somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> "Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
> news:4b507277$1@news.povray.org...

> > Interesting perspective: Road traffic accidents kill ten people PER DAY
> > in the UK, apparently. And yet I don't see anybody freaking out and
> > saying we need tougher controls on the roads...

> How many people die daily from "old age"? If anything, we should be freaking
> over *that*.

  There's a difference. Daying of old age is a natural cause.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>> How many people die daily from "old age"? If anything, we should be 
>> freaking
>> over *that*.
>
>  There's a difference. Daying of old age is a natural cause.

Unless the weather is a tiny bit hot or cold, then suddenly the media 
attribute all those deaths to the weather ... "Freezing conditions kill 5000 
people!"  "Heat wave kills thousands!"

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:

>   There's a difference. Daying of old age is a natural cause.

One could tenuously argue that dying of ebola is "natural causes"...

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:

> How many people die daily from "old age"? If anything, we should be freaking
> over *that*.

Ah, life. The ultimate sexually-transmitted disease...

Post a reply to this message

gregjohn wrote:
> I'm wondering what security measures would be in place after a century of
> dealing with the bad guys pushing of the envelope.  Yes, do we use knockout gas
> and transport people nude in plasteel bubbles, do we give up on the whole thing,
> do we use Trek-style transporters?   For example, do we just have a spigot on
> the back of the seat for drinking water, and ban all fluids of any size?

The same measures that took place after years of people robbing and
killing other people on horse back, and in coaches, and then trains, and
in cars, and buses, and now planes. We will move onto the next, faster
method of travel and forget that once someone who has a lot of time
wants to take your stuff or make you dead, there isn't a whole lot you
can do to stop them.

Post a reply to this message

gregjohn wrote:
> Any ideas on how to design a truly secure airport? 

The same way you design a truly secure computer network. You allow no
outside connections, all people with access have undergone appropriate
background checks, have sufficiently complex barriers to access, and are
paid or monitored enough to make sure they do not compromise the system.

Realistically, you don't allow your security guards to get the opinion
that they are demi-gods protecting everyone walking by them. If you do,
you get either the megalomanics who harass anyone who doesn't match
their individual prejudices, or you get the protective people who will
let the young lady with a cane and a limp walk through without checking
their bags for toothpaste.

On the other hand, decentralization is another option that might work. I
have had more thorough checks at a small airport with 5 security people
and maybe 3 flights an hour, than at major airports.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> I'm wondering why they don't put humans through the X-ray machine. 

I noticed they don't x-ray babies. And if you're willing for your kids to 
die, why not?


Whaaaa! Whaaaaa!  Whaaaaa!  BAMF!

> Oh, wait. We already have several. Ultrasound, NMR, PET and so on. So 
> I'm guessing it's just too expensive or impractical. 

We have a really easy one, based on visible photons. It's called "take your 
clothes off."  Somehow, people don't want that one tho. People would 
actually rather die in flight than strip naked before a stranger.

> Interesting perspective: Road traffic accidents kill ten people PER DAY 
> in the UK, apparently. And yet I don't see anybody freaking out and 
> saying we need tougher controls on the roads...

You know what I've noticed? Nobody panics when things go "according to 
plan." Even if the plan is horrifying! If, tomorrow, I tell the press that, 
like, a gang banger will get shot, or a truckload of soldiers will be blown 
up, nobody panics, because it's all "part of the plan." But when I say that 
one little old mayor will die, well then everyone loses their minds!

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
   I get "focus follows gaze"?

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   There's a difference. Daying of old age is a natural cause.

So is dying of earthquakes and tsunamis, but we freak over that. :-)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
   I get "focus follows gaze"?

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> >   There's a difference. Daying of old age is a natural cause.

> So is dying of earthquakes and tsunamis, but we freak over that. :-)

  But there's nothing we can do to prevent earthquakes, tsunamis and
growing old, but we can ostensibly do something about traffic accidents.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> growing old,

Actually, we're fully aware of what needs to be done to prevent growing old. 
There's even a TED talk that describes the 8 (or 10 or 12, I don't remember) 
things that need to be fixed to prevent growing old, and how to prevent them.

My primary regret is that by the time such things become affordable for 
*me*, I'll likely be dead.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
   I get "focus follows gaze"?

Post a reply to this message