Well actually we know the TSA methods don't work because both of the incidents were from European airports that mirror what the TSA does. Added to the number of weapons that make it through TSA checkpoints, it's easy to see that the TSA does in fact not work to the extent that it is expected to.
All we know is that increased security screening is not perfect. Perhaps you can extrapolate the European experience (in this case) to the TSA... but that's as far as you can go.
I understood your rather simplistic attempt at game theory just fine. The problem remains that one side is not a rational actor. The command portion of terrorists have virtually nothing to lose with a botched attempt, and neither does the fanatic patsy. A 50/50 ratio isn't good enough for our security because the downside for both command and patsy are much smaller than the upside (from their perspective). The chances of failure need to be much higher in order to effectively deter terrorists.
Do you always start with the insulting tone (see bolding) when the debate isn't going your way? I would argue that both sides are rational actors, though both sides may also employ non-rational players. The higher echelons of terrorist organizations have shown themselves to very worried about being captured by the fact that they are so hard to catch. If they didn't care, they wouldn't be going to a great deal of trouble to avoid it. Therefore, to my mind, they are rational actors. That 50/50 number is one that I threw into the argument as an "for argument's sake". Please don't rely on it for anything factual. The TSA in fact catches more than 50% of their training/testing planted weapons. And yes, I think even if the the number was as low as 50/50 a rational actor would do everything... oh heck... I've already written all that - you've not presented anything else of substance in it's place, so I'll just save my typing finger....
Sacrificing these things is appropriate when there is a tangible gain. There hasn't been much of a tangible gain with TSA, and this is coming from the head of Israeli Security. We're paying a lot and getting almost nothing in return. Every year there's a new "standard" put out there to make it seem like TSA is doing something, but time and again security experts have lambasted TSA and its efforts as a dog and pony show.
Your own opinion of flying should be an example of how ridiculous things have gotten. If people now become disgruntled and irritated every time they fly, for perhaps marginal gains in security, then our methods have failed.
That's the funny thing. I've never actually said that the TSA is the best thing around. All I've said is that the TSA is doing something. That's all - that the TSA is doing something right. Not everything. Just something. Go back and look it up. Even the head of the Israeli security never said they were useless (as in doing nothing right). Just that it wasn't the best use of resources. Oh, and if you know Israelis (and I do), then you'll also know that there is another Israeli who knows just as much as that first fellow, and she thinks the TSA is doing things just fine.
It is difficult to prove, but you can make an educated guess about what the cause is. Other than the correlational evidence, there is no other good data to suggest that TSA has actually been effective. In no field is correlation enough to establish anything but correlation.
That's the problem with 90% of the decisions Governments make. All they have is correlational connections. Or incomplete causal relationships. Or... basically the best they can do is make an educated guess, and hope for the best.
No, that's not how it works. If you want to assert your idea as correct, the burden is on you to show that it is correct. I am going to try to poke holes in your reasoning, and it's up to you to show that my criticisms are invalid on the bases of logic and evidence.
No, on two counts. 1) You asserted "Our attempts at security are at best as good as Lisa's rock...". I countered your assertion by saying that the TSA must be doing something right, and used the stats on hijackings. I (to paraphrase you) "poked hole in your reasoning". You've presented nothing that counters my evidence, except to try mocking it as simplistic. If it is, then show how it is.... If my argument doesn't convince you. Then say so, and then leave it at that. I have my opinion, you have yours. But if you want me to change my opinion you had better do better. 2) I've forgotten - cr*p.
So far you've only cited correlation, which is not sufficient evidence for causation. You ignored my criticism based on military intervention, changing travel patterns, etc, and only want to trumpet your belief that correlation is enough. It's not. If you don't want to do more on Mac Rumors, then don't post anymore on this topic concerning this line of discussion.
You are right correlations don't show causation. But they are evidence for it. If you have evidence that shows otherwise, present it.
Beautiful Women Anne Hathaway
anne hathaway photo shoot 2011. Anne Hathaway Hot Wallpapers2; Anne Hathaway Hot Wallpapers2. Evangelion. Jul 12, 02:22 AM. Oh really.
anne hathaway photoshoot
Anne Hathaway Talks Vogue
Published February 27, 2011 at
Beautiful Women Anne Hathaway
All we know is that increased security screening is not perfect. Perhaps you can extrapolate the European experience (in this case) to the TSA... but that's as far as you can go.
I understood your rather simplistic attempt at game theory just fine. The problem remains that one side is not a rational actor. The command portion of terrorists have virtually nothing to lose with a botched attempt, and neither does the fanatic patsy. A 50/50 ratio isn't good enough for our security because the downside for both command and patsy are much smaller than the upside (from their perspective). The chances of failure need to be much higher in order to effectively deter terrorists.
Do you always start with the insulting tone (see bolding) when the debate isn't going your way? I would argue that both sides are rational actors, though both sides may also employ non-rational players. The higher echelons of terrorist organizations have shown themselves to very worried about being captured by the fact that they are so hard to catch. If they didn't care, they wouldn't be going to a great deal of trouble to avoid it. Therefore, to my mind, they are rational actors. That 50/50 number is one that I threw into the argument as an "for argument's sake". Please don't rely on it for anything factual. The TSA in fact catches more than 50% of their training/testing planted weapons. And yes, I think even if the the number was as low as 50/50 a rational actor would do everything... oh heck... I've already written all that - you've not presented anything else of substance in it's place, so I'll just save my typing finger....
Sacrificing these things is appropriate when there is a tangible gain. There hasn't been much of a tangible gain with TSA, and this is coming from the head of Israeli Security. We're paying a lot and getting almost nothing in return. Every year there's a new "standard" put out there to make it seem like TSA is doing something, but time and again security experts have lambasted TSA and its efforts as a dog and pony show.
Your own opinion of flying should be an example of how ridiculous things have gotten. If people now become disgruntled and irritated every time they fly, for perhaps marginal gains in security, then our methods have failed.
That's the funny thing. I've never actually said that the TSA is the best thing around. All I've said is that the TSA is doing something. That's all - that the TSA is doing something right. Not everything. Just something. Go back and look it up. Even the head of the Israeli security never said they were useless (as in doing nothing right). Just that it wasn't the best use of resources. Oh, and if you know Israelis (and I do), then you'll also know that there is another Israeli who knows just as much as that first fellow, and she thinks the TSA is doing things just fine.
It is difficult to prove, but you can make an educated guess about what the cause is. Other than the correlational evidence, there is no other good data to suggest that TSA has actually been effective. In no field is correlation enough to establish anything but correlation.
That's the problem with 90% of the decisions Governments make. All they have is correlational connections. Or incomplete causal relationships. Or... basically the best they can do is make an educated guess, and hope for the best.
No, that's not how it works. If you want to assert your idea as correct, the burden is on you to show that it is correct. I am going to try to poke holes in your reasoning, and it's up to you to show that my criticisms are invalid on the bases of logic and evidence.
No, on two counts. 1) You asserted "Our attempts at security are at best as good as Lisa's rock...". I countered your assertion by saying that the TSA must be doing something right, and used the stats on hijackings. I (to paraphrase you) "poked hole in your reasoning". You've presented nothing that counters my evidence, except to try mocking it as simplistic. If it is, then show how it is.... If my argument doesn't convince you. Then say so, and then leave it at that. I have my opinion, you have yours. But if you want me to change my opinion you had better do better. 2) I've forgotten - cr*p.
So far you've only cited correlation, which is not sufficient evidence for causation. You ignored my criticism based on military intervention, changing travel patterns, etc, and only want to trumpet your belief that correlation is enough. It's not. If you don't want to do more on Mac Rumors, then don't post anymore on this topic concerning this line of discussion.
You are right correlations don't show causation. But they are evidence for it. If you have evidence that shows otherwise, present it.
