Do we harass 10^6 people at a cost of $10^9 for one discovery of note,
one which would stop an air-bomb?
Isn't that the terrorist's victory condition? If so, they don't need
to blow anything up anymore; it's way more cost-effective for them to
just publicly fail periodically.
Carl
On 11/21/10 2:31 PM, Parks, Raymond wrote:
Are we not scientists, engineers, mathematician, or interested inthose
fields? What is the best measure of effectiveness here? How about
bombs caught per billion dollars? Or bombs caught per billion
passenger hours wasted? By either measure, TSA has a bIg fat zero. All
of the bombs caught have come from passenger intervention or
intelligence actions. With the exception of some early bomb plots
stopped after enhanced interrogation, the remaining intelligence
catches have been from walk-ins, my conclusion - train and arm
passengers and buy walk-ins.
Ray Parks
P.S. The same logic applies to clearance investigations and the Box.
*From*: Owen Densmore [mailto:o...@backspaces.net]
*Sent*: Sunday, November 21, 2010 02:16 PM
*To*: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
<friam@redfish.com>
*Subject*: Re: [FRIAM] More Light, Less Touchy-Feely
I'd love to know what the risk-benifit trade off is. Do we harass
10^6 people at a cost of $10^9 for one discovery of note, one which
would stop an air-bomb?
As I understand it, the best info is not scanners etc but community
members reporting suspicious behavior. Maybe we should ask help from
the Islamic community? I realize they feel victimized, but throw the
same $$ at that sort of program would likely create better results.
The last "event", the package bomb, was not meant to destroy the
aircraft was it? I think there were two packages sent to "enemy" land
addresses.
To tell the truth, I think I'm willing to risk it by tossing the
scanners etc, using sensible (and PC incorrect) social methods, and
hope the odds are not as bad as people think.
-- Owen
On Nov 21, 2010, at 1:57 PM, Russell Gonnering wrote:
Because we are unwilling to do the only sane thing and profile
behavior, we sacrifice our liberty on the altar of political
correctness. So, fellow FRIAMers, when they start doing rectal exams
to find the concealed explosives, what will our response be then?
What about the surgically implanted explosives?
The choice is not between unpleasant experiences and being blown up.
The choice is between acting like idiots or doing what actually is
necessary to prevent terror. So far, we have chosen the former. Is
it really worth it to spend billions of dollars and terrorize the
innocents to appear to be “fair” to everyone?
I put my money on the idiots, as they always seem to run things. El
Al should expand into the domestic US market.
Russ #3
Russell Gonnering, MD, MMM, FACS, CPHQ
rsgonneri...@mac.com <mailto:rsgonneri...@mac.com>
www.emergenthealth.net <http://www.emergenthealth.net/>
<PastedGraphic-3.tiff>
On Nov 21, 2010, at 2:33 PM, plissa...@comcast.net
<mailto:plissa...@comcast.net> wrote:
I have followed the correspondence on enhanced scanning with usual
mixture of shock and incredulity.Do people object because it’s
offensive or because it’s ineffective?It would be unpleasant but,
for me, unpleasanter to be blown up by a device that had avoided the
enhanced scanner.But I haven’t enough info to make any definitive
judgment.In particular on two matters.It seems that new bomb
compounds can be concealed by flesh masses in exotic parts of the
body without detection by the old scanners.I thought that the Xmas
underwear bomber had proved this. It seems that old folk,
handicapped people, children and infants are ideal subjects for
planted bombs, with no adverse fall-out for the Bad Hats if
detected. In this wicked world the innocent are always punished.
If correct this is pretty awful news.
The strategy is for a bomber to finesse that he’d be directed
through the old system, pass and end up undetected on his planned
flight.If an enhanced scan is required, then he should avoid this by
all means while offering to take the old, ineffectual scan, and
withdraw, undetected, unidentified and with his powder dry, to try
again another day.
In such circumstances he should behave like a gullible but superior
person (e.g. a Friamer) and behave with all the histrionics
necessary for the exasperated TSA to simply tell him to get lost.So
this dramatic response, that some objectors seem to have chosen, and
others to approve of, would make the objector highly suspect, and
rightly so.
Peter Lissaman, Da Vinci Ventures
Expertise is not knowing everything, but knowing what to look for.
1454 Miracerros Loop South, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505,USA
tel:(505)983-7728
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps athttp://www.friam.org
<http://www.friam.org/>
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
