Driving in to work behind a pickup with Texas plates, I observed the following bumper stickers:
On the left:
And on the right:
More evidence for my hypothesis that bumper stickers commonly reflect the intelligence of the driver.
Sometimes I do not enjoy being right
I did not see this article until I had drafted, edited, and posted my piece on Airport Body Scanners. Included in that piece was a speculative note (note 2; read the notes people) about the disconnect between “our” definition of a successful attack and the definition of a “successful” attack by terror networks.
So much for speculation. It turns out that “our” definition is not “their” definition. In fact, Al Qaeda is using what we would call a failed “attack” as an example of a successful attack:
Al Qaeda’s choice of a demonstration was to use parcel bombs (called Operation Hemorrhage — a classic name for a systems disruption attack). These low cost parcel bombs, were inserted into the international air mail system to generate a security response by western governments. It worked. The global security response to this new threat was massive. –John Hood
Airport Body Scanners: Not Much Risk, Even Less Benefit?
Are the new backscatter x-ray airport body scanners going to give you skin cancer? Probably not. And when I say probably, I mean really really really unlikely. The risk posed by these scanners is well within the “if you are worried about this, best not ever leave your house or turn on the light switch” type parameters we consider “safe” for all our other modern “conveniences”. For an excellent discussion of their safety, go read Mike’s post “Airport Body Scanners Won’t Give You Cancer” now. I’ll wait for you to come back. . .
. . .ok, welcome back. That was pretty solid, eh? Mike does good work, no?
What is curious about this debate is its absolutist nature.
The scanners will give you cancer.
– or-
The scanners are the only way to stop the terrorists.
In the rest of our lives, we regularly balance probabilistic risks with probabilistic benefits all the time, and reject absolutist thinking as childish. Continue reading “Airport Body Scanners: Not Much Risk, Even Less Benefit?”
REPOST: Do as You Say, Do as You Do – Fixing Science Communication
Before I tell you how to fix science journalism (super glue, duh), let’s get everyone on the same page. The science journalism problem is really a science communication problem. Science journalism is just a portion of the science communication problem. It just happens to be an especially visible portion because journalists already have a forum and an audience. If we can solve the science communication problem, the science journalism problem becomes irrelevant, although the science journalists might not be happy with the solution.
I’ve actually been listening to a lot of advice from people older, wiser, and more successful than I on this topic. In doing so, I have a learned that the solution to our science communication problem is very simple. All we need to do is exactly what they did. Continue reading “REPOST: Do as You Say, Do as You Do – Fixing Science Communication”
Brilliant Beyond Words
Randall Munroe can blow your mind in under five minutes. Not fair. Here’s hoping his family illness concerns are resolved quickly and happily.
The Finch and Pea 