Miscellaneous desk
< November 15	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 17 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

November 16

Pilots being screened by TSA

Resolved

In reference to this article, I sense that the pilots and their union have an excellent point -- we're worried that the pilots are going to bring a box cutter onto a plane, and then we give them a plane that can be used as a weapon of so much greater magnitude that I can't even imagine the multiplication factor involved. If the federal government allows pilots to pilot planes, why won't they let them through check-in? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 07:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's the whole social theory of how democratic governments like to keep the populace (at least a bit) scared, as it makes them more malleable, less questioning, and more likely to return that government at the next election. Fear of terrorism, capped by the War on Terror, in recent years has been found to be an excellent tool to achieve this. So yes, most likely the government also realises the farce of this situation, but by alerting the population to this 'risk' and then showing that they are effectively acting to 'prevent' the risk they gain points with the bulk of voters who only think superficially about most issues, and of course any major opposition party is reticent to point out the folly of the situation for fear they'll be seen as being 'weak on terrorism' and also because it would limit their own 'effective' actions. Manufacturing Consent is an interesting place to start for this type of reasoning. --jjron (talk) 12:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While on one level I agree that it's a stupid policy, there are sound reasons to screen everyone who wants to get to the secure side of the airport. Remember that a hypothetical pilot with terrorist leanings may want to bring down a plane, but would prefer not to bring down his own plane. One pilot can crash one plane; one pilot smuggling several pounds of Semtex past a security checkpoint can bring down half a dozen planes by handing off the explosive to suicidal accomplices. (Actually, if they use timed detonators, none of the accomplices has to die. Alternatively, with a long enough time delay, one patient pilot with a bundle of explosives can bring down several airliners all by himself.) Of course, the type of screening that is carried out needs to be carefully examined.

Patrick Smith is a commercial pilot who writes the Ask the Pilot column on Salon.com. As someone who depends on airport security every day, he argues pretty convincingly that the focus on three-ounce bottles of liquid and any conceivably pointy object is massively misplaced: [1]. (There is a sad-but-amusing tale in the linked column about airport security confiscating an airline dinner knife – the blunt butter-knife-esque implement that cabin crew give to you on the plane with which to eat – from his luggage.) Smith observes that terrorists are far more likely to be able to bring down an aircraft with explosives (based both on the historical record, and on the way that passengers and crew would respond to a 9/11-type hijacking attempt now) and that it would make much more sense to focus on explosive sniffing. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem then becomes verifying that someone is in fact a pilot. You can purchase a pilot's uniform easily on the internet and credentials would likely be easy to forge. Thus it makes more sense to simply screen everyone even though the entire screening process is blatant security theater. anonymous6494 15:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think a lot of the concern with allegedly "pointless" security checks misunderstands the economics of this.

Consider that the people who you have working airport security are probably not the brightest tools in the shed. Why not? Because bright tools are expensive, and in the United States, we have a huge need for security screeners. So there's going to be a trade off there. Either we pay the kind of money that is required for having a very sharp, very clever, and very discerning force, or we are hiring people who are OK but not exactly brilliant. This isn't their life's work, in other words.

When you have a group of not-exceptionally-security-gifted people, you want them to be doing a very rough heuristic for threats. They are just looking for the obvious things and putting more eyes on the ground. They have been given very general instructions and told not to try and make exceptions about them, because they aren't trusted to make good judgment calls. So you end up with idiocy like the liquids ban — not because the threat is actually so large, but because it's easy to implement. "No liquids over 3 oz." is a rule that anyone with half of a high school education can implement. "No liquids of a suspicious character" is not. Obviously you don't want all of your security handled by dullards — and it's not. But having the dullards do a preliminary check probably does increase security to some degree, at least along very obvious lines.

So that's one issue of what's going on here. The other is that if you are going to make a security system that grants exceptions to people in a special category (like pilots, or people with top-secret clearances, or FBI agents, or what have you), you then also have to make a system that can verify that these people are who they say they are and that their credentials are up to date. So that's some extra expense for what would otherwise be a tiny bit of convenience for the group in question.

Now, presumably the airports do have ways of checking that various people showing up in pilot's uniforms are pilots and are supposed to be there. The question is whether they have those checks at the security gates or not. You could imagine having a separate door for pilots to get in without screening, but that still requires someone there to check their credentials and let them through. Why set up a separate system? So the pilots can bring through box cutters? I mean, what's the point?

Sure, it's "illogical" in a strict sense. But from a practical point of view, what's the benefit of not screening the pilots? The pilots go through security quicker? They already can jump the line. I'm having a hard time seeing the "benefit" to not just applying the blanket rule. And the "cost" can be high: leaving open a security loophole at the basic, "do we let you in the door without checking you" level seems like a recipe for problem, esp. for the sort of attack that TenOfTrades suggests (where the pilot is a conduit for smuggling materials through security — which could be done for a lot of reasons, include extortion). --Mr.98 (talk) 15:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow -- some great responses. Thanks, guys! DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lost questions

I asked a question here a few days ago, and it seems to have dissappeared, I suspect it has been archived. Where would I go to see the answers I received?

148.197.121.205 (talk) 20:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I've found it now. Turns out I just had to follow one of the red links that actually do go somewhere. Why didn't I think of that before. 148.197.121.205 (talk) 20:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the difference between a quiche and a frittata?

My hubby is on a low-carb diet, and he didn't want to share my slice of frittata because of that. But he did happily eat a crustless quiche I made for dinner last night. So what's the difference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.37.64.48 (talk) 22:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nutritionally, I can't imagine there's much of a difference provided any other fillings were the same. Both of those dishes are basically egg-based, with minimal carbohydrates unless you add something high-carb as a filling. ~ mazca ^talk 22:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) To me, quiche lorraine is made in a pie shell. "Crustless quiche" seems slightly self-contradictory to me (would you make a crustless rhubarb pie?). But the recipes for the egg part are also probably a bit different -- maybe the linked article has more info. --Trovatore (talk) 23:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both originated as peasant food, not haute cuisine, so the difference between your mom's quiche and my mom's quiche is probably at least as great as the difference between any random quiche and any random frittata. The OP is essentially correct here; there will be familial difference between recipes, but essentially a quiche is a frittata with a pastry crust. Lots of foods that come from very different cultures "converge" on very similar end results; consider the similarities between, say, polenta and grits, or between a luau and a Southern U.S. barbecue or between sauerkraut and kimchi or between moussaka and eggplant parmigiana, or... you get the idea. --Jayron32 01:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you google-image-search the two names the main difference seems to be a baking tin and frying pan. Richard Avery (talk) 08:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding quiches, it is not unusual to see recipes where you mix a heavy dairy product like creme fraiche with the eggs, unlike with the frittata, which is usually only based on whipped eggs. I am not familiar with the low-carb diet, so I don't know if this makes any difference, though. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Riddle

A fire broke out in a prison. Most of the prisoners made it out safely, but they were severely injured, both physically and emotionally. The king therefore decided to reduce the remaining time for each of the surviving prisoners by half. Here's the problem: What about the convict who was serving a life sentence? --75.33.217.61 (talk) 23:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like either an extremely nebulous moral question, or a puzzle that's not satisfyingly solvable due to a lack of specific information. In either case it doesn't seem particularly suited to a reference desk. ~ mazca ^talk 00:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a riddle that I read in a book somewhere, but it didn't give an answer. --75.33.217.61 (talk) 00:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We're not really supposed to solve riddles here, unless we can find citable sources or a wikipedia article that have solved or discussed the riddle. That said, you know, if I knew the answer I'd just tell you. Can you remember what book you saw it in? ~~It might have given an answer.~~ OP deleted a '?' from what turns out was a statement that the book did not provide an answer, not a question WikiDao ☯ (talk) 00:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like the king could simply knock a year off the life sentence. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If, in retrospect, it really was a life sentence, then the sentence couldn't have been reduced and he must have died in the fire. Haus^Talk 00:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But the king decided to reduce the remaining time for the surviving prisoners, so those that died in the fire do not present a problem really. It's the "reduce the remaining time" that's supposed to be the riddle (it's not a death sentence but a life sentence, ie. lacks a firm end-date). And the answer is to simply reduce the time remaining for the prisoner serving a life sentence to zero, and set that prisoner free. (There may be other unsourced solutions, too, but where is this riddle coming from?) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 00:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The riddle says the king reduced the remaining time, he didn't rub it out. So he could take a year off everyone's sentence, and reassure the lifer that he'll be set free one year before he dies. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only way to do that would be to set the guy free for a year right away, then lock him up again for life. How do you know a year beforehand that it is time to set the prisoner free for a year before he dies? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 01:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a way to do it, although he would obviously remain on "house arrest" or probation during his free year. However, note the revision below, of reducing it by half. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was supposed to be reduced by half. Sorry about the confusion that created. --75.33.217.61 (talk) 01:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My answer still works. The lifer was sentenced at a particular point in time. When his life from that point on is half over, he could be released. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Bugs, you cannot divide an unknown quantity in half. I cannot think of a solution right now in that case. It would still be nice to know where this is coming from. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 01:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would. I've got a hunch there's additional missing information. However, for a solution to your specific question, see below. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, the king releases the prisoner and kills him when he has been free for as long as he spent in prison. Haus^Talk 01:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's one solution, you bet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the prisoner has been in prison sixty years already. Or just a year, but dies of wounds from the fire after a month of freedom. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 01:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since the king cannot know when the life-term prisoner will die, there is no way to cut the time remaining in prison for that prisoner exactly in half. Unless there is more to this than so far revealed, the king will have to make an exception in that case and that is the solution to the riddle. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 01:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The king can know, if he plays it right (and if he doesn't, he shouldn't be king). Let's say the guy was sentenced when he had just turned 25 and the fire happened the next day. The king then tells the lifer that it is up to the lifer himself to decide when he will die, and the king will split the time difference. The catch is, the lifer must die no later than the appointed day. So the lifer must decide how long to keep himself in prison so that he'll likely die of natural causes before having to be put to death as per the agreement. He might think 75, and have himself released on his 50th birthday, to be put to death at 75. Or, he might figure that 95 is better, so he wouldn't be released until he turns 60. Or, to take no chances, he might think 125, and be released when he turns 75. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wellll... these solutions are not implicit in the question, and do not cover all cases posed by the question. At this point, there is either a self-evident answer consistent with the information given (only one I can think of is "make some exception because that can't be done"), or there is a reliable source about all this to be found somewhere. The answer so far is that there is no real answer but a lot to say about that, which falls under some policy guideline or other as something to try to stay away from... WikiDao ☯ (talk) 01:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) With respect, that's the silliest thing I've read this year, Bugs. You've turned a life sentence into a death sentence, which is as far removed from reducing the guy's sentence as you can get. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 01:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A better way to say that would have been, "With all undue respect..." The answers to riddles of this type usually depend on a trick of some kind, and I don't think there's enough information in the (apparently paraphrased) wording presented here to determine the answer. Although when or if we do know the answer, I might think differently. But there's nothing in the riddle that says the life sentencee died, so we can't assume that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the United States, criminals serving life sentences are often eligible for parole after either 15 or 25 years. See [2]. Many countries have similar systems. Just though that I might, you know, bring a reference to the reference desk. Buddy431 (talk) 01:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if the king in the riddle is an absolute monarch, he is not bound by his decision and can do anything but cut the remaining time of a life-term prisoner in half without knowing when the prisoner will die (or anything else that is not possible). WikiDao ☯ (talk) 01:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As King of the Internet I decree that User:WikiDao be imprisoned for life! APL (talk) 03:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. Strike that, I'm using my royal prerogative to cut his sentence exactly in half. From this day hence User:WikiDao will spend every other day in prison, and every alternate day free. APL (talk) 03:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whoo! That's the answer APL! I feel excited! schyler (talk) 04:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Riddle me this, then. ;) (jk, no answers to that please:) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 05:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Usually the answers to such riddles are solved by dispensing with some implicit assumption. There's a rather straightforward solution if you dispense with the assumption that all time in prison must be served consecutively. Simply release the prisoner for a year, and at the end of his furlough, lock him up for a year. Repeat until he dies. This way he spends half of the rest of his life in prison, however long his life may be. If the plus/minus year error concerns you, shorten to alternating months/weeks/days. Quibbling about errors of less than a day is probably pointless, as it is unlikely that someone is standing by with a stopwatch for the prisoners with a fixed term who had their sentence reduced. -- 174.21.246.194 (talk) 06:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops - just noticed APL's response. -- 174.21.246.194 (talk) 06:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, yes, quite right, halving the time into infinitesimally small alternating intervals would arrive at the best approximation of the decreed amount of time to be spent in prison – however tedious and painstaking, but more-or-less acceptably do-able if by royal decree. Is there a source for that solution, though? Just curious. More specific than "calculus". WikiDao ☯ (talk) 07:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To throw another spanner in the works, I vaguely recall that this made it into The Man Who Calculated, where the mathematician came up with the alternation, realised that for accuracy you had to alternate infinitely often (and even on days are you really free if you have to go back to prison every other day?) and decided the way to do it was house arrest (ie a state halfway between prison and liberty) 128.232.241.211 (talk) 08:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The king cuts the guys legs off and frees him, keeping the legs in prison. It's so obvious. Googlemeister (talk) 16:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a legal question, and therefore requires a jurisdiction to be answerable. --Sean 19:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard that the only way to cut short a life sentence is divorce... ;-) gazhiley.co.uk 15:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Grammatical query: Is "marriage" a word or a sentence? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 00:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]