tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29091041.post2314806480540189390..comments2023-08-20T06:07:00.883-07:00Comments on Lysine Rich: Those terrorists...Elizabethhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03838351800414878044noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29091041.post-14028928621584672892007-09-14T16:34:00.000-07:002007-09-14T16:34:00.000-07:00This reminds me of that talk of creating a nationa...This reminds me of that talk of creating a national id to prevent terrorism. How would that <I>do</I> anything? I mean logically, is a national id could prevent terrorism, it ought to be effective on other violent crime (as terrorism is just violent crime without a specific person in mind but with a specific ideological reason). But this is also unclear. I really dislike it when people propose a solution to a non-problem, merely for the sake, I would guess, to feel like they are doing <I>something</I> for the issues facing our society. And yet, there are some problems that are to be solved not by doing anything new, but merely just doing what you already do, just doing it well or better and not being lazy about it. <BR/><BR/>In general I think a major problem with many bureaucracies is they understand that an action ought to be taken when it has a specific and well-defined problem to address. Solutions to ill-defined problems tend to be non-productive, as there is no clear instance where it should be applied and why. (Having such an instance would constituent making the problem well-defined.)<BR/><BR/>Bruce Schneier, a security guru of sorts, once likened instituting such non-solutions, or solutions to ill-defined problems, as planting a 30ft super sharp spike in the middle of a wide field. Yes, if the enemy runs into the spike as they come at you, they will be hurt. The spike itself it hard to tackle and remove. But they could also just step around it.Duffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06494648113157850242noreply@blogger.com