well...
If all the "terrists" do is to cut the video feed, I say "who gives a sh*t?"
The stupid bowl is such a non-event, and I don't understand all the hoohah.
Fears of fiber cable cuts, rogue drones menacing crowds at Super Bowl 50
A security memo from the FBI and Department of Homeland Security has warned of the dangers from a high-tech attack against crowds flocking to Silicon Valley for this year's Super Bowl jamboree. The climactic game will be held in the San Francisco 49ers stadium in Santa Clara on February 7, although there will be a series of …
-
-
-
Wednesday 20th January 2016 15:51 GMT 404
Re: well...
I learned everything I know about football from British tv:
'Hooray. He's kicked the ball. Now the ball's over there. That man has it now. That's an interesting development. Maybe he'll kick the ball. He has indeed and apparently that deserves a round of applause...'
See? I'm well rounded.
;)
-
-
Wednesday 20th January 2016 18:19 GMT Mark 85
Re: well...
Don't you know that most people don't watch it for the "game"? They watch it for the commercials and then there's the parties that happen. The feed for the game could be cut and not many would care in reality as long as the adult beverages flow, the food is reasonably good and the commercials play.
Disclaimer: I haven't watched this particular event in a couple of decades... and I'm American.
-
-
Wednesday 20th January 2016 04:02 GMT Malcolm Weir
Notice how the FBI and Homeland Security are concerned about... UNAUTHORIZED VIDEO COVERAGE!!!
Yep, the idea that some punter may get to see something except through the anointed TV channel is as big a threat to US security as bombs-n-shit. I mean, the ads on the blessed TV outlet cost MILLIONS, and for someone who paid that much money to not get their money's would be a crisis!
-
Wednesday 20th January 2016 04:22 GMT JaitcH
More groundless fear-mongering from an Agency that stages 'terrorism'
QUOTE: "Well, the primary fact is that their chance of being killed in a terrorist attack on any given year is about 1 in 4 million. Their chance of being killed in an automobile accident, for example, is about 1 in 6- or 7,000. If we talk about the period since 9/11, your chance of being killed is 1 in 90 million per year. So, that is where the discussion should start. It isn’t where it should end, but certainly the basis should be there. Instead of constantly talking about, “Are we safer?” The beginning question should be, “How safe are we?” And these statistics and odds are an indication of how safe we are. Salon: 2016 JAN 18-“More than a trillion dollars has been misspent”
-
Wednesday 20th January 2016 04:47 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: More groundless fear-mongering from an Agency that stages 'terrorism'
Yes, let's take the 3000+ dead in 2001 and spread that number amongst many other years so it doesn't look significant, and let's also talk about a past without 2001 altogether. See how easy it is to make concerned citizens look like fearful old spinsters?
Spare us your 'statistics', okay? There isn't an acceptable terrorism loss rate no matter what you personally believe.
-
-
Wednesday 20th January 2016 18:49 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: There isn't an acceptable terrorism loss rate...
> "There isn't an acceptable street mugging loss rate either; nor any other sort of murder rate."
So you believe that terrorism is just another form of crime? Sorry but that's incorrect. Terrorism is an act that attempts to instill terror in a population in order to cow and control that population politically. It's nothing like simple murder and muggings. But go ahead, keep living in your comfortable imaginary world.
-
Wednesday 20th January 2016 19:54 GMT Lysenko
Re: There isn't an acceptable terrorism loss rate...
@Big John
I didn't "imagine" being less than 500m from terrorist bombs here in the UK on three different occasions. It happened. Once it was Jihadis (7/7) the other two were IRA.
I'm still a damned sight more concerned with incompetent idiots in motor vehicles and if I were still in the USA I'd be far more worried about mouth breathing retards with a quasi-sexual firearms fetish. Terrorists. Not so much.
We're supposed to be IT professionals. We apply maths and statistics to decision trees, not FUD and rhetoric (that's Consultant territory).
-
Thursday 21st January 2016 15:12 GMT John Robson
Re: There isn't an acceptable terrorism loss rate...
"So you believe that terrorism is just another form of crime? Sorry but that's incorrect. Terrorism is an act that attempts to instill terror in a population "
So you are giving them the victory?
Ignore them, they are an insignificant threat compared with those we have decided are "normal" and acceptable.
-
-
-
Wednesday 20th January 2016 09:46 GMT John Robson
Re: More groundless fear-mongering from an Agency that stages 'terrorism'
"Spare us your 'statistics', okay? There isn't an acceptable terrorism loss rate no matter what you personally believe."
Yet there is an acceptable automobile related death rate?
And an acceptable gunshot death rate?
Terrorists are so low down on the actual threat list for human lives/health that they really shouldn't be significantly considered.
Of course if the fibre gets cut and someone is streaming online from a remote control aircraft... then all hell will break loose - no ad breaks, how are the players going to get their rests?
-
Wednesday 20th January 2016 11:54 GMT Jason Bloomberg
Re: More groundless fear-mongering from an Agency that stages 'terrorism'
Yes, let's take the 3000+ dead in 2001 and spread that number amongst many other years so it doesn't look significant, and let's also talk about a past without 2001 altogether.
While 3,000 were killed by terrorists in 2001 Americans killed 10,0000 of their own in gun homicides and 100,000 were shot. And, while the terrorist toll has not been repeated, that from gun violence has repeated year in year out.
-
-
-
Wednesday 20th January 2016 09:48 GMT Hairy Airey
Being the pedant I am
Football (ie soccer) is a throwy kicky game - neither is actually solely played with the feet.
The Superbowl is a big event in the US, it's been joked before that Russia could invade whilst it's on and no-one would notice. It's only a matter of time until it is attacked by terrorists.
In other news they are calling this year's Superbowl 50 because Superbowl L doesn't really appeal. Nor will Superbowl LI. Time to drop the Roman numerals I think.
-
Wednesday 20th January 2016 19:27 GMT Robert Helpmann??
Full Contact
... there will be a series of events in San Francisco and the Valley to commemorate the runny... version of football favored by the rebellious colonies.
I understand that concussions in American football have been a topic for news coverage lately, but if someone gets hit hard enough to go past "rattled" straight to "runny" I suspect things might change a little faster than they have so far.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
