ангоязычное чтиво
Sep. 13th, 2005 09:15 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
avva- Хорошая антибушевская сатира (смешная). Ну и вот ещё картинка антибушевская тоже, многих наверняка порадует.
- Брюс Шнайер, известный специалист по компьютерной безопасности: Terrorists Don't Do Movie Plots, отличная статья в Wired. Суть её очень проста, но заслуживает того, чтобы её чаще повторяли: стоит отдавать себе отчёт в том, что закручивать гайки точно в месте происшедшей атаки террористов - в этом больше показухи, чем реальной защиты. Террорист попробовал пронести бомбу в ботинках — теперь у всех проверяют ботинки. Сто других способов остаются доступными для террористов. Завтра воспользуются чем-то другим — и тут же все будут говорить, какой это было преступной халатностью не проверять и не охранять именно это, и тут же начнут именно это проверять и охранять.
Задним умом мы все умны, но для борьбы с террором нужен передний.
[в определённой мере это верно и по поводу урагана в Новом Орлеане, кстати. На следующий день после прорыва дамб тысяча перьев застрочила о том, как нужно было помнить и знать, что их обязательно рано или поздно прорвёт. Вспомнили какие-то статьи с грозными предупреждениями в региональных газетах пять лет назад, и какие-то передачи по каналу National Geographics, которые все должны были видеть и помнить. Просто вакханалия идиотизма без толики здравого смысла, который мог бы подсказать им хоть немного учитывать фактор заднего ума (hindsight по-английски). Ведь ясно же, что случить другая катастрофа в другом месте, те же люди захлёбывались бы откровениями о том, что именно это все должны были предвидеть, и откапывали бы передачи и статьи именно об этом. Всё это не означает, что люди, работа которых — готовиться к такого рода катастрофам, не должны были предвидеть и планировать, но это уже другое дело]
Шнайер молодец, как всегда. - Точно помню, что были ещё ссылки, которые хотели сюда добавиться, но что-то не могу найти, а меж тем пора идти общаться и пить вино с некоторыми хорошими людьми. Может, позже добавлю.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-09-14 07:52 pm (UTC):) This is the logic that can excuse anything and everything.
- What are the chances that terrorists would use an airplane with exactly 159 people on board and fly it exactly into the 49th floor of that building at exactly 9:47am? How could anyone forsee it?!!!
The whole point of energency protection is not calculating the chances of some wastebasket fire (a very common occurance) but that of catastriphic events. It looks like FEMA did calculate the chances, and New Orleans flood came up as #3!
It is funny that you reject the assesment of a LA official with prejudice but are quoting in the same post something that Army Corps of Engineers is saying about its own work and the work of its boss (Pr. Bush)!
By the way, checking www.factcheck.org is always a good idea. They seem to support the ideas proposed by that LA official but are scaptical about that Army Corps of Engineers press release that you are quoting.
Their ultimate conclusion is that while we do not know whether fully funding the levee project would or would not reduce the extent of the catastriphe, it is sure sure that Bush has cut its funding by an unprecidented amounts.
As for your theory that funds are given only for that year, and anything for the next year is "a request for additional funds", you are either wrong or are making an irrelevant distinction. No cent will be given ever before the project plan is presented in its entirety. The project like this usually takes many years to complete. When funds are given fir the first year, the understanding is that the project will enjoy a similar level of support till its completion (at least as long as everything is going more or less according to the project plan). Denying funding (or approving only a small fraction of the expected funding) for the next year is equivalent to cutting/removing the funding.
no subject
Date: 2005-09-14 09:35 pm (UTC)And yet I'm not seeking to excuse anything and said so repeatedly.
- What are the chances that terrorists would use an airplane with exactly 159 people on board and fly it exactly into the 49th floor of that building at exactly 9:47am? How could anyone forsee it?!!!
That, with all due respect, is a bullshit analogy.
The whole point of energency protection is not calculating the chances of some wastebasket fire (a very common occurance) but that of catastriphic events. It looks like FEMA did calculate the chances, and New Orleans flood came up as #3!
Yes, it is, yes, FEMA did, yes, it came up as #3 (if the reference is correct), and yes, it still doesn't mean that the catastrophe that occurred was actually likely to happen, as you wrongly stated.
It is funny that you reject the assesment of a LA official with prejudice but are quoting in the same post something that Army Corps of Engineers is saying about its own work and the work of its boss (Pr. Bush)!
I reject the assessment of an official who has no way of knowing how federal budget monies are redistributed and who's obviously just making a cheap political point. He has no authority on the subject, and you quote him as if he did because you want to score a cheap political point, too.
By the way, checking www.factcheck.org is always a good idea. They seem to support the ideas proposed by that LA official but are scaptical about that Army Corps of Engineers press release that you are quoting.
factcheck.org completely support everything I wrote about the report, and in fact they also add to that list an even more damning (to the list of lies you are so enthusiastically passing along) fact that the Corps did not in fact foresee breaching of the levees as a realistic possibility (they did foresee water overtoppling the levees in case of a category 5 hurricane, but not a breach).
Their ultimate conclusion is that while we do not know whether fully funding the levee project would or would not reduce the extent of the catastriphe, it is sure sure that Bush has cut its funding by an unprecidented amounts.
That's a very biased way to completely mischaracterize their conclusion. On the subject of possible usefulness of increased funding they say: "We don't know whether the levees would have done better had the work been completed. But the Corps says that even a completed levee project wasn't designed for the storm that actually occurred."
You quoted the first sentence out of those two but omitted the second, because it doesn't suit the bullshit you're trying to propagate. They never question the validity of the Corps' claim, either.
I'm tired of this. Please debate honestly or not at all.
no subject
Date: 2005-09-14 10:11 pm (UTC)You start with picking on the definition of word "likely" even though it was used in a discussion of the federal preparedness for catastriphic emergencies.
Semantically, you are correct. Having a hurracane create devastating damage in New Orleans in a foreseeable future in increadible unlikely, given the likelihood of other evens, such as rain, tides, basket fires, robberies in New Orleans, etc.
However, I assumed that we are only talking about Grand Disasters that federal goivernment is supposed to get engaged in. Out of THOSE kinds of senarios, the devastation in New Orleans was pretty likely (#3 as FEMA put it).
Regarding www.factcheck.org, you are being dishonest by quoting it the way you do.
Here is the full scope of their conclusion:
So www.factcheck.org puts its suspecions into the statement by Army Corps of Engineers right into its conclusions.
You are also being dihonest in saying that "Corps did not in fact foresee breaching of the levees as a realistic possibility".
Using your language, your statements is a lie!
Here is the quote from www.factcheck.org:
You see, you are propogating lies. By chaging "likely" into "realistic" you have created a lie.
Do consider that it is not your oponents who are full of bulshit (your words) but, maybe, your friends?
Side question (really -- this is not to be confused with your topic). Among my friends (real-word friends) there is now discussion whether Rusian Jews like Bush because he "blooded Arabs in Iraq, and all Arabs are enemies of Israel and, therefore, our enemies". I seem to agree with this point of view. Any comments?
no subject
Date: 2005-09-15 02:46 pm (UTC)The whole of my original remarks in my post centered around the lunacy of claiming that the hurricane was "likely" and was known to be such.
However, I assumed that we are only talking about Grand Disasters that federal goivernment is supposed to get engaged in. Out of THOSE kinds of senarios, the devastation in New Orleans was pretty likely (#3 as FEMA put it).
No, it wasn't. It was still very unlikely. The fact that it was put as number 3 in the list of other very unlikely events doesn't make it likely to happen.
It's really not that hard to understand.
Regarding www.factcheck.org, you are being dishonest by quoting it the way you do.
I'm quoting verbatim the last paragraph of their section on levees, the closest thing it has to a conclusion.
So www.factcheck.org puts its suspecions into the statement by Army Corps of Engineers right into its conclusions.
No, it doesn't; and these aren't suspicions, they're statements of possible bias. Moreoever, since it was you who appealed to factcheck.org as a source for facts (rather than suspicions, theories, and so on), this is irrelevant.
Here is the quote from www.factcheck.org:
So it was a possibility, but not a realistic one.
Meanwhile, your argument on levee funding still remains partisan bullshit, which you haven't been able to corroborate.
Side question (really -- this is not to be confused with your topic). Among my friends (real-word friends) there is now discussion whether Rusian Jews like Bush because he "blooded Arabs in Iraq, and all Arabs are enemies of Israel and, therefore, our enemies". I seem to agree with this point of view. Any comments?
I think stereotyping the views of all Russian Jews is like stereotyping the views of all African-Americans or any other large group united by ethnicity and origin. It's stupid and borders on racism.
no subject
Date: 2005-09-15 03:51 pm (UTC)It's really not that hard to understand.
You seem to refuse to understand a basic thing that word "likely" is meaningless without a context.
I'm quoting verbatim the last paragraph of their section on levees, the closest thing it has to a conclusion
And I was quoting from the executive summary. I think this is closer to the conclusion about the entire matter.
"[...] at least some in the Corps thought a breach was a possibility worth examining."
So it was a possibility, but not a realistic one.
Amazing! You should be spinning bullshit for the Republica compaigns! You are willing to claim that at least some in the Corps thought that an unrealistic possibilities are worth considering! Where do you get your ideas? Bush's head (or worse)?
I think stereotyping the views of all Russian Jews is [...] stupid and borders on racism.
Certainly I was not talking about ALL Russian Jews. I, and many of my friends, are counter-examples. Let's put it to precicely. 75% of Russian Jews voted for Bush in '04, whereas only 14% of all American Jews (Russian Jews included) voted for him. The question is what made the majority of those 75% of Russian Jews vote for Bush? Is there a unifying theme? I belive that, yes, there is:
a) Belief that Republicans are better for Israel,
b) Enjoyment of seeing many Arabs killed by Bush's war.
Russian media is USA is full of those two ideas (they just say as much -- they hate the idea of tollerance and love generalizations 'ie all Arabs are enemies').
no subject
Date: 2005-09-15 09:58 pm (UTC)Huh?
No context is going to turn an extremely unlikely event into a likely one.
Amazing! You should be spinning bullshit for the Republica compaigns! You are willing to claim that at least some in the Corps thought that an unrealistic possibilities are worth considering! Where do you get your ideas? Bush's head (or worse)?
Whatever. Have you digested by now the fact that the levees were never designed to withstand the hurricane of the strength Katrina had, and that none of the pending projects were meant to enable them to withstand it, not to mention that they weren't meant for the levees that eventually were breached?
No, you haven't? Well, don't talk to me about bullshit, because you're bringing nothing else to the table.
The question is what made the majority of those 75% of Russian Jews vote for Bush?
I don't know.
Is there a unifying theme?
I don't know.
I belive that, yes, there is:
You're just showcasing your bigotry, with no facts to support it.
no subject
Date: 2005-09-15 10:57 pm (UTC)If we are given a mathematical model of the event (a probability distribution), we can compute the expected time we will need to wait to observe the event with the probability of, say, at least 0.5. Then, we will need to compare the result with still another constant given to us by someone to proclaim whether it was "too long" to be considered to be a "likely" event.
In its presentation, FEMA talked about the real-world events using the "likelyhood" as a key measure of how much effort we need to place into protecting ourselves from those events. They must be meaning that the seriousness of the consequences of the event affects the constant that determines whether something is called "likely" or not. Why insert the seriousness of the consequences into the mathematical model of "likelyhood" when it could be kept sepparate? That's a question to FEMA. If they did not comingle the seriousness factor with the expected time to for the even to occure, their report would make no sence. But we have to assume that it did make sence.
Whatever. Have you digested by now the fact that...
You have balls to dismiss a critique of your bullshit statements (you used this word first in this conversation) with "Whatever" and proceed to make further statements! Impressive!
Your futher statements are also designed to move the conversation to a different topic, away from the original topic. I've certainly been led into discussing those tangential points in one or two replies up the thread, but I'd prefer to stick with my original premise.
I am not very interested in who could foresee what. Neither I care too much about whether something that had not happened would had had some expected or unexpected positive or negative effects. We just do not know enough to make such judgements (I fully agree with factcheck.org on that). My only thinking on those topics is that it is dishonest to say that we know for sure (or with a very high degre of certainty) that nothing could had prevented the tragedy or at least reduced its severity.
What I AM interested in is Bush's fiscal irresponsibility in the matters of domestic safety. The tragedy of New Orleans highlighted why domestic safety programs are important. The tragedy also unearthed and highlighted Bush's almost criminal neglect of the domestic safety programs.
Russian Jews in America
While "I don't know" is a perfectly fine answer, an accusation in bigotry (last time it was racism?) is uncalled for. You have not asked for the bases of my belief, and I did not care to supply them without your request, since I wanted to keep this very consice -- I asked you a question and wanted to get an ansewer (which I got: "I don't know").