply not true. How many people in the WTC did the terrorists know?

In some cases, particular people are targeted. In other cases, there is collateral
damage. In other cases, the targets ARE random. Depending on the situation, any or
all of these strategies are adopted.

I also take issue with the claim that the primary goal of terrorists is to scare people.
Yes, in a sense, but if we react because we are scared, and thereby increase our safety,
you can be sure that the terrorist doesn't think "even though I can't kill them, I've achieved my
goal, because they are scared".

The goal of terrorists is to force people into doing something they otherwise would not
do that is important for the terrorists. The terrorists are not interested in scaring people
per se; it is a means to an end. For example, much islamic terrorism is directed against the
military and other presence of non-islamic countries in islamic countries. Whether one thinks
this is OK, or whether this takes place with the consent of the governments in question, is
beside the point. Bin Laden wants the US out of Saudi Arabia. His goal is that, no more and
no less. Everything else is a means to an end.

In Spain, Al Kaida attacked shortly before an election in which the Spanish presence in Afghanistan
was an issue. The result of the election was that those who were in favour of withdrawal won. This
is what the terrorists want to achieve, and perhaps in this case they did achieve it. (It is unclear
whether Zapatero would have won the election anyway, since there were other issues. However, it
is interesting that the ruling conservative party was very quick in declaring this attack to have
come from Eta, even though, after decades of experience with Eta, it was clear that this was not
the case. The conservative party had a perhaps somewhat harder line against Eta, and an Eta attack
before the election would have helped them.) As this example shows, terrorists attacks are targeted
where and when the terrorists hope to be able to pressure people into doing their will.

The only good strategy is to never give in, since this will encourage further acts of terrorism. (At
the same time, one must not oppose something just because some terrorist, somewhere, is in favour of it.)

Yes, some politicians who want control of the population for dubious reasons might use terrorism as
an excuse. However, you have to admit that the libertarian crowd is similarly prejudiced: whatever
the issue, if there is a choice between freedom and security, they choose freeom. This now routinely
extends to acts which are universally recognised as criminal, such as copyright violation. The baby
is thrown out with the bathwater just as often by the libertarians as by the supporters of the Patriot
Act.

The analogy with the border crossings is not a good one. The reaction is not to close one crossing, but
to beef up the security at ALL crossings.

What terrorists really want

Ping — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 23:30:14 -0800

Have you read this?

http://maxabrahms.com/pdfs/DC_250-1846.pdf

Key point: "terrorists are rational people who use terrorism primarily to develop strong affective ties with fellow terrorists".

I'm skeptical that their real motivation is to sow "terror in the hope of attaining political goals". The social and status motives described by Abrahms ring truer and make more sense to me.

If he is right, the solution is to let people have better and more profitable things to do, so that joining a terrorist group becomes uninteresting.

Mexitel cellular

Anonymous — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 09:23:24 -0800

E-bay shipping was quoted at $55.00 for Mayan cell phone. Not cheap.

To avoid the town

brad — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 13:06:11 -0800

I understand the traffic is being kept out of the town. I just noticed many cases where the road would be in a tunnel where in other places it would be put along the side of a mountain, or done elevated. The tunnel obviously puts less blight than the visible road, but is hugely more expensive. The tunnel does not have to be plowed, which is a win, though I have to imagine a covered road is cheaper than a tunnel when it comes to that. There are also a lot of semi-tunnels which are open on one side which clearly exist to avoid having to close the roads for avalanches and snowdrifts. A must in some sections of the alps, but again quite costly. (This from living in a city that for decades has been unable to get a tunnel approved over a small stretch of highway 1 that is often closed due to mudslides and rockfalls, and which is quite slow in any event.

tunnels, costs

Phillip Helbig — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 09:01:41 -0800

"The huge network of tunnels in the alpine countries continues to amaze me, considering the staggering cost. Sadly, some seem to simply bypass towns that are pretty."

The whole idea of a tunnel is to avoid cars driving through the middle of town! The town isn't there as a tourist attraction! (Reminds me of the old joke about an American in Europe: "Nice castle, but why did you build it so close to the airport?")

As to money, well, it's no secret where Switzerland gets a lot of its money from.

Some are, some are not

brad — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 00:30:06 -0800

But in many cases there was nowhere to put the Autobahn except in a tunnel, even though the drive was scenic.

I did note a number of places where they had surrounded the highway with plexiglass plates, to let the drivers see the view — or perhaps to not block the view of the homeowners in some cases.

The huge network of tunnels

Fred — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 21:03:58 -0800

The huge network of tunnels in the alpine countries continues to amaze me, considering the staggering cost. Sadly, some seem to simply bypass towns that are pretty.

Why do you think the towns are still pretty?

All that tech?

brad — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 21:00:23 -0800

It’s just a standard web desktop, and perhaps a travel agent’s database of hotels and a bit of ground knowledge. No fancy tech. I have all that tech. I do all this stuff from my laptop next to an internet cafe, but a person with a fast connection and big screen can do it much faster. Add a few tools (to merge together the review sites and the price queries) and you could do it in a few minutes for me.

Now a network of agents, with each caller sent to the right agent (one who knows the area and speaks the language) would be some more advanced tech. The hard part though, would be figuring out how to express each customer’s “desire profile” in a way that is compact and can be understood by the agent in a minute of reading. I have a feeling that to make me happy, an agent would need to learn my tastes over time.

My tastes also vary. I tend to want good value in my purchases and may spend $200 for a $500 hotel rather than take a $80 hotel for $80. But that sort of taste is hard to judge. And you have to know what is truly a bargain and what is an ad.