Disclaimer

I hate it when you get Jinx all over your face.

Wouldn't that apply to any method we put into play? There will always be a work-around for security, and nothing will ever be 100% secure. Once we pin down a certain area, they will find a new one to breach.

Yep, but if we stop 50% of shoe bombers at the airport for $100M + 20mins/person, or we could do another method and stop 30% of shoe bombers at the airport for $100k + 5mins/person -- what's more effective?

Depends on your objectives I suppose. Is +20% and 15 mins more time worth a 100,000% cost increase? We are talking about multimillion dollar planes and lives here... and that's why we're having this debate.

I will be at the Kawasaki booth as a Kennedy's representative. I probably won't be working the Yamaha booth this year. I won’t be going to the after show party since I have to be back at the IX center at 9:00AM the next morning.

Lame.

Need any additional booth help?

Let's say we focus all our time and effort into detecting shoe bombs. We spend $100M on these great machines and training people to run them, and everyone is happy and feels safe.

Let's say terrorists focus on NOT shoes (programming nerds follow me). NOT shoes is a much greater scope than shoes. Terrorists decide to use an explosive tampon.

$100M well spent?

What is the benefit to a shoe scanner if it doesn't detect explosives that a metal detector wouldn't already detect? It's redundant and unnecessary -- it's a check that's already being done. The cost is time.

So if you have something that has ZERO benefit beyond existing methods, plus has a real cost -- then it's pretty obvious that it should be eliminated from the system.

As with everything else, you run into constraints. All you can do is optimize the system within those constraints. Optimize doesn't mean 100% effectivity either, it just means maximizing the benefit while minimizing the loss.

The only issue is what weight you put to the different tangible and intangible benefits and losses.

Ford figured out that a human life was worth about $300k (to them) when they designed the Pinto -- morals and ethics aside, an analysis can be conducted once you assign numbers to things you normally wouldn't think can be measured in 'real dollars'.

So, then you get to decide what the price of life is worth based on the cost of your security. Sad thing is, no matter what you decide -- the market ends up deciding for you.

Well, the first step is to benchmark -- find all the other airports in the world that have effective security, and see how they do things. Then you change, eliminate, add features that make sense. By that I mean, you gauge the effectiveness vs. cost (hard and opportunity) vs. legality -- then go from there.

Once there, you keep metrics to see if the system you've designed lives up to the expectations. You continually and randomly test the system where possible to measure it's effectiveness. You report the results and implement changes to the system to "close the loopholes" based on the test-cases you've tested with another analysis of effectiveness vs. cost (hard and opportunity) vs. legality.

It's really a step-by-step common sense approach. Like the scientific method. But so few people "get it" which is why systems analysts make the big bucks. The big issue that will still loom overhead is that you have a creative team of people trying to design a perfect system to protect against "all" scenarios, but "all" is constrained by cost and legality and against how many other "creative" people that are trying to outsmart the system. That's why I've always contended that "Where there's a will, there's a way". If some terrorist wants to get through the system, they'll be able to get through because "all" scenarios can't ever be accounted for. They are nearly infinite.

I dunno... what's my budget? I can only do so much with the means I'm given. You have to optimize the system within your financial constraints, because that's how everything works in modern society -- we all could have flying cars too if people were willing to pay for them.

You eliminate the time wasting redundancies and the ineffective portions. Ineffective security measures include poorly trained people. Ideally, the system would have near minimal human involvement. The fact that there are humans in the process make it inherently flawed.

how so? checking shoes doesnt seem unreasonable to me after what happened with richard reid

do you think people should not be checked at all at airport security? as in, remove the entire security checkpoint from air ports and let people fend for themselves, since its unconstitutional to check them for weapons?

I consider it unreasonable to think all this checking will make you secure. The shoe bomber got THROUGH security, so the search is unreasonable because it's ineffective. Like fusion pointed out... some items can only be detected by chemical means, so I don't understand the knee-jerk reaction to implement people remove their shoes. It's silly.

You cant come up with any logical reason for shoes to NOT be checked

4th Amendment?

Sounds like she's being ridden more than she's riding.

Good for her. HBD Chick!

People might be able to catch 3-finger Punk.

Wow. Well good luck with that.

I think you missed the point - I don't care what your stuff cost, that's what suited you. Great. But you're hanging out with the wrong crowd if all those people do is try to one-up each other, especially if it gets to the point where they feel they have to advertise it to everyone. They have a self-esteem problem. Do they drive around with the MSRP stickers on their whips too?

Though I did find the uppity pic you linked kind of funny in an ironic way - coming from a past Saab owner. Don't care what you paid, those are wannabe yuppiemobiles.

Didn't you drive a Saab? And had a Mustang for attention-whoring? Who the hell do you hang out with that brags about what their stuff costs?

Fuck the TSA and fuck any limp-wristed pussy that thinks they serve any real purpose.

I would've cleaned it up a little, but this. I O U Skippy.

All I see are giant gang bangs..

That's the only reason half the people show up.

I hope your diaphragm is measured in liters, for capacity-sake.

Holly...trust. You'll know.

s10 or ranger if you absolutely have no room for a small open trailer.

Just beware about overloading the tailgate if you go the s10 route... you're better off loading the bike with the tailgate off, then putting it back on after the bike is loaded. The sheetmetal and tailgate straps leave a little to be desired.

Ask me how I know.

Well, that's just not worth it. I'll have to troll some other forum with a lower tax rate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve

$60 is a lot of $1 steaks...

oh...i see the Father of Communism supported progressive taxation.

So obviously everyone that has a good idea that may be shared with Karl Marx was a communist. Interesting...

Don't tell this to Kristen! If you do she will kick in you in the Dick and tell you that she busted her ass through sever years of school, got three degrees and deserves every penny she makes.

Actually I will give you $20 if you tell her to her face that she deserves to pay more taxes than somebody else because she is more fortunate.

Is the $20 before or after taxes? She's not the only member of the three degrees club...

This boils down to another ideological difference, it's just that simple -- there's evidence to support both sides (yea, it's wiki, but it has cites)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_tax

I, as I stated, side with the majority of economists.

History of intellectual debate

The idea of a progressive tax has garnered support from macro economists and political scientists of many different ideologies - ranging from Adam Smith to Karl Marx, although there are differences of opinion about the optimal level of progressivity. Some economists[14] trace the origin of modern progressive taxation to Adam Smith, who wrote in The Wealth of Nations:

The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.

[15]

The French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789 agrees:

A common contribution is essential for the maintenance of the public forces and for the cost of administration. This should be equitably distributed among all the citizens in proportion to their means.

[16]

In most western European countries and the United States, advocates of progressive taxation tend to be found among the majority of economists and social scientists, many of whom believe that completely proportional taxation is not a possibility.[17][18] In the U.S., an overwhelming majority of economists (81%) support progressive taxation.[17][18]

So, while you can argue the "stealing" aspect, it's not really analogous to that when you consider the social, economic, and political ramifications of a flat tax.