Metropol

Gavin Scott wrote:Those are my words, yes, but you basically said a bomb that doesn't blow up, or one that would only maim/kill a handful of people is unworthy of a terror alert - a non story, then.

The media reaction caused deep concern or fear when none would otherwise have existed. Of course the discovery of a bomb on a plane isn't a non-story, we all know that, however to say things like 'could have exploded midair' and 'there was enough explosive to bring down a plane' as if it would've certainly happened had the bomb not been discovered is irresponsible, and the media frenzy on Friday night was the sort of response you'd expect to see if there had actually been a terrorist attack.

A 40kg bomb was discovered in Northern Ireland on Saturday - probably 150 times more powerful than the one found at EMA, yet the media hardly mentioned it. The resurgent threat from the IRA, who know how to make reliable bombs and could plant them anywhere, is more concerning at this time. Al-Qaeda are rubbish bomb makers and they limit their scope with this stupid fixation on transportation. The IRA could target cinemas, clubs, arenas, stadiums, shopping centres - anywhere, using far more effective devices.

Gavin Scott wrote:Half a dozen reasonable people disagreed, but you've chosen to focus on the one expression about being "unqualified" to talk about the severity of incendiary devices.

How many books must I read before I'm qualified to comment then?

Gavin Scott wrote:Well that's a pity. I find it possible to debate matters with people and consider them friends.

I find it possible to debate matters politely, but I also find it helps not to be a slave to the approval of others.

I am confident in my knowledge, abilities and beliefs. I neither need nor seek your approval.

Amusingly, my orange phone is now blocking me from tv forum as orange have "classified that it is only suitable for over 18s" and i've not signed up to their "yes I'm an adult" service.

Chie wrote:The media reaction caused deep concern or fear when none would otherwise have existed.

I think that people are relatively calm about the situation. I found myself reflecting on the date, wondering if it would have been dubbed another numerical "event" like 9/11 or 7/7. And thereafter I pondered this new technique of the bomb-makers in selecting an item which would legitimately contain powder, wires and circuitry.

Back in 2001 I came to terms with the fact that we could all fall victim at any time, and all you can do is be philosophical about the risk and live your life.

This is another occasion, if I may say, where you're completely happy to speculate about one thing - like trauma to viewers; but utterly unhappy with speculation of others - like jounos suggesting how bad things may have been.

So why is your speculation more worthy than theirs?

Chie wrote:How many books must I read before I'm qualified to comment then?

I made no such suggestion - I disagreed with how you dismissed the story/the media's reaction thereof. You're the only one hung up on that phrase - as can be seen on the preceding page to this one.

Chie wrote:I find it possible to debate matters politely, but I also find it helps not to be a slave to the approval of others.

I am confident in my knowledge, abilities and beliefs. I neither need nor seek your approval.

Are you implying that those who agreed with each other did so as they/we are desperate for each other's approval? Is that how you reconcile finding yourself outside the consensus of opinion?

That certainly would explain why you entrench yourself so readily.

Gavin Scott wrote:This is another occasion, if I may say, where you're completely happy to speculate about one thing - like trauma to viewers; but utterly unhappy with speculation of others - like jounos suggesting how bad things may have been.

So why is your speculation more worthy than theirs?

The media's speculation mislead viewers.

Gavin Scott wrote:Are you implying that those who agreed with each other did so as they/we are desperate for each other's approval? Is that how you reconcile finding yourself outside the consensus of opinion?

I am saying that I don't care if you think I'm "foolish".

The point I was trying to make before was that it's unhealthy to go through life doubting yourself and worrying whether you're qualified to formulate an opinion about something or do something. Thankfully, as I'm confident in myself, I have no self-doubt about my knowledge and abilities. Also: if I wasn't so confident, I'd still rather get it wrong half the time than not bother trying at all because I might get it wrong and people might think I'm foolish or silly.

Honestly, I can't get over this idea that you're somehow not allowed to confidently estimate the explosive footprint of 250-300g of PETN unless you're a qualified expert. It's pathetic.

Home-made stuff? Ignited in a certain way? Couple of days old? Spread unevenly through a printer? Surrounded by other stuff? At a non-standard temperature, air pressure and humidity?

I'm not an expert, but I don't think I could confidently pronounce anything until I was satisfied I knew what (if any) effect the above had. Maybe I'm just over-conservative though. I guess it depends how interested you are in SEEMING correct rather than BEING correct.

It is not inaccurate to estimate that a bomb of that size would affect probably three or four people in a large enclosed environment such as a warehouse where there are lots of heavy objects around to absorb the blast.

Of course things would be very different if the bomb went off on a plane, but again you have to factor in the random position of the bomb inside the plane, the fact that it's difficult to get a signal on a plane anyway but even harder if the device is buried beneath a load of other stuff, and that the terrorists didn't know the whereabouts of the bomb at any time - WHICH THE MEDIA DID NOT DO.

I'm not repeating myself again.

My broader point is that just because you're pointing out confounding factors it doesn't mean you're adding anything. Uninformed bullshit* is a scourge and people shouldn't EVER be content to emit it. If you're going to say "well it might not matter because of this" but have no specific knowledge beyond "might" and common sense** you're not actually adding anything other than baseless speculation and noise and lord knows there's more than enough of that in the media. At least their conservative narrative of "a bomb on a plane is a bad thing" is correct.

*bullshit = wrong stuff that people say, honestly believing it to be true.
** Einstein said: "common sense is the set of prejudices accumulated by age 18"

Sput, I was calling for more accuracy from the media. "Could have brought down the plane" is not as accurate as "could have brought down the plane providing x, y and z happened", which is not baseless speculation and noise.

The Daily Mail prints generalised statements similar to "could have brought down the plane" all the time, and they receive a lot of stick for neglecting to outline the likelihood of it actually happening, which in reality is normally slim to none...

You're calling for more DETAIL, not accuracy, and there's an important distinction: while the level of detail provided is low, the story is ACCURATE. Adding detail when there's no available data lowers the accuracy. It can be done but depends heavily on someone having a nuanced understanding of the issue at hand, and I wouldn't think journalists are capable of that. This is a technical matter with a set of probabilities for the outcome: there will never be a clear answer.

Sput wrote:You're calling for more DETAIL, not accuracy, and there's an important distinction: while the level of detail provided is low, the story is ACCURATE. Adding detail when there's no available data lowers the accuracy. It can be done but depends heavily on someone having a nuanced understanding of the issue at hand, and I wouldn't think journalists are capable of that. This is a technical matter with a set of probabilities for the outcome: there will never be a clear answer.

Sput, I like your answer.

"Could have brought down a plane" is on a par with the vignettes of incomplete information purveyed by the Daily Mail - it has surprised me that the journalists on TV have not obtained more detail by asking the right questions. You don't need to be a genius to work out that a mobile phone buried beneath mountains of cargo inside a plane thousands of feet in the air will more than likely be incapable of receiving a signal, especially when you don't even know where in the world it is. I mean you wouldn't even know which international dialing code to use! What if the package got stuck in a sorting warehouse for a day or two and the battery went flat? It must take longer than that to ship a package from Yemen to Chicago. I'll never take the so-called 'threat' from this bunch of dimwits seriously.

Oh well. I think we've said all there is to say.

Chie wrote:

Sput wrote:You're calling for more DETAIL, not accuracy, and there's an important distinction: while the level of detail provided is low, the story is ACCURATE. Adding detail when there's no available data lowers the accuracy. It can be done but depends heavily on someone having a nuanced understanding of the issue at hand, and I wouldn't think journalists are capable of that. This is a technical matter with a set of probabilities for the outcome: there will never be a clear answer.

Sput, I like your answer.

"Could have brought down a plane" is on a par with the vignettes of incomplete information purveyed by the Daily Mail - it has surprised me that the journalists on TV have not obtained more detail by asking the right questions. You don't need to be a genius to work out that a mobile phone buried beneath mountains of cargo inside a plane thousands of feet in the air will more than likely be incapable of receiving a signal, especially when you don't even know where in the world it is. I mean you wouldn't even know which international dialing code to use! What if the package got stuck in a sorting warehouse for a day or two and the battery went flat? It must take longer than that to ship a package from Yemen to Chicago. I'll never take the so-called 'threat' from this bunch of dimwits seriously.

Oh well. I think we've said all there is to say.

Have you never called a friend on their regular number only to be told, "I'm on a beach in Dubai"? I'm going to have to guess no.

That's what global roaming is, Chie.

*facepalm*