The Little Bomb-Detecting Device That Couldn't 217
theodp writes "Widely deployed in Iraq and promoted by military leaders, BusinessWeek reports the ADE 651 bomb-detecting device had one little problem: it wouldn't detect explosives (earlier Slashdot story). 'The ADE 651,' reports Adam Higginbotham, 'was modeled on a novelty trinket conceived decades before by a former used-car salesman from South Carolina, which was purported to detect golf balls. It wasn't even good at that.' One thing the ADE 651 did excel at, however, was making money — estimates suggest that the authorities in Baghdad bought more than 6,000 useless bomb detectors, at a cost of at least $38 million. Even though ADE 651 manufacturer James McCormick was found guilty of three counts of fraud and sentenced to 10 years in prison in May, the ADE 651 is still being used at thousands of checkpoints across Baghdad. Elsewhere, authorities have never stopped believing in the detectors. Why? According to Sandia Labs' Dale Murray, the ideomotor effect is so persuasive that for anyone who wants or needs to believe in it, even conclusive scientific evidence undermining the technology it exploits has little power."
I haven't played golf in several years (Score:3, Insightful)
But, back when I did, I can tell you: a functional golf ball detector would've been very handy.
Re:I haven't played golf in several years (Score:5, Funny)
But, back when I did, I can tell you: a functional golf ball detector would've been very handy.
Real duffers come back to the clubhouse with more balls than they started with.
Re:I haven't played golf in several years (Score:4, Insightful)
Do some of those have stripes on them?
Re:I haven't played golf in several years (Score:4, Funny)
No, most of the duffers do not have stripes. ;-)
beavis and butthead did that (Score:3)
http://www.220.ro/desene-animate/Beavis-And-Butthead-Mr-Anderson-S-Balls/Exolp5FjL2/ [220.ro]
Re: (Score:2)
Golf caddies do just that, and more. Back when I did, they were available on almost every golf course.
Re: (Score:2)
These days you could probably slap a differential phase-sensing GPS receiver, a transmitter and a battery in each golf ball, allowing you to know its location to within a few inches on the golf course...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I knew it (Score:5, Insightful)
It has a deep tradition it seems (Score:5, Interesting)
Some people don't even think it is special powers, just a thing you do. My grandpa did the dowsing thing to decide where to put the various wells on his property. Not because he thought he had special powers, it was just how he'd learned you select your well spot. Anyone could do it. He figured it worked since every time he'd drill that spot, and before long have a functional well.
For him it wasn't magical or special powers, it was just the standard process. Get Y shaped stick, walk around, it signals where the well goes, put it there.
Re:It has a deep tradition it seems (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the ideomotor effect. You know, possibly subconsciously, where the water is likely to be (read Blink! by Malcolm Gladwell) based on experience. So when you walk to that spot, the stick points down.
I've had well drillers dowse for wells before. I didn't give them any crap for their show. Because they had a track record for finding water. Why? Probably 30 or 40 years drilling wells. But even if they think its the stick, that's fine with me. Same as with the baseball players with the lucky socks.
Re:It has a deep tradition it seems (Score:5, Interesting)
Not once did he screw it up, he hit water every time. I was a skeptic to before I seen it, and it didn't seem like it would work for just anyone. I tried it along with a lot of my relatives, and it wouldn't do a thing, my one uncle it did it a bit.
It was funny one time this guy tried digging a well on his property twice kept getting dry, my grandfather went out and did the dowsing told him here this is where you got to dig(they guy didn't like my grandfather for some reason, and was a major skeptic), the guy ignored my grandfathers advice, dug up 3 more spots in the following 2 years, kept hitting dry again. Finally fed up he called my grandfather back to confirm the location, grandfather goes back, exact same spot detects water, guy digs there and sure enough hits water.
Re:It has a deep tradition it seems (Score:5, Interesting)
Right, which is the exact ideometer effect that's being discussed here. There are other (subconcious) cues at work which lead him to believe where the water will be - or just pure coincidence. Aside from the obvious fact there's no actual mechanism at work, it can be easily disproven. Take a dowser out until they find a spot "with water", then blindfold them and drive them around to re-test various random spots including this one. The vast majority of the time, they'll get it wrong - suddenly not able to detect water at the spot they previously said it was at, or detect water in places they previously said it wasn't. Also fun is taking them to an area known to be entirely over a natural aquifier and watch them wander around until they "find" water in some exclusive spot.
Map-based dowsing is even easier to disprove - again, aside from the obvious lack of any mechanism (ie, it doesn't really need proof, but just to satisfy the idiots out there we have to go through it). Give a map-dowser a map without orientation or contour lines and suddenly their "abilities" go away. Give them a fully-detailed map but blind-fold them, and similarly, they're no longer able to "detect" where the water is.
In all cases, it's either fraudulent, subconcious, or simply luck. Likewise, stories about "other people" are steeped in grandeur. A guy who gets it right "a couple of times" is suddenly a legendary dowser, and every re-telling by both others and himself get better and better each time.
Re:It has a deep tradition it seems (Score:4, Interesting)
In plenty of places, you can put a well wherever you like and it'll work. I'm quite sure that's the case on my grandfather's property. There's a lot of homes there with their own wells, there's presumably a big aquifer or the like underneath (I've never bothered to check to see what). So the reason dowsing worked was that any spot was fine.
He did it just because he believed it was how it was done. Of course each time it 'worked' and as such he kept doing it.
What I found interesting about the thing was that it was a 'common man' kind of thing for him and others. He wasn't a huckster that went around dowsing for people, he did it himself, for his wells, and just using whatever Y shaped stick he'd come across. To him, it wasn't mystical, it was just a process one did like so much else in farming and ranching and it was something anyone could, and would, do.
I think that might have something to do with why dowsers keep believing in it. There seems to be a real strong cultural thing that dowsing just works, and so they believe that must be the case.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I don't need to use dowsing for anything here. Sycraft-fu is master_kaos. You should really use two different browsers to keep your names straight.
Re:It has a deep tradition it seems (Score:5, Insightful)
"... very religious so not a liar."
Yeah, because that obviates any concern that someone might be self-deluded into believing in magical things.
(Btw, I also have relatives said to be wonderful dowsers... and I don't believe it a bit from them either.)
Re:It has a deep tradition it seems (Score:5, Funny)
Can you explain the logic of this part of your statement? I can't discern any.
Re: (Score:3)
The guy who installed my septic system used to help his father-in-law drill water wells. A guy wanted a well and fancied himself a water witcher. He told them where to drill. When the first hole came up dry he claimed they drilled off of his mark. When the second hole came up dry he said they were drilling slightly crooked. When the third hole came up dry the driller made the guy an offer - let him pick his own spot to drill the next hole: if it comes up dry too the guy doesn't owe him a dime but if he hits
In the case of my grandpa (Score:2)
I imagine anywhere on his property would have worked. In total he ended up putting in 4 wells in different locations, spread around, for different purposes. Seems like a safe bet there was an aquifer or the like below all of it. I'm sure he could have chosen any spot, and he already knew the area he wanted it in. He just dowsed for the specific spot.
Re: (Score:3)
There is something to this. If you have an approved mechanism for intuitively detecting bombs they you have probable cause to terminate a prospective bomber, and if your intuition is right more than half the time on average, you're a hero. Since some few are more accurate with intuition and some less, and the metrics are classified, you are free to open fire indiscriminately anywhere anywhen.
Um, no. That is not how we win the hearts and minds of the people. Since the goal isn't to develop a subject col
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like an 'ethnic detector.'
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It has a deep tradition it seems (Score:5, Interesting)
> There is something to this. If you have an approved mechanism for intuitively detecting bombs they
> you have probable cause to terminate a prospective bomber, and if your intuition is right more than
> half the time on average, you're a hero. Since some few are more accurate with intuition and some
> less, and the metrics are classified, you are free to open fire indiscriminately anywhere anywhen.
Half the time? Nah, I think you are overestimating how accurate you need to be, because, even if you find nothing, you can, like the scammer of these did, claim that it hit on some residue and you just got them at the wrong time.
In fact, this is very much the way drug dogs are used. Dogs, it turns out, have great snouts and can detect all manner of things, and do great in really blind trials. However, they are even better at playing "Clever Hans" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clever_Hans [wikipedia.org] ), that is, if the handler is given any clues as to where their might be hits, the animals false positive rate goes through the roof...in exactly the places where the handler expects to find something.
So.... dogs are great at finding bombs or drugs in random packages... but in one of their most common use cases, sniffing a suspects car, they are just about guaranteed a hit, because their handler is expecting one. A hit, that can be explained away and dismissed when nothing is found, so their real hit rate can be far lower than chance without bringing them into question.
One study used no drugs or explosives at all, but flagged several points with information for the handler indicating the type of hit expected to set his expectations. If the dogs were 100% effective, there would have been not a single hit amongst any of the trials...the results?
from http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2011/02/animal_behaviour [economist.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Think about it (Score:2)
but Perfect for America security theatre (Score:3, Insightful)
Nobody can prove your claims to the contary for the make belive threats you countered
Re: (Score:3)
Shoot first, drone first, water board first and THEN ask questions.
Who needs theatre?
Re:but Perfect for America security theatre (Score:5, Funny)
I like to yell "halt" before I shoot. It's easier if they aren't moving.
nothing new... (Score:5, Informative)
In Ramadi '05 we had these cool spray kits.
It was a little plastic case with several sprays and swabs with some instructions for various kinds of explosive testing.
One day we caught these dudes out on the desert who would dig up UXO's and sell them to local insurgents who would use them for IEDs.
Lat Long: 33.16845,43.635263
We had been trying to catch them for a while but they were on motorcycles... try catching a motorcycle in an up-armor hmmwv.
When we caught them, they didn't have any explosives on them. So we though, hey... why not try out this kit?
They tested positive for 2 kinds of explosives. So we detained them, shipped them off to the detention facility with all the appropriate paper work and evidence... as best we could since we aren't investigators by trade.
So we are back at the OP, thinking how bad-ass we are. Then we get the idea to play with the kit some more. We tested our hands, HESCO barriers, lunch meat, hmmwv windows... everything tested positive. Guess the kits didn't really work as advertised but every unit had one.
Of course, maybe our kit was bad. Or maybe we didn't use the kit correctly. Or there was really explosive residue on everything.
At least the kits weren't WHY we detained them. They were going to be detained anyway. But the Military being dazzled by salesmen or shiny new stuff is nothing new.
Re:nothing new... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:nothing new... (Score:5, Funny)
It serves the same purpose as telling your sleepless and scared toddler that their blanket is actually an anti-monster device. So that they'll shut up and go to bed.
I told my daughter that the monsters had nibbled on her while she was sleeping and reported to me that she didn't taste good. It worked about as well as you might imagine.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
We tested our hands, HESCO barriers, lunch meat, hmmwv windows... everything tested positive.
Hmm, everything you mentioned but one is something is in a combat environment where roadside explosives are not uncommon, and where weapons are fired on a regular basis. Sounds like detecting explosives on such items would be normal.
But lunch meat? Well, once you remember that many explosives are nitro-compounds (nitrate, etc.) and lunch meat contains nitrates as preservatives ... and that the CIA is putting nitrates in your koolaid to keep your, shall we say, libidos, from running amok...
Re:nothing new... (Score:4, Insightful)
Ahh. the salt peter myth.
No, I "broke one off" there many a time my friend.
The kits tested for nitrate-based and some others I don't remember. Octyl-based? Wished I still had the little hand-out.
We had a VBIED there later on. So I can see residue then. But not before. We DID fire our weapons all the time, but not over the lunch meat! There are nitrates in lunch meats, but if lunch meat causes a false-positive then your kit isn't really worth much.
Re: (Score:2)
While were on the subject of Nothing new...
Man accused of selling golf ball finders as bomb detectors [slashdot.org]
Kenya Police: Our fake bomb detectors are real [slashdot.org]
Still not as bad as the .NET Firefox Plugin dupes [slashdot.org] But it's only got three more to go.
Re: (Score:2)
So we are back at the OP, thinking how bad-ass we are. Then we get the idea to play with the kit some more. We tested our hands, HESCO barriers, lunch meat, hmmwv windows... everything tested positive
Ah. We had the same problem with exploding cans of lunch meat. No, really, after being transported on a Hercules and stored in heat for a couple of days, we would often enough hear a "pop" or "pffft". And if we didn't clean the "savory juices", the stench would start.
The guys who smuggled in pizza made a fortune.
Re: (Score:3)
Two old WWII Vets are talking... One says, "You know that Salt-Petre they put in our food to stop us thinking about sex? i think it is starting to work".
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you... (Score:3)
According to Sandia Labs' Dale Murray, the ideomotor effect is so persuasive that for anyone who wants or needs to believe in it, even conclusive scientific evidence undermining the technology it exploits has little power."
That explains a LOT about how the US Congress thinks/works.
Re:Thank you... (Score:5, Insightful)
According to Sandia Labs' Dale Murray, the ideomotor effect is so persuasive that for anyone who wants or needs to believe in it, even conclusive scientific evidence undermining the technology it exploits has little power."
That explains a LOT about how the US Congress thinks/works.
...And those who elect them.
I wish (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I wish (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know what you are talking about. There is loads of scientific evidence on the oil reserves in Iraq.
wtf (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
This one actually had an informative bit in it. I didn't know the guy responsible is in jail. I'm very happy that he is.
Elephants (Score:2)
It says in the article the device can detect bombs,guns, ammunition, drugs and elephants.
My question is: Why are Iraqis trying to smuggle elephants through checkpoints?
Re: (Score:2)
And no elephants were smuggled through. The device is a success!
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
It says in the article the device can detect bombs,guns, ammunition, drugs and elephants. My question is: Why are Iraqis trying to smuggle elephants through checkpoints?
They were trying to cross the Alps, but got a little lost on the way.
My question is: How do you "smuggle" an elephants?
Oh, no, sir, that's not an elephant. It's just a big dog. Let me show you...
Roll over, Fido! Good dog... Play dead!... Fetch!...
See? Just a big dog... Can I go now?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
A "packing" pachyderm?
Boy, those ivory poachers are in for a BIG surprise!
Everyone has heard that elephants never forget.
What they never told anyone was that elephants also never miss.
Strat
It wasn't a bomb detection device (Score:4, Informative)
This was not a bomb detection device, this was just a scam and nothing else. But corruption does not care about such facts and never is going to.
Is this the real reason? (Score:5, Insightful)
The real reason they continue to use these isn't because they somehow have convinced themselves that it works. It's probably not even directly a scam insofar as they're shoving money to some business cohort through the military industrial complex. I would suspect that what this is really about is that it's far cheaper to stick a device in a young man's hand and convince him that it's there to protect him, so that he'll actually continue to actively do his job, and have him wind up being blown up -- than it is to spend money on any sort of real device. The man is disposable. The worthless device is the placebo to motivate him to feel safe in doing his job. And when he dies, it was a far cheaper investment than the amount that any sort of real device would cost to produce, purchase, train on, and deploy.
Re: (Score:3)
This is not because they're stupid (Score:2)
Effectiveness of fake bomb detectors (Score:5, Interesting)
Now, while they're technologically incapable of their purpose, I wonder if they might actually be somewhat effective in real life? IE a different type of placebo?
It says that they're being used at a number of checkpoints. Now, one of the things I know about is that the insurgents/terrorists tend to observe such places before they target them. Often at some distance, but eh.
The ones doing the observing are often no more educated than those working the checkpoint, often less. So they see the operators using their 'bomb detector' in all seriousness. They think 'crap! They'd find our bomb, time to figure out a different plan!' and either delay or go elsewhere. So the end result is that they still have fewer attacks against that checkpoint.
Re: (Score:3)
if the attack is against that checkpoint it doesn't matter if they run a bomb detector..
Checkpoint bomb attacks (Score:2)
Still, placement is critical with bombs. Less the larger they are, but that costs more resources.
What if they're trying to get something beyond the point? What if they want to hit the center of the point?
If they figure they're going to be caught early they'll most likely change their plans.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately That's not the case; there's at least one instance where a successful bombing was performed because this device gave the all clear at a checkpoint.
Better have unskeptic insurgent then (Score:2)
Er, what about (Score:2)
"Use the Force, Luke!"
magical thinking (Score:3)
Read "The Golden Bough" and you'll find why this works. It's the same reason magic and religion used to be big things (and guarantee their providers a work-free life):
In a situation where forces you can't control determine your survival, you will grasp at any straw that gives you the illusion of control. It's a normal human reaction. It works even if you know about it. You want to believe, at least unconsciously.
It's probably the oldest scam in the history of mankind.
Re: (Score:3)
What do you mean "used to"?
Re: (Score:2)
In the same sense that Microsoft used to dominate the software world - with big power comes a certain refuses-to-die-quickly element. Due to the large installed base and lock-in effects, it takes a long time to go away, even after its dominance has been solidly broken.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that none of those people drive to work with their eyes closed and no seat belt strongly suggests otherwise.
Just as effective as fake surveillance cameras. (Score:3)
There may be valid reasons the Iraqi forces are using these fake detectors. If the look of these devices makes some clueless criminals afraid of smuggling explosives, they are serving their purpose in preventing crime.
They could have been bought a lot cheaper (Score:2)
If the idea was to intimidate people through the use of "security theater", there are cheaper ways to do so. Fake surveillance cameras are cheap. These bogus bomb detectors were not.
Also, it sounds like you are making the common mistake of assuming the bad guys are morons. They can read the internet too; this $hit's been splashed all over the New York Times... if they know the devices are bogus then they'll target checkpoints that have them, knowing they don't work.
And believing you are screening for exp
And in other news... (Score:4, Interesting)
Shocker: In the face of conclusive evidence understandable to anybody with an IQ higher than a kumquat, people still believe in:
Ponzi schemes
Homeopathy
Dowsing
Young-earth creationism
Psychics
Never underestimate the stubbornness of otherwise-rational people.
Authority Testing (Score:2)
So did the authorities actually test them?
They have sample explosives for bomb dogs to find surely they could test the detectors in the same way. Its not an expensive test process.
Re: (Score:2)
To save you actually reading:
- yes, they tested them
- those authorities that knew how to test (i.e. blind tests) knew they didn't work
- those that didn't know how to test properly fell for the Ideomotor Effect
Disassembly of the devices showed they had NO active components - hence the lack of a power source (supposedly run on static electricity !!)
But more importantly, one can infer that there was a lot of corruption in the sales processes to a number of third-world and war-torn countries ... hardly an incen
It ain't the meat it's the motion (Score:2)
It
Re: (Score:2)
If they're going to use a scientific metaphor to bolster their pseudo-science, they should have at least called it the "momentum of money". A product of both its mass (the amount) and how fast it is moved.
Missing the point (Score:3)
The point of this device, just like drug sniffing dogs, is not its ability to actually detect what it's supposed to be looking for. Its purpose to give the police, military, or other arm of the state a plausible excuse to detain and/or search anyone they want.
Re: (Score:2)
you could get quite a bit cheaper for that.
Re: (Score:2)
Add to it the psychological factor - if someone starts to act nervous when it shows up you have some reason to investigate further.
However in any place outside the US the "probable cause" doesn't exist, so cops can stop anyone whenever they find it necessary.
Interesting view of the rest of the world. I know that you're from the US but really, at least pretend to show some sort of interest/knowledge of the wider world before make pronouncements like this. It's got to be embarrassing for your peers to make such ignorant and ill-informed statements.
Pretty damned good pay for time in! (Score:2)
Hmm...
Hey, Uncle Sam, I hear you need some replacement bomb detectors. Have you taken a look at my brand of detectors that work by the difficult-to-disprove tachyon flux method? Sure, they cost 50% more, but I guarantee at least one of us won't regret your buying them as I sip mohitos on my private beach a decade from now...
Re: (Score:2)
$38 million. Even though ADE 651 manufacturer James McCormick was found guilty of three counts of fraud and sentenced to 10 years in prison in May
what about the idiots that forked out the money to buy these... so you imprison a person for your own stupidity!!! there is your "free country" in hindsight..
stupidty protects you from murder charges.. not manslaughter.
and well.. yeah, you could imprison someone for taking bribes for buying a shitty product.
I asked my Dad what's that lure supposed to catch? (Score:3)
as I was a 9-year old kid going through his tackle box before our fishing trip.
His answer "Fishermen".
Magnet motors (Score:2)
The sort of person who continues to believe these things work is the sort of person who believes that magnet motors can deliver "free" power.
Why they never doubted the crap? Easy. (Score:2)
For the same reason other decision makers never question their wrong decisions: Their career hangs on it. So if they admit they fucked up royally, it's their end.
For reference, ask any tech who ever had to suffer from some idiot PHB who had some markedroid talk him into buying some expensive, useless tech. Anyone here who didn't ever try to talk some sense into a PHB to finally dump something that keeps sinking money because there is simply NO way this could EVER work but said PHB keeps pumping more money i
Bomb-detector, golf ball finder, little difference (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You forgot Cancer Screening saves lives.
Re: (Score:2)
All those FDA approved food additives are are fine.
I'm not sure what you're referring to, but in case you didn't know, lots of the fraudulent stuff you buy to imbibe, inhale, or apply in the USA is on the market precisely because the FDA *doesn't* have jurisdiction over them.
Re: (Score:3)
All those FDA approved food additives are are fine.
This one is probably technically untrue, because "all" is a lot. The FDA is pretty good, but they're not perfect.
The scanners the TSA uses are safe and effective.
Probably half-true. TSA is not gonna open itself up to major legal liability by using scanners that hurt scannees.
"Effective," is a whole 'nother ball of wax.
Putting millions on subsidized healthcare and ensuring even more of the incidental costs are hidden from consumers will reduce healthcare spending.
Intuitively this makes no sense, but we do have several hundred examples of health systems to compare ourselves to, i9ncluding several dozen high-income countries with economies similar to our own, and what's really fucking weird is that the
Re:But remember kids (Score:5, Insightful)
All those FDA approved food additives are are fine.
The scanners the TSA uses are safe and effective.
Putting millions on subsidized healthcare and ensuring even more of the incidental costs are hidden from consumers will reduce healthcare spending.
There was no coup in Egypt ...
One of those, the third one specifically, stands out as not fitting the theme.
You do realise it's the *same government* that has given us the TSA, the FDA, and the many other ruinous mistakes in every area it's involved in that you expect is magically going to take charge of health care and make us all better?
Surely you jest.
This is also the same government that put a lander on Mars with a sky crane and created the internet. And how come the FDA doesn't get credit for making food and drugs in the USA among the safest in the world?
Re: (Score:2)
Actually on re-reading I believe I misunderstood the OP and responded erroneously to it.
You then misunderstood us both. Ah well. One of the few times I wish slashdot had a delete button. Hopefully the whole thread will be modded down now.
Re:But remember kids (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
B6 (Score:3)
How about because they pulled a natural form of vitamin B6 from the shelves so a private company could investigate selling it as a prescription to diabetics with B6 deficiency complications?
The idea behind the FDA is good. The FDA in practice is just another regulator in bed with the private institutions it's been charged with regulating. It's the same fundamental problem that brought us the Deepwate
Re: (Score:3)
There are people on the right that are that idiotic. There are also people on the left that claim that government can do wrong, and how dare you look for waste, fraud, kick-backs, and other abuse.
Both sides are wrong, crazy, and stupid. And the left can quote bad science just as much as the right, they're just not called on it as often.
Re: (Score:2)
No, they're just not elevated to positions of power. Wingnuts on the left are more often to be called out for their foolishness (e.g. Jenny McCarthy).
Re: (Score:2)
Actually it was private industry (Lockheed) that did that one.
Re:But remember kids (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Health care insurance doesn't mean the government actually takes out your gall bladder, they just pay for having it taken out with taxpayer money. The government is good at spending taxpayer money, but not half so good as the insurance companies are at siphoning off profits. But then, who ever heard of a government making money?
The problem here is to allow the siphon that private insurance companies invariably mean. Pay for the healthcare without the overhead of insurance companies. But no, that's against the law in the US, because that would be the government outcompeting private companies.
As for governments making money, there are plenty of examples. All in countries were governments aren't barred by law from making money.
(But then comes a wind from the right, and some populist right wing politicians tell how much better eve
Re: (Score:2)
Over here in the UK, the government takes it out. Everyone has access to free healthcare. No-one dies because they can't afford insurance, or faces financial ruin because they can only survive with a drug that costs £1000 a month.
On the downsides, a combination of high demand, tight funding and a government constantly starting 'reforms' in such rapid succession that none of them even finishes before the next begins have overstrained the system to the point that all you're promised right away is access
Re: (Score:2)
... The government is good at spending taxpayer money, but not half so good as the insurance companies are at siphoning off profits. But then, who ever heard of a government making money?
Hah. That's rich. Government isn't in the game to make a profit... for itself. It is frequently in it to make a profit for friends, relatives, or kick-backs to politicians. There are plenty of ways that "public" funds become "private" funds.
And if you think insurance companies are good at siphoning off profits... Governments are far better. They just don't pocket the money. They shift it into the "general fund", and spend it however they like. Taxes and fees rarely go away. Given long enough, they
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but the TSA got to look at scanner porn in the meantime. And yet, we would have been better off had they just bought every TSA agent a subscription to "Jugs" and left the flying public alone.
Re: (Score:2)
Here in the US, the incompetent are called "victims". There's no shame to being ignorant, and, sometimes I think, no concept of shame at all. And the black-and-white thinking that dictates that if this guy was guilty, the buyers were therefore innocent.
Sure, the guy is guilty, and deserves 10 years in the locker. But so does every single buyer. You have to be seriously retarded to fall for a scam like this, and seriously retarded people should not be charged with buying military equipment.
No ifs and but
Victims? (Score:2)
I thought the were called the GOP.
Re: (Score:2)