Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (407118)	8/16/2008 2:02:27 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575177

Usually you just wave your hand and say "the experts agree" without a link to said experts. All you have to do is ask. In general, I expect anyone here to have some basic knowledge of the subject matter. If you don't know who the experts on a topic are, or you do not know what their opinions are, all you have to do ask for more detail. It is a fact I often cite material from books and in some instances you have to own the book to find it. For example, I often cite or paraphrase material from bin Laden's biography by Bodansky because it is the most authoritative source on bin Laden. Yet, you'll not find a lot of that material anywhere other than that treatise because it is, after all, the most authoritative document on the subject. If you ask, I'll always point you to sources for my claims, unless your own argument appears to be specious which is often the case. Then you usually make your appeal to authority. Sometimes. If there is an authority on a subject, I usually refer to that person as he would know more about the subject than either you or me. That's they way this is done. I always back up my position. No, you don't. I have repeatedly asked you to explain what you believe Obama's qualifying experience is OTHER than being an extremist liberal and you have yet explain it. You claimed that Obama and McCain were not substantially different in their handling of the Georgian crisis, I pointed out you were wrong, cited news stories agreeing with me, and you have yet to cite a credible news source that makes the same claim you do. You might find a liberal blog somewhere that would support your position but you haven't even done that much. The reality is that "the experts agree" that McCain was more on top of the issue than was Obama. All you've done is assail McCain without justification because he has an advisor who happens to be an expert on the subject. Most of the effective measures were in place before 2001. Many of the safety measures put in place after 2001 have actually made airports more vulnerable. Like the screening lines. First, as to lines, I've been in and out of many major airports in the last several years. SELDOM do I encounter significant lines. Almost always the security portion of the screening takes less than 10 minutes. But it does depend on when you're traveling. There are also parts of the airport security process that are downright stupid and should be fixed. In Vegas, for example, you may be subject to explosives "sniffer" devices which were not in airports prior to 9/11. The screening process for carry-on luggage is radically different in many airports today, involving far more sophisticated hardware and software than was in use in August, 2001. BTW, I think your link sort of missed my point; by "airport security" I was referring to measures to prevent terrorist attacks involving or using airplanes; your link focused more on explosives within the terminal area. Like the silly ban on liquids and making clearing security much more of a chore. You may think it is silly. However, it helps to shut down an avenue by which a terrorist could get explosives onto a plane. I don't think that is silly. And I might add, there has not been a successful bombing on a major airline in a long time. Every piece of checked baggage is screen by explosive detection systems. It is silly to argue this is not more safe than pre-9/11, in which such a screening did not occur. This is just like your asinine argument that email is more secure than faxing when it quite obviously isn't. No experts are needed.