Wednesday, November 27, 2002

Sic(k) Transit Steve


Ooooo, Latin.

Relax folks, it's about all the Latin I know. Or think I know. The only reason I "know" it is thanks to one J. Michael Straczynski, creator and main writing workhorse behind the excellent Sci-Fi TV series Babylon 5. If you have never seen the show, I highly recommend renting (or buying) the DVDs, as the show is the progenitor of the multi-year story arc concept. Straczynski makes great use of foreshadowing (and perception of foreshadowing due to the viewer’s relativity to the events) to string together 110+ episodes and five made-for-TV movies into a coherent mega-story.

On to my main point - I am sick. Not run-over-by-a-truck-The Exorcist kind of sick, just sick: Sore throat, fever, aches, and a stuffiness of the head that feel like someone has pressurized my sinus cavities. And so, blogging suffers - I am neither clear of head nor bright of eye enough to provide opinion or commentary on anything more weighty than the paragraph above. I am on the mend; however, and will have some interesting things coming up, including my thoughts on Carol Hallett’s warning that the U.S. government may need to nationalize the airlines if security costs are not in some way brought under control.

In the mean time, an early Happy Thanksgiving!

Steve

Monday, November 25, 2002

The Twilight of Privacy


I guess it depends on which side of the fence you’re on...

A long time ago, I wrote an e-mail to a local radio talk show host, discussing issues of privacy in electronic communication, and the necessity for people to become used to using Public Key Encryption in their daily e-mail correspondence. I wrote several paragraphs on what the government had on the horizon as far as wiretap and e-mail interception technologies, and how programs like PGP could be used to continue to ensure our Constitutional freedoms. The year was 1996, and Carnivore was a distant dream. The USA Patriot Act and Homeland Security Act hadn’t even become nightmare material. He wrote back a lengthy message that went like this:
Why?

It’s this simple: Before technology started to evolve at such a rapid pace, the police department’s ability to monitor wiretaps and intercept communications was greatly hampered by a single factor: Manpower. You needed huge amounts of it to subject even one individual to electronic and visual surveillance. This required the police to perform good police work and technique before deciding to monitor someone, because they did not have the manpower necessary to follow every lead in any particular case, let alone all of them. Through the use of good investigative technique, they were largely able to reduce the number of people to be monitored down to a more palatable level, and not coincidentally, these subjects were more likely to be the ones of high interest. All of this time and effort meant that the average citizen could reasonably expect for a phone call or his mail to go untouched. Now, with technology so prevalent, the police don’t need manpower to monitor people - they have computers to do so. Computers can even focus police on individuals that meet certain parameters that are established as indicative of criminal, or at least, suspicious behavior.

By now you are asking where and how PGP comes in.

Using a program like PGP to encrypt a significant portion of e-mail traffic would force police to limit their subject of study once again. Each message, having it’s own unique encryption key, would have to be the subject of large amounts of computer time (a limited resource) to crack the message to see it’s contents. This would drive police to go back to those same good investigative techniques to choose who’s e-mail to monitor, as their resources would once again be limited.

"We're not ordinary people; We're Morons!"


In an item that will probably evolve into a regular feature here at Tough Times, we bring you the latest effort by the RIAA to win the hearts an minds of America in their quest to stomp out file sharing of music with a hob-nailed jackboot:
Officials at the U.S. Naval Academy have seized the computers of nearly 100 students in a search for bootlegged music and movies, an Academy official confirmed Monday.
Cadets could face court martial or expulsion if investigators find digital songs or other copyrighted material on their hard drives.
Naval Academy administrators seized the desktop computers last Thursday while students were in class, newspapers in Baltimore and Annapolis, Maryland, reported.
An academy spokeswoman confirmed that the reports were accurate but declined further comment.
Record labels and movie studios worry that the wild popularity of programs like Kazaa and Morpheus that allow users to download songs and other material from the Internet for free is cutting into their sales.
Entertainment groups sent a letter to thousands of colleges and universities last month asking them to crack down on the use of such programs on their internal high-speed networks.

Realizing that they have truly stepped in a Kong-sized pile of fecal matter, the RIAA is backpedaling hastily:
"We appreciate institutions who take intellectual property theft seriously," said a spokesman for the Recording Industry Association of America. "However, we do not dictate what their enforcement policies should be, and, in this particular instance, we do not know the facts of the case."

Tough Times translation: "This is exactly what we wanted to happen, just not where we wanted it to happen, because now we look really bad (or even worse)." Tough Times says that the RIAA needs to grow a pair of stones and stand behind this effort - if it represents illegal activity in on the part of the middies, then they need to reaffirm the RIAA’s strong belief that violators should be disciplined under the honor code and then prosecuted. Sometime when you shovel crapdoodle into the rotary airflow induction unit, sometimes you get splattered with the blow-back. To use another statement you’ll see here often: The RIAA made their bed, and they should be made to lie in it.

Friday, November 22, 2002

A Momentary Lapse of Reason?


I’m trying to figure this one out, and maybe you can help. Charles at Little Green Footballs, in this post, links and comments on this post by James Capozzola, operator of "The Rittenhouse Review," a weblog who’s mission statement is, well, there is none. Nor any "About" link. Simply the sentence that the Rittenhouse Review is "A journal of foreign policy, finance, ethics, and culture." Which I guess is description enough - certainly Tough Times has not yet undertaken the task to, other than in my first post, describe really what I intend for this weblog to be about either. Of course, I’ve only been live for about a week, so I have to say it’s still under construction. The TRR site itself is very well written, professionally laid out, organized, and tasteful to the eye, something I hope this site to look like once I get better at HTML.

Where am I going with this, you ask? It’s not even the content that worries me about this weblog. As a Libertarian, I’m pretty much used to reading disagreement with one or more of my opinions from almost every politically oriented weblog I ever visit. So it’s not Mr. Capozzola’s opinions I worry about, it’s his decision to remove not only any link to Little Green Footballs, but also any link to any other site that refers to it as well. The reason given is:
"the hosts of LGF, while preciously coy about their own political persuasions, all too willingly and not without satisfaction have allowed their site to become a vile cesspool of racism, bigotry, prejudice, ignorance, and hate."

Mr. Capozzola is entitled to his opinion, but it seems to me that this statement that LGF has "...all too willingly and not without satisfaction..." allowed the site to become a septic tank of ignorance, hatred, bigotry, prejudice, and racism," is is ill-advised (or worse). Mr. Capozzola offers no evidence whatsoever that LGF is any of these things. No quotes from objectionable articles, no links to outrageous posts of LGF’s commentators, nothing. I raise this objection for two reasons: 1) I have never seen anything posted by Charles at LGF(in the time I’ve been reading it) that resembles any of these things (except for maybe the first two, and I’d want to see an argument before I even conceded that), and 2) While I have seen, in the commentary sections, some examples of the first four, I have not seen anything blatantly racist that has survived editing, or being shouted down by the general populace. Given his statements about LGF, I find it highly ironic that Mr. Capozzola’s very next post is about the "slandering" of Democrats:
One of the most widespread criticisms of Rep. Harold Ford Jr. (D-Tenn.) is that he is talking about bold new ideas without offering any. But, on two of the most pressing issues of the day, Iraq and the tax cut, he has put forward views that will take the Democrats further than anything Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has offered. Ford voted for the use-of-force resolution but, in explaining that decision last week, said something simple and profound: ‘September eleventh changed things for me.’ In other words, he recognized -- as few other Democrats seemed to -- that catastrophic terrorism requires a rethinking of how Democrats approach foreign policy.

Can anyone tell me how this would be slanderous and Mr. Capozzola’s piece would not? I see no evidence presented that Charles willingly or with satisfaction "allowed" his site to turn into this yet-to-be-demonstrated pit of evil and malice. Although Democrats are "slandered" when someone offers the opinion that "few other Democrats" failed to realize something that the write believes they should have.
The other thing that bothers me is this comment:
Worse, the site’s unwillingness to tolerate comments that deviate from the house line and its active and aggressive deletion of comments from readers that it deems objectionable -- and the "bright line" test involved is almost totalitarian in nature and scope -- is nothing less than a disgrace. (I know because I have tested it several times.)

I fail to see how the assertion that Charles may as a matter of course remove posts that he objects to (something that fails the logic test when one looks at the Anil Dash saga) would be disgraceful, while Mr. Capozzola’s stated policy of deciding what gets commented upon (See the Letters Policy) is somehow not. TRR's letters policy (and the lack of a Comments section) in my mind is far worse that what Charles does - not only does Mr. Capozzola choose who he gets to argue with, he gets to do it at his leisure, something the comments section, by the nature of it’s size and immediacy, assures that Charles simply cannot do - the logistics of reading all the posts in one day’s commentary at LGF boggles the mind. Once again, Mr. Capozzola offers no proof of any of these doings beyond a testament of witness ("Honest, it happened to me, it really did!"). As opposed to say, Rachel Lucas’s fine Fisking of Michael Moore.

Now to the part where I need your help. Can anyone explain the logic behind this to me? What am I missing here? I’ll post the e-mails I receive (I certainly don’t expect many - site visits still haven’t hit more than 200, total), sans whatever information you wish for me to withhold, along with my further thoughts.

No Posts Until Later Today


Sorry folks, it's a one-armed wallpaper-hanger of a day at work. So I probably will not have time to post until later this afternoon, or early evening.

Thursday, November 21, 2002

In the "One Small Step" Category...


From AvWeb (Scroll down to "Plunge From Plane A Mystery"):
Authorities have found the body of a Texas man who is thought to have jumped from a Cessna 152 last Sunday. Authorities say Russell Filler wasn't wearing a parachute when he exited the plane from 9,000 feet near Waller, Texas, leaving a startled flight instructor, Benito Munoz, alone in the cockpit. (Emphasis Added)

Tough Times observes that Mr. Filler was still not wearing a parchute when a high velocity ground/body interface ended his excursion approximately 9000 feet into his first, and final, attempt at unpowered flight.

Alabama Airport Follies


Tough Times wonders if Roscoe P. Coltrane will ever manage to catch Bo & Luke. Whatever happens, let's not put the FBI on the case.

Tough Times Presents: You Make The Call!


Rachel Lucas says:
Tom Daschle is a scary little man. And I'm not even talking about his politics, which are indeed scary, but about his facial expressions. He reminds me of The Joker from Batman or something. Anyway, that's not the point.

But is it the point? Tough Times says: You Make The Call!

Joker 1 | Joker 2


Thanks for the link, Rachel, and welcome to anyone who has linked over from Piquant & Sassy.

Wednesday, November 20, 2002

New Meaning to Term "Shoot Par"


The Agitator says Smith and Wesson is going to make and sell golf clubs.
Fire! I mean; Fore!

Gadgetry


Those of you interested in the latest in electronic devices should check out Gizmodo.

Tuesday, November 19, 2002

The Tough Times Diet


Much Ado has recently been made over the Atkins Diet. To me, it sounds too good to be true, so Tough Times consulted our resident Medical Expert (and wife), PA-C Stacey, who had the following advice regarding diets (summarized by your's truly for brevity):

"Eat less, exercise your fat, lazy ass more, and you too can lose weight!"

Works for me: 30 pounds in 3 months!

Airlines, Security, and Survival


The UPI runs a story today entitled "Airlines seen overly hostile on security". Once again, the UPI runs a "let's create a story" piece. It must be a slow news day. Finally, something I AM qualified to talk about. Before we look at the article, let's talk about Mr. Barnett, our so-called "expert." The only information we have been given as to his expertise is his title: Professor of Management Science. Excuse me, but exactly how does this relate to the airline industry? I have worked as an engineer at a major airline for 10 years, and in the aerospace industry for 12. I'll leave it up to you to decide who's more "expert." Now, let's begin:
A leading authority on airport security said Tuesday the financially struggling airline industry is being overly hostile to new security measures designed to prevent another catastrophic attack such as the Sept. 11, 2001, suicide hijacking of four U.S. jetliners.
Arnold Barnett, George Eastman professor of management science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, warned if the commercial airline industry continues to pursue its attempts to roll back security measures, the financial and human toll may be irreversible.

Well, maybe not irreversible. Let's say, for instance, we loosen security to the point that there is none. Does this then mean that if there were another terrorist incident, that we would then not be able to increase security in response? That we would be unable to stop the death and carnage resulting from our poor decision to do so? No, of course not. An extreme case, but extreme cases are used to clearly show fallacies of thought. As to the ever increasing burden of security, of course airlines object to it. It has been made quite clear that many of their customers do. Just as an example, look at the recommendations that Airsafe provides. You may as well add "11. Bend over, grab your ankles, and enjoy it" to the list. To continue:
"No one in his right mind really wants to have security measures that are onerous, but Sept. 11 did happen and it could happen again," Barnett told United Press International. "If they're worried about their passenger numbers now, one imagines what would happen if a large number of their planes were destroyed."

Apparently "Aviation Expert" and George Eastman professor Arnold Barnett is the only one who has. Certainly no one in the airline industry; I mean, what do they care about their aircraft being hijacked?
There are two facts that "the experts" want to avoid in this discussion. The first has been pointed out many, many times: The terrorists took advantage of prevailing security rules (none of the weapons they carried were illegal), and prevailing attitudes (go along, give them what they want, everything will be OK) to hijack aircraft and use them as weapons of mass destruction. The second fact, that hasn't been pointed out so many time, is that terrorists will never again take over an aircraft armed with knives. It just won't happen. Anyone who attempts to do so will be lucky if they don't come back to the gate D.O.A. Just ask Brother Ra'uff. In addition, airlines are currently spending and average of $80-$100,000 per aircraft on armored cockpit doors. These doors won't be broken into by anything that someone could carry on board, short of explosives. by raising the level of force necessary to take control of an aircraft, you make the person attempting to do so much more detectable.
A couple of thoughts to leave with:
Mr. Barnett is worried about human costs, and so am I. Let me ask you this: how many people will die in car accidents next year because the drove instead of bearing the hassle of flying? How many jobs have the onerous security measures cost? How long will the lack of business travel continue to impede the recovery of our economy? And how long are we going to have to prop up an industry (with our tax dollars) that we are, on one hand, literally putting one of their feet in a bucket of cement, and on the other, making them pay for the cost of the bucket, the cement, and the installation? If we as an industry and as a nation continue to look for pins, needles, pocket knives, Medals of Honor, and breast milk at our security checkpoints, not only do we continue to force people not to fly, and airlines to lose money, we also raise the chance that a major breach of security will occur. You will not be able to see the forest of a major threats for the trees of the minutiae.


Leonids and the (sun)spots in my eyes


The Leonids (and here, too) were pretty much a bust where I live. High altitude clouds, haze, and light pollution pretty much obscured all but the brightest of the meteors. Some people had a good show though.

I found these pictures from a Swedish telescope on the island of La Palma to be pretty cool.

Monday, November 18, 2002

Fisk and the Magic 8 Ball


Robert Fisk's most recent editorial got me thinking. Exactly what are these sources he keeps referring to, and how is it they are so reliable. Well, since Fisk names none of them, the only reasonable explanation was a web page I found when typing the following question into Google:
"How does Bob get those seeming mystical answers to the questions floating around in that big old ball of a head?"
This being Google, we had to condense the search to the following: bob mystical head answers
And the result? The Mystical Smoking Head of Bob! Of course!



Bin Laden is alive. There can be no doubt about it. But the questions remain: where on earth is he, and why has he resurfaced now?
Mystical Head of Bob Says: "Concentrate and Ask Again"


When he was recorded, bin Laden was not talking into a tape-recorder. He was talking into a telephone. The man on the other end of the line - quite possibly in Pakistan - held the recorder. Bin Laden may not have been in the same city as the man with the recorder. He may well not have been in the same country.
Mystical Head of Bob Says: "My Sources Say No"


I know Bin Laden and, though I did not meet him after 11 September, I got to understand him over the years. But writing about him is now one of the most difficult journalistic tasks on earth. You have to say what you know. You have to say what you think must be true. You have to ask why he made this tape. The story moves deeper into questions. Why? What for? Why now?
Mystical Head of Bob Says: "Better Not Tell You Now"


Knowledge and suspicion and probability and speculation keep grinding up against each other. Bin Laden survived the bombing of Tora Bora. Fact. Bin Laden escaped via Pakistan. Probability. Bin Laden is in Saudi Arabia. A growing conviction.
Mystical Head of Bob Says: "You May Rely On It"


So here, with all its imperfections and conditional clauses, is what I suspect this tape recording means.
The story is a deeply disturbing one for the West. It is one which is not easy to write. I am frightened of the implications of this tape. One of its messages to Britain - above all others after the United States - is: watch out. Tony Blair was right (for once) to warn of further attacks, though the Bin Laden phone call was not (I suspect) monitored. But it was Bin Laden.
Mystical Head of Bob Says: "Outlook Not So Good "


We should start with Tora Bora in the autumn of 2001. Under heavy bombardment by the US Air Force, Bin Laden's al-Qa'ida fighters realised they could not hold out indefinitely in the cave complex of the White Mountains above Jalalabad. Bin Laden was with them. Al-Qa'ida men volunteered to fight on to certain death against the Afghan warlords paid by the Americans, and Bin Laden at first refused to leave them. He argued that he wished to die with them. His most loyal bodyguards and senior advisers insisted he must leave. In the end, he abandoned Tora Bora in a state of some anguish, his protectors hustling him down one mountainside with much the same panic as Dick Cheney's security men carried the US Vice-President to the White House basement when al-Qa'ida's killer-hijackers closed in on Washington on 11 September. All of the above comes under the label of "impeccable source".
Mystical Head of Bob Says: "Without a Doubt"


Bin Laden went either to Kashmir (possible, though unlikely) or Karachi (most probable). I say that because Bin Laden boasted to me once of the many admirers he had among the Sunni clergy of this great, hot and dangerous Pakistani city. He always talked of them as his "brothers". He once gave me posters in Urdu which these clerics had produced and pasted on the walls of Karachi. He liked to quote their sermons to me. So I'll go for Karachi. But I may be wrong.
Mystical Head of Bob Says: "It Is Certain"


So what comes next? A few weeks ago, I was asked by a member of an American university audience where I thought the next blow would come. The two words I thought of were "oil tanker". This came under the label "total speculation". But I didn't want to give anyone any ideas. So I said nothing. The following week, al-Qa'ida struck the supertanker Limburg off Yemen. Now I search my mind for worse thoughts. And I prefer to end my story.
Mystical Head of Bob Says: "Yes Definitely"



The last paragraph had me thinking of hindsight, and 20/20 vision. Too bad he didn't tell anyone. Bob Fisk, Fisked by a Magic Eight Ball.
You have to love it.

Batting a thousand


Here's an Intelligence Test to amuse yourselves with. I managed 11 for 11, but I was warned. You get the same warning: be careful, because as Gollum would say: "It's tricksy!"
Thanks to Radley Balko at The Agitator for the link.

Sunday, November 17, 2002

Where now are the Multilateralists?


Baghdad warns that a US strike will lead it to hit back at Israel
Realizing that, with the most recent UN Security council resolution passed, most if not all of the world is against it, our old friend Taraq Aziz says that Iraq will attack our "friends in the region" if Iraq is attacked.
The ticking you hear is my stop watch recording the amount of time it will take for various columnists, actors, actresses (That's YOU, Babs) and rights groups who have urged the U.S. against unilateral action to warn Iraq of the doing the same to Isreal.
Can you hear the crickets chirping?

Update: OK, my use of "whither" was horrendous. But Hey! - I reserve the right to be wrong....

Hey, Rachel!


Rachel Lucas, attached to Michael Moore like a pit bull with lockjaw, noticed a certain, pre-election victory screed that Mssr. Moore had seen fit to post on his website. Apparently Moore is a non-believer in tempting fate, as the election showed. Now the page has disappeared, but Rachel has kept three screenshots for Moore's posterior, er, posterity.
The interesting thing Tough Times has noticed is this: Moore can't even censor himself correctly on his own website. The 11-03 date is the only date which gets this particular message. All other dates that do not have a post give you a scripting error. C'mon, Mike. If you're gonna pull the wool over our eyes, at least try to learn to knit.
Oh, and Rachel - we here at Tough Times love our dogs too.

Blankets vs Quilts


Radley Balko at The Agitator posted some thoughts recently on the Roe v Wade controversy (2nd item, 2nd paragraph). While I do not intend to discuss the merits of abortion case, his musings on the idea of local control brought to mind a conversation that a friend at work and I had regarding a school issue. The specific issue we discussed has relatively little to do with Radley's point. But my colleague's solution does. The conversation (paraphrased, thus no quotes) on the solution went like this:

Colleague: The Federal Government needs to step in here and come up with laws to standardize education.

Myself: Well, setting aside the fact that the Constitution does not seem to provide for Congress making law regarding standardization of education, what makes you think that the laws would be any better than what you have now?

C: Well, nothing, except that because it would be the subject of national debate, the laws would probably be better.

M: But what if they weren't? What would you do then?

C: I don't know really, except that I don't feel like I can do anything about it now.

M: Well, let me put it this way: There is a chance that a national standard might result in a better system than what you have now. But if it doesn't, don't you think that you have a better chance, as an individual, of changing local law versus a national law?

C: Well, yes, in principle, you would, but it would take getting involved.

M: Yes, I see your point - in order for local law to be a fair representation of what people want for themselves, they would have to participate. But looking at it from the perspective of an individual, don't you think that it would be easier for any given individual to change local law than national law, given that both of those laws impose the same "remedy"?

C: I agree, but it's something that we shouldn't have to do - the government should.

My point being that local laws, by their nature, are not uniform from area to area, and provide for two important considerations: First, variability - people can see what works best and vote with their feet. Second, mutability - If someone else's system is looking better, it's much easier to change, on a local level. For example, local sales and property taxes come and go quite frequently. How often do federal taxes change in any direction other than up? People who' s solution to every problem fail to acknowledge the fact that what may be good for the people of South Carolina may not be good for the people of Minnesota, or Los Angeles, or any other place for that matter. It's one of the reasons that our founding fathers wanted a (relatively) hands off government, with many restrictions on its powers - so that local people would have to make their own beds, and then have to lie in the consequences.

Friday, November 15, 2002

"We're not ordinary people; We're Morons!" - Curley



Is it me, or is Hans Blix a moron?

Some of the Brilliant Observations of Inspector Blix:

"[The Iraqis] certainly did not give accurate answers to the questions they should answer. It could happen again."

Really? Ya think? So what does that say about the answer they gave just two days ago?

"[The Iraqis] have not been under quite the same stress and pressure as they are now. "There is this difference: they know that the consequences might be very serious this time (Emphasis Added). You have a unanimous [U.N.] Security Council that demands Iraq to cooperate. I think it’s a very somber moment and I hope that this is taken to heart by the Iraqis."


Are you saying that they didn't think the consequences were serious with all the other resolutions, Hans? Given the way the U.N. has enforced those previous resolutions, I could see why they might think that (/sarcasm).


"Aggressive is an American quality. You are aggressive in business. That’s fine. Aggression is prohibited under U.N. charter. And as a European, I would rather use the word dynamic and effective."

Words fail me. Apparently something else has failed Hans.

All the guy needs now is a partner named Cato and an outrageous French accent and he'd be the complete package.

Upcoming Posts


Just to keep things from becoming too bland here, I'm in the process of writing a rather lengthy piece on my sole objection to Peter Jackson's otherwise wonderful Fellowship of the Ring, and what I see may be the consequences on the soon-to-be-released The Two Towers.

Thursday, November 14, 2002


The Twilight of Privacy


Sure, he could be a loudmouth, and dead wrong on some issues (Hint: Think "The War on Drugs"), but at times like these I really, really miss Bob Barr's strong civil libertarianism.

What, me worry?


Why do we worry so over the execution of killer Mir Aimal Kasi?

Welcome


Welcome to all who have linked over from the BlogFather.

Packing a Load of Problems


Glenn Reynolds makes his latest Pack vs. Herd commentary at his TechCentralStation column, and while I generally concur with the idea in a reactionary situation, I do not subscribe to Jim Henley’s assertion that, in the events that are unfolding on the TV show 24, it would be advantageous to utilize the phenomena, either for the TV show, or for reality in general (although it has made for a fascinating thought exercise). Why? Because in reality, the Pack mentality would create more problems than it solves. This is because the situation would be markedly different than the events of 09/11/01 - instead of reactionary, actions taken would be presumptive. Reaction to something that has happened, as opposed to action on something that may happen, are two different phenomena. For example:



The first major flaw is that the terrorist would learn that the government knows, and detonate the weapon on a shorter time schedule, or immediately. These are terrorists, they are not making political points - They are saying "See what we can do." The motivation may be political, but the main goal is terror. In the worst case, the weapon detonates immediately, and the cost / benefit equation of saving at least some people goes right out the window.


The second major flaw would be data management. Who coordinates the data resulting from the announcement? Who gathers it? Who analyzes it? Who determines what leads are valid, and need to be followed up? Another thing that 09/11/01 showed us is that there are crackpots amongst us. One of the major problems police departments across the nation had to deal with in the following days were the false bomb threats that were phoned in. Whatever agency(s), be they government or "Pack," are tasked with handling the data will be swamped, no, drowned in data. They would not have time to analyze the data for the flood of data coming in.

For my third and final point (for now), we’ll deal with the evacuation. Assume, for the sake of argument, that the bomb is on some sort of timer and we know (somehow) that we have 23 hours until detonation. Is it still best to announce the problem and start the evacuation? I would argue not. The simple reason being that while all people will not panic, some will. The exodus of humanity from the LA basin is a pipe flow equation, with the highways as the pipes, and people as the fluid. Only this fluid is contaminated - it’s nature is to clog the pipes, impede smooth flow. The traffic jams and their resultant chaos would not only trap people in the open where, should they survive the detonation and shock wave be exposed to horrific levels of radiation, they would also impede the investigation itself.

For these reasons, I think notification of the citizen "Pack" of the target city would be a grievous error in this situation, both for the TV show, and in real life. We'll save the discussion on how long it would take for the situation to come to the attention of the populace of it's own volition for later.

Wednesday, November 13, 2002

Welcome to Tough Times



The name for the blog comes from three references, two related to each other, one related to nothing except my taste in music.

The first is a song by the rock group Rush. It’s the source of my first nickname I ever used on the Internet, and one I still use today as my main e-mail address (the one that very few people have). But not to worry, my associated e-mail with this account is one I check every bit as often. I am just less careful when editing out the wheat from the chaff.

The other two references come from the state of the industry I work in (I am an engineer for a major airline), and the state that the United States is in right now. Perhaps for both these are in truth the toughest times that we have ever faced.

Some of the things that I will discuss here are things that affect me directly: what’s happening in the airline world, how the state of national security relates to it, and how policy enacted in this country affects the air transport system. I make no claims on being an expert on these issues, except for the ones that I am and expert on, and I’ll let you know when that is, because those are Few and Far Between. In addition, I’ll hit some things that spur my interest, and to be honest, there will probably be more things from the latter category than the former. So sit up, put your seat backs and tray tables in their upright and locked position - It’s time for takeoff. Don’t forget to buckle your seat belt, as it will probably be a turbulent ride.