h a l f b a k e r yPlease listen carefully, as our opinions have changed.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
Antiprofiling
Politically corrrect, yet still strangely effective | |
Apparently there have been complaints that "profiling" single male muslims during air travel security screening is discriminatory.
This is true; resources are targeted on those statistically likely to pose a threat.
To avoid offending the snowflake sensitivities of the peace-light-and-brotherly-love
brigade, we suggest that the "problem" is dealt with by applying "antiprofiling".
This consists of looking at all passengers, selecting the ones that are considered low-risk, and then profiling all the remainder.
So -
83-year old Jewish grandmother ... unlikely to be a terrorist*.
Thirtysomething husband and wife travellling with three children under ten ... unlikely to be terrorists, although your probably don't want to be on the same flight with them**.
Single white male Mormon missionary in a business suit, carrying a Bible ... unlikely to be a terrorist, but DON'T sit next to him, unless you really want to be Saved*** ...
Tubby balding 50ish black male heart surgeon ... not likely to be a terrorist, but you might be glad of him if you have a heart attack at FL370 ...
Teenage Chinese female student ... probably not a terrorist.
Having sorted out all the "unlikely" ones, then look hard at whoever's left ... although the chap in the thigh boots, stovepipe hat, Guy Fawkes makeup and cloak, carrying a baseball painted black with BOMB written on it is probably on his way to a stag party, and only of passing interest.
*Could well be ex-Haganah, or Mossad, but unlikely to be an active terrorist
**After three hours, the temptation to hijack the plane just to get away from them may become unendurable.
*** As above, but 45 minutes is usually enough to induce a psychotic episode. We recommend manual strangulation, which is rapid, quiet, and may not be noticed by the cabin crew until arrival.
Google, Where Did That Shot Come From
Google_2c_20Where_2...0Shot_20Come_20From
They make you work for the privelege of traveling... [8th of 7, Feb 24 2020]
[link]
|
| |
Profiling is a joke. There is no profile for a
terrorist, who is as likely to be a pregnant female,
a blind priest with a guide dog; a child with a
teddy bear. None of these would be given a second
look given the idiotic stereotyping of current
profiling. |
|
| |
I suspect [8th] has numbers to refute that... |
|
| |
As [MB] says, we disagree. Based on available evidence, and given the relatively small sample size, those three categories are low probability. |
|
| |
Means, motive, and opportunity. The examples cited tend to lack one or more of those. Now, if they are someone pretending to be in one of those categories, then the risk increases; but if they are what they claim to be, then they are less likely to be a threat. |
|
| |
Please cite any extant examples where one of the stated types has been involved in a suicide attack (although there have been female suicide bombers, it is not established that any of them were pregnant, or if they were that they were aware of the fact). |
|
| |
After some actual research taking almost several minutes*, we confidently claim that no actual blind priest with a guide dog or actual child with a teddy bear have ever been the perpetrator of an act of aviation terrorism. |
|
| |
*we're never going to get that time back either, [xen] and we blame you for that. |
|
| |
//we're never going to get that time back // Yes but, to be
fair, it was several minutes of being [8th], so no great loss. |
|
| |
//those statistically likely to pose a threat. //
That would be single, white, males under the age of 30. Ask any schoolteacher. |
|
| |
Biasing your risk assessment so that it results in a ‘clean’ group of
low-risk cases (I.e very few false positives) rather than a ‘clean’
group of high-risk cases is actually a good idea, as it allows you to
process these people fast withminimal intervention and divert
officials’ time on to the high-risk work. |
|
| |
Naughty, [DrBob], you would get a smack, if the mincing pinko vegan tree-huggers weren't so totally against any form of physical punishment. |
|
| |
You have to do it by including* all those who appear "low risk" in your not-to-be-profiled group. |
|
| |
* It's vitally important to have good "inclusivity" credentials (allegedly). |
|
| |
As soon as it is known who you're profiling, the high risk people will work to look like them. |
|
| |
"In the 1960s, there were over 200 attempts of hijackings involving U.S aircraft: 77 successful and 23 unsuccessful...In a five-year period (1968–1972) the world experienced 326 hijack attempts, or one every 5.6 days.[16] The incidents were frequent and often just an inconvenience, which resulted in television shows creating parodies." |
|
| |
And yet, cockpit doors only received security upgrades AFTER the 9/11 attacks. There are better solutions than profiling people. |
|
| |
The Sinn Fein bomber of Harrods shop in London
during the troubles was a man in his sixties,
carrying a black brief case, and wearing an off-
white trench coat. In other words totally outside
of all profile parameters. I bet the next time
there's an attack, the blind priest will be the one
who carries it out! |
|
| |
He wasn't a suicide bomber, though. It's a different set of parameters- you're not comparing like with like. |
|
| |
A mule to place an IED and then retreat to safety can have a very different physical and psychological profile and still be effective. |
|
| |
You could profile everyone, arrest them all, force confessions and jail them for life. Totally equitable and non-discriminatory! |
|
| |
//you're not comparing like with like.// Watch out
for the old dear who’s knitting jumpers for rescued
factory hens. |
|
| |
<Adds "hen-jacket knitters" to the list of suspicious types/> |
|
| |
I have so many more suggestions that you’re simply
going to end up profiling everyone according to a
million characteristics. You forget that I grew up
amongst paramilitaries and active terrorists - real
ones of the nastiest type imaginable. |
|
| |
In that regard, a lot of effort could be saved by simply asking passengers if they know [xenzag]. |
|
| |
We are frequent flyers, we just never, ever travel on commercial air services. |
|
| |
However, we refer you to our third annotation of <link> ... |
|
| |
I think I heard this joke at the Edinburgh Fringe in 2003. |
|
| |
Was that the "scotchland is a viable independant country" joke, or was it "Over 60,000 times as powerful as Britain's great pre-war joke, and one which Hitler just couldn't match." ? |
|
| |
Oh no it was, "heheheh why don't we no wait hahah nstead of oahahaha I can't believe I'm saying this oahah *drags fingers across forehead* why don't we instead of racially profiling Muslims no wait work with me hahaha why don't we racially profile ... everyone else *dramatic purse lipped state into the audience* *makes explosion noise* *waits an embarrassingly long time for the audience to catch up before realising that he's not a beat ahead after all*" |
|
| |
Our most recent flight was on an A400M, and was surprisingly enjoyable. Very docile handlng and amazing "wave-off" capability. |
|
| |
// racially profiling Muslims // |
|
| |
Ah, well, this is a bit cleverer, because it involves physical, circumstantial and ideological profiling - not racial profiling. |
|
| |
After all, it's a matter of ideology, not race. Israelis and Palestinians are racially - genetically - almost indistinguishable, and phenotypically very similar. Quite why these closely related groups are so intent on mutual extermination is therefore unclear as there is no "racial" basis- only cultural. |
|
| |
It is entirely possible to be born of native parents in Lapland, yet become a devout Sikh. There are Brazilians who espouse Bhuddhism. There are adherents of Voodoo in Canada who have never been within 2000 km of the Carribean or West Africa. |
|
| |
It's not who your genetic ancestors are: it's how you think. To parameterize intolerance and cultural imperialism, look no further than the catholic church... |
|
| |
"Of course you'd say that, you damned half-white !" |
|
| |
The A400 is the C-130 that Harrods would sell. |
|
| |
With no cargo, and a suitably irresponsible maniac in the left hand seat, it turns out that the damn thing's semi-aerobatic; try the same things in a Herc and either you wouldn't have the control authority, or something would make an Expensive Noise - at which point having the tailgate open can be a useful exit strategy. |
|
| |
But you can pull the nose up until it's hanging on the props like an Osprey and then drift along with no apparent forward speed, "hands off" ... chop the throttles on one side and do a near-hamerhead into a roll... then climb back up to collect your stomach and other internal organs. It can pull g too. |
|
| |
A great way of finding any loose stuff that's been dropped on the floor, altho if that includes a large screwdriver left by the maintainers it's all of a sudden very much less funny. |
|
| |
Oh, please don't misunderstand us ... if you're kindly disposed to sending us a C-130 in a plain (plane ?) brown wrapper, it certainly won't come back marked "NOT AT THIS ADDRESS" ... after all, the current co-operative project ("Stealing A Eurofighter By Installments") has somewhat lost momentum of late as people's garages are getting rather full and no-one has a briefcase big enough to take a wing spar ... |
|
| |
Plus it's getting harder and harder to account for the occasional ... deficiencies. Questions have been asked. Unfortunately, even the RAF can count up to two; "It should have - ter-ooowh - engines ... we only see whun-nuh." |
|
| |
Should have chosen something the Royal Marines buy. If you can count up to one in the RM's, they make you an officer ... |
|
| |
//all wars are the result of population pressure// |
|
| |
So ... Bismarck annexed Schleswig-Holstein in order to settle
it with teeming masses of landless Prussians? Are you sure
about that? And what about civil wars? Did the
Confederates bombard Fort Sumter because Virginia was
getting overcrowded? Did Pompey fight Caesar because
there wasn't enough room in the senate? Where does the
War of Jenkins' Ear fit into this theory? |
|
| |
Well, you hint at the airlines sowing a few disagreeable
types to prolong the wait of terrorists and thereby driving
them up the 'wall of worry'. That is interesting. Could be
accomplished by requiring off duty airline employees to
dress as "Men in Black" to qualify for free trips. That will
make everyone nervous. |
|
| |
//all wars are the result of population pressure// |
|
| |
And the Vietnam war, at least in the case of U.S. involvement? The U.S. had been financing France's first war-making efforts, but to what end? Some people will argue that most modern wars are money-making operations for weapons production. Others will argue that all wars are somehow religious. Anti-communism was a kind of religion at the time... |
|
| |
// you have to go further back - at least as far as the Han Dynasty invasion of the Khmer. // |
|
| |
For all I know you could be describing China's and even Vietnam's motives. But France and the U.S. were stupid for a different reason. |
|
| |
No, exactly the same reason .. they're made up of humans, and humans are irredeemably stupid. |
|
| |
//All wars are fought over resources// |
|
| |
OK, that's not what you said the first time. This second
formulation you can make trivially true, because the definition of
"resource" is arbitrarily extensible - but then the claim becomes
meaningless. |
|
| |
//The need for "resources'" always comes from from
population pressure.// |
|
| |
Russia's recent war in Ukraine was launched after a couple
of decades of Russian population decline. When the Roman
empire's population was declining (but its size was still near
its maximum), Roman generals still fought each other for
control of it. One size does not fit all. |
|
| |
Yes, of course. Why, you wanna make something of it, eh ? |
|
| |
Since you ask, McDonalds vouchers ... |
|
| |
We managed to hack in to the Ferengi systems and implant an extra Law of Acquisition: "You must collect a complete set of each run of MacDonald's Happy Meal giveaway toys". |
|
| |
And now we have the hideous little floppy-eared gnomes in our power ... |
|
| |
Not that we actually want them. It just seemed like a good idea at the time. How could anything so simple go so wrong ? Like Assimilating female Betazoids with a chocolate fixation. Bad, bad idea ... |
|
| |
//Betazoids with a chocolate fixation.// |
|
| |
That is curtailed by the replicator refusing her on grounds of
calorie budget... A bleak vision of the human future where
voice-activated computers control consumption. At least
now, the voice-activated computer is pushing more
consumption. Fortunately/unfortunately mail order gin isn't
legal. |
|
| |
//a gentler form of assimilation..... *retain* their cultural
distinctiveness// |
|
| |
This is not going to go down well. The Borg collective has
worked tirelessly to eliminate culture, distinctiveness &
cultural distinctiveness in favor of a glorious standardized
& interchangeable hive full of mechanically enhanced
humanoid bio-drones. Sadly due to remaining culture, at
any one time, 12% of the collective is having a nap, 4%
are refusing to do anything in response to a perceived
slight and 9% communicate in some encrypted language
consisting solely of consonants. |
|
| |
Now it starts to make sense, doesn't it ? |
|
| |
// at any one time, 12% of the collective is having a nap, 4% are refusing to do anything in response to a perceived slight and 9% communicate in some encrypted language consisting solely of consonants. // |
|
| |
Those figures are quite wrong. Sometimes by as much as 1% ... |
|
| |
Probably; if not, then two other brilliant writers with the same names ... |
|
| |