Slashdot Mirror

See for more details https://www.theguardian.com/wo...

The icebreaker was supposed to navigate from Quebec City, down the St Lawrence River, up the east coast of Canada, and into Hudson's Bay for the research mission. But shit happens...

> The icebreaker was soon diverted. Dense ice -- up to 8 metres (25ft) thick -- had filled the
> waters off the northern coast of Newfoundland, trapping fishing boats and ferries.
>
> "It was a really dramatic situation," said David Barber, the expedition's chief scientist.
> "We were getting search and rescue calls from fishing boats that were stranded in the
> ice and tankers that were stranded trying to get fuel into the communities. Nobody
> could manage this ice because it was far too heavy to get through."

[...snip...]

> The decision to cancel the first leg of the expedition was made after it became clear that
> continuing north would interrupt search and rescue operations and probably put lives at risk.

The first priority of the CCGS icebreaker is search and rescue, and there happened to be more work than anticipated, so the research mission was cancelled.

For those of you wondering, no, it is not a good idea to charter an "ice-reinforced ship", when you want to get up close to the ice and do first-hand measurements. You need a real icebreaker. The Akedemik Shokalskiy fiasco http://news.nationalgeographic... is still fresh in people's minds.

AC recall "Microsoft handed the NSA access to encrypted messages" (12 July 2013)
https://www.theguardian.com/wo...
"circumvent its encryption"
"pre-encryption stage access to"
"video calls being collected through Prism"
"direct access"
"working with the FBI, developed a surveillance capability to deal"
"worked "for many months" with the FBI – which acts as the liaison between the intelligence agencies and Silicon Valley on Prism"

Or GitHub is too picky with the tab/spaces differences? I tend to use tabs (not something I really care about, but... I wish the worst to the Hooli-loving space heretics! LOL), but also in languages not caring about spaces/tabs (every language other than Python?) and IDEs which theoretically should take care of these issues automatically.

For example, when writing C# in Visual Studio, I don't even need to use tab/spaces (write a line of code, with 1-space separations between words, press enter and VS automatically sets the left indentation of the next line). If I want to change the default indentation, I use tabs. Same thing with other IDEs I use like NetBeans, Eclipse or Code::Blocks; I also use Notepad++ quite a lot and it seems to perform quite well on this front (it might not even provoke the problem which I am referring right now). But here comes the tricky part: when I upload a code created with one of these IDEs to GitHub, I usually get some files with random lines being wrongly indented, even though they look fine in the IDE. I think that this is provoked by the times when I paste in the given IDE code which I have written with a different program.

This isn't precisely a big deal, but kind of curious. Why is GitHub not getting what IDEs/editors get and even what the naked eye gets (if you edit one of these files in GitHub directly, let it looking fine and save it, the wrong-indentation might still be there; you have to remove all the lines not fully synchronised with the expected tabs/spaces)? Or even more important: why caring so much about spaces/tabs in programming languages pretty much ignoring that aspect and compiling fine regardless of this issue?

In 2007 - he was leftist. But by the time of the shooting.... https://www.theguardian.com/wo...

Well first of all, the communist manifesto was listed on his favorite books among others such as Animal Farm and Mein Kampf (source), and his videos he posted talked about using the gold standard and anti-government statements. (source). Yes he was nuts, but I think the shooting people is more indicative than this claim.

Suck it, moron.

"President Jacques Chirac wanted to know what the hell President Bush had been on about in their last conversation. Bush had then said that when he looked at the Middle East, he saw 'Gog and Magog at work' and the biblical prophecies unfolding." https://www.theguardian.com/co...

the silent majority

...is a misnomer.

63 million votes were cast for Trump
73.5 million people voted against Trump
approximately 90 million eligible Americans - did not vote at all.

The real "silent majority" didn't bother to vote.

source

What's not to love about Facebook PR statements seething with contempt for the obvious.

Facebook uses powerful systems to keep people's information secure and tools to keep their accounts safe

Facebook exists entirely to sell out users to the highest bidder. Facebook only keeps information safe and secure from cheapskates unwilling to pay enough for it. FFS how much lower is it even possible to get?

https://www.theguardian.com/te...

and we do not provide any government with direct access to people's data.

Translation: We obviously provide governments with access to people's data.

We will continue to protect our community from unnecessary or overreaching government intervention

Wink wink nudge nudge.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/1...

Still Facebook involvement in this other than it's ridiculous statements are mostly irrelevant. What is probably much more relevant from a western influence perspective is US foreign policy picking a side in regional Muslim on Muslim holy wars directly fueling death and destruction with foreign aid and arms sales and logistics. The predictable outcome is governments empowered to leverage religion to buttress their legitimacy and otherwise justify logically indefensible positions. And hey if your going to pick a winner... why not pick the side that carries out vast majority of terrorist attacks against the US? You know the same side that includes Daesh and our inbred Saudi "allies" who fund Madrassas and did 9/11.

Either you're a liar or an idiot. I'm not sure which, but there's a reason why The FIRE exists and there have been multiple court cases on this across the US. Here's an example from my own back yard. And the "micro aggression" crowd going after people for "cultural appropriation" and yoga mats. Now we can get into the UK the US, and some more of the US. And one can really keep going. FYI west coast universities, and universities in Southern Ontario are the worst in North America right now for this garbage.

Bonus article, about students in favor of banning free speech in the UK to protect feelings.

Christians might tell you that you're going to hell and say offensive things to you, but they're thankfully not killing people like the Muslims are.

"One of the delegates, Nabil Shaath, who was Palestinian foreign minister at the time, said: "President Bush said to all of us: 'I am driven with a mission from God'. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did.""
https://www.theguardian.com/wo...
"Tony Blair viewed his decision to go to war in Iraq and Kosovo as part of a "Christian battle", according to one of his closest political allies."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...

Isn't that where they charged a toddler with murder? Classy place. Another example of how religion just makes everything better.

Pakistan tourism advice; don't go, and tell everyone you know not to go (they already know).

http://naapo.org/WOWCometRebuttal.html

Another detailed rebuttal on Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/Astro... Well worth reading. Also, take a look at this comment from last year that gives a bit more background info about the author of that study: https://www.theguardian.com/sc...

The ozone problem and greenhouse gas problem are separate issues. Ozone is a comparably minor greenhouse gas compared to CO2, methane, nitrous oxide and (yes) water.

Ozone depletion in the stratosphere was and is still a major problem, driven largely by part per trillion levels of halocarbons from a variety of man-made emissions. The reason it's not being talked about so much anymore? Because Montreal Protocol regulations worked. CFC concentrations are down and the ozone hole is slowly repairing itself:

https://www.theguardian.com/en...

CO2 is a potent greenhouse gas, and so is water. The difference is that water concentrations are limited in the atmosphere: too much and it becomes a cloud and then rain. CO2 concentrations, on the other hand, can just keep rising.

Without rises in other greenhouse gases, the water concentration is such that the short term global temperature trend would be stable. Instead, since other GHG's are causing further warming, it's allowing more water to be stable in the atmosphere. That's driving global temperatures even further up, resulting in positive feedback. There's a nice ACS article about it here:

https://www.acs.org/content/ac...

You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you? Learn what a ghost gun is, where and how they're made, and hoe many of them end up in the US on a given day, thank come talk to me.

As someone with ties to law enforcement, I can tell you that the reality is far from what the media would have you believe. When you've actually had a beer with someone who stopped a trunk-full of hand made Colt 1911 clones from illegally crossing the border, then you can talk to me about how many illegal guns enter the country legally.

You're working form an ignorant viewpoint and quoting media-approved statistics while I have firsthand knowledge.

Furthermore, you're trying to claim we can "make [guns] inaccessible" while admitting that some number of guns enter the country illegally. You can't have it both ways. You can make guns less accessible, but as long as they exist they'll be accessible to anyone sufficiently motivated.

Beyond that, have you stopped for one moment to think there's a reason we kill each other in this country and that guns have nothing at all to do with it? The kinds of guns people of your ilk most often try to remove from circulation (black rifles) account for fewer deaths than knives (which you seem to be fine with), blunt objects (basically every solid object without a blade falls into this category and you seem to be fine with that), or *gasp* fists and feet.

In 2014 (the most recent data I can find), that's 248 rifle deaths. That's all rifles, not just the scary black ones, so the number is even smaller for those, but the FBI doesn't differentiate so I'll be generous and give you all of those. Compare that to 1756 knife deaths, 435 blunt objects, and a whopping 660 people killed with fists or feet. Hell, on that last point I'll add in all other non-pistol firearms: 262 shotgun deaths and 93 "other gun" deaths. That brings the non-handgun firearm total (where the type of firearm was known) up to a whopping 613, still fewer than fists and feet. If we divvy up the "type not stated" category proportionally, we can add 29 rifle deaths, 84 shotgun deaths, and 78 "other gun" deaths, for a total of 804 non-handgun firearm deaths. Finally, we've stretched the numbers so that non-handgun guns kill more people than fists and feet, though the number still pales in comparison to knives.

That's not to say guns don't account for most murders in this country; they certainly do when you also consider handguns, but nobody is calling for those to be banned.

That's right, the simple handgun accounts for more than half of this country's murder rate; yet, I can more easily get a handgun than a black rifle. Why is that?

Also, I am reminded of our previous argument, where I pointed out that, per capita, "gun-free" Francs has more gun violence than the US. Yes, the US has higher overall numbers; we also have a higher overall population; if our population was the size of France, or vise-versa, they would very much outrank us in terms of overall numbers.

But that reality makes you uncomfortable, so you refuse to face it.

It's not my fault you never learn and can't face reality.

Here's a fun exercise: Look at this data (source) and tell me where you, if murdered, are most likely to have been murdered by a gun. The answer is Liechtenstein, followed closely by Puerto Rico, but they've got incomplete data, so we'll have to look at #3, which is Sierra Leone, ranked #164 worldwide in gun ownership with 0.6 firearms per capita and 128 annual homicides by firearm. That's 2.28 per 100,000, to the US' 2.97, where the US has 88.8 guns per capit

The Nazis weren't internationalist socialist.

FTFY

They pretended to be, adopted popular socialist policies

So they adopted socialists policies . . .

...and claimed to represent the people against the establishment.

The treatment of workers and unions under National Socialism would be familiar to workers and Unions in the Soviet Union at the time.

As soon as they got into power they dropped the pretence.

After the National Socialists rose to power they began collaborating with the Communists in the Soviet Union. They signed a non-aggression treaty, conspired in the invasion of Poland and the splitting of its territory, exchanged political prisoners of interest to each other. When the National Socialists invaded France, the French Communist party applauded their actions and worked with them.

After taking power the National Socialists, like the Communists, began killing. The Communists mainly killed by class, the National Socialists by race. Marx and Engels called for both the killing by class and by race.

Maybe you should watch The Soviet Story, there seem to be some gaps in your knowledge. (It would be better to watch a copy from the library so you can to get the subtitles.)

In your thinking "socialism" seems to be either a substitute for, or conflated with, "good". It still baffles me how you regularly defend the evil regime in North Korea.

Revealed: the gas chamber horror of North Korea's gulag

Even the Guardian gets it. If you can defend North Korea as "not so bad," (as you did some months ago) is there anything Stalin did that you personally couldn't defend? I'm not sure how there could be other than the fact the DPRK exists and Stalin's USSR doesn't.

This helps clarify a bit https://www.theguardian.com/po...

First, massive monitoring of your citizens with country wide CCTV, that didn't help crime statistics at all, so you extended that with the worlds most advanced facial recognition system.

Second, laws on what you look at, what you view and thought crimes, congratulations, you're now only ONE step away from draconian laws Orwellian surveillance state.

Third phase, Brexit - no one comes in, no one goes out. We decide who does what in OUR country, the mindless sheeple will do what WE say. Sip your tea and shut up sir. Pomeroy.

Fourth and FINAL phase - Total monitoring of every citizen, forbid all encryption, have anything to hide? You are hereby found guilty by the court of LAW until WE say otherwise.

No. it is not the final phase.

You forget step 5: Lock up anyone who is a "terrorist suspect" (And who is deemed a suspect? Why, anyone we say we suspect, no proof or even evidence needed because, you know, national security) and tear up any human rights legislation that prevents you from doing so.

Quote:
“And I mean doing more to restrict the freedom and the movements of terrorist suspects when we have enough evidence to know they present a threat, but not enough evidence to prosecute them in full in court. And if human rights laws stop us from doing it, we will change those laws so we can do it.”
-- https://www.theguardian.com/po...

I was thinking camera and lens cleaning/replacement...
https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/shortcuts/2013/jan/25/game-destroy-cctv-cameras-berlin
I think CCTV monitoring will be a big use for AI

The Guardian compiled a list of interesting facts from books written by parties insiders.

You're right that the Brexit campaign was never meant to succeed, however your deductions are IMHO incorrect :

1. Populists break promises at breakfast (1,2). The boldest the lie, the better. Do you believe Donald Trump campaigned to lose ?
2. The remain side campaigns were sabotaged from the inside: the issue was highly divisive for both Conservative and Labour.

About May, she was a remainer in name only: from past behaviour, it's obvious that she prioritize (lack of) immigration to trade, as she was personally responsible for stalling talks on an EU free trade deal with India.

(1) They didn't lie. You misunderstood. Probably dishonest media pretended they promised what they didn't (come on, it was obvious hyperbole!), or failing media are pretending they broke promises that they didn't (better, alternative facts show differently). Anyway, on that topic, they have Better Lies (r) now.
(2) While regular politicians just figure out they were too optimistic: now that they've been elected, they find out it costs too much, it is more complicated than they expected, it would require a majority that they don't have, and they're really sorry about it (3). And who would vote for a boring, down-to-earth administrator anyway?
(3) The amount of genuine sincerity in that statement is not guaranteed.

The Guardian compiled a list of interesting facts from books written by parties insiders.

You're right that the Brexit campaign was never meant to succeed, however your deductions are IMHO incorrect :

1. Populists break promises at breakfast (1,2). The boldest the lie, the better. Do you believe Donald Trump campaigned to lose ?
2. The remain side campaigns were sabotaged from the inside: the issue was highly divisive for both Conservative and Labour.

About May, she was a remainer in name only: from past behaviour, it's obvious that she prioritize (lack of) immigration to trade, as she was personally responsible for stalling talks on an EU free trade deal with India.

(1) They didn't lie. You misunderstood. Probably dishonest media pretended they promised what they didn't (come on, it was obvious hyperbole!), or failing media are pretending they broke promises that they didn't (better, alternative facts show differently). Anyway, on that topic, they have Better Lies (r) now.
(2) While regular politicians just figure out they were too optimistic: now that they've been elected, they find out it costs too much, it is more complicated than they expected, it would require a majority that they don't have, and they're really sorry about it (3). And who would vote for a boring, down-to-earth administrator anyway?
(3) The amount of genuine sincerity in that statement is not guaranteed.

You say that en passant. Note that:

(a) the people now in power in Greece aren't those who were in power when the current mess was set up (so there's some hope)

(b) those profiting from the former corrupt government are mainly Germany (hypocrites!) and France (for example, by selling lots of armament).

Where we need "good people" is in the EU comission (kick out that Juncker already!), in German government (kick out that Schäuble already!) and generally in the other national governments (Hungary? Poland? Seriously?).

Hope dies last. Perhaps there's a sexually transferred disease which kills those disgusting identitaries.

You-know-who's already doing that.

Energy use is correlated with GDP, so it's in a country's best interest to incentivize energy use. Wind is hardly the only subsidized energy source.

I am legitimately curious, though, as to the effective cost-per-joule/subsidy-per-joule of various energy sources over the lifetime of the source.

It's rather simple really. More officers means more manpower to investigate and look into things. Less manpower means more choices need to be made about what is or isn't important. The more that you have to go "eh, we don't really have the time to look at this, it's probably nothing" the more likely it is you may miss something that could otherwise have been caught.

Instead, May's view was that they should learn to do more with less.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk...

If you think feminists are actually concerned about there being far more female teachers than male, or that there's not bias against men in childcare roles because of pedophilia paranoia, you haven't been paying attention.

I do in fact have links to that "curious" claim. The original article is here... sub-headline being "Sentencing systems around the world should be radically reformed to start with the assumption that women should not be sent to prison for their crimes"
And the blog post discussing that article with the comment by Judge Kopf (who, to be fair, is normally a very reasonable guy and one of the better federal judges) is here.

Not so vague:

The security source said both bans were not the result of a single specific incident but a combination of factors.

One of those, according to the source, was the discovery of a plot to bring down a plane with explosives hidden in a fake iPad that appeared as good as the real thing. Other details of the plot, such as the date, the country involved and the group behind it, remain secret.

Discovery of the plot confirmed the fears of the intelligence agencies that Islamist groups had found a novel way to smuggle explosives into the cabin area in carry-on luggage after failed attempts with shoe bombs and explosives hidden in underwear. An explosion in a cabin (where a terrorist can position the explosive against a door or window) can have much more impact than one in the hold (where the terrorist has no control over the position of the explosive, which could be in the middle of luggage, away from the skin of the aircraft), given passengers and crew could be sucked out of any subsequent hole. - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/26/plot-explosives-ipad-us-uk-laptop-ban

And not theoretical:

Somali authorities have released a video they say shows a laptop being given to the passenger after he has passed through the security checkpoint.

A man in an orange hi-vis vest is shown walking with a man in a blue shirt holding what looks like a laptop. Another man in a hat approaches them and it is alleged that the laptop is handed over.
- http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-35521646

But sure... keep complaining.

The original threat was an iPad, so anything roughly that size that could have explosives placed in there would probably be the limit.

Phablets? Maybe... Tablets and laptops, almost certainly.

See also: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-35521646

This is not some sort of overreaction, if you mishandle classified data, expect prison...even under Obama...

https://www.theguardian.com/us...

Kristian Saucier, of Arlington, Vermont, appeared in federal court in Bridgeport, where a judge also ordered him to serve six months of home confinement with electronic monitoring during a three-year period of supervised release after the prison time. He pleaded guilty in May to unauthorized detention of defense information and had faced five to six years in prison under federal sentencing guidelines.

Saucier admitted to taking six photos of classified areas inside the USS Alexandria in 2009 when it was in Groton and he was a 22-year-old machinist mate on the submarine. The photos showed the nuclear reactor compartment, the auxiliary steam propulsion panel and the maneuvering compartment, prosecutors said.

Saucier took the photos knowing they were classified, but did so only to be able to show his family and future children what he did while he was in the Navy, his lawyers said. He denied sharing the photos with any unauthorized recipient.

Prosecutors asked US district judge Stefan Underhill to send Saucier to prison for five years, saying his conduct put national security at risk.

Apple would've done it eventually anyway, without any threat of government regulation, just to reduce the wait times for repairing broken screens. The market would've been sufficient to solve this problem without any government interference.

Where government regulation would help is in preventing Apple from bricking your phone if you have it repaired by a non-authorized repair center. But even then it's only necessary because of government copyright and patent laws which prevent said third parties from hacking the product and/or software to bypass Apple's bricking. i.e. It's government regulation designed to fix problems created by other government regulation.

The true cases where government regulations are needed to correct flaws in the free market are few and far between. Mostly dealing with situations involving the Tragedy of the Commons (e.g. pollution), or the emergence of a natural monopoly.

The iPhone 5c is 32-bit and was only discontinued in September of 2015. iOS 11 will not work on it, and presumably there will be no security updates for the 5c as of the iOS 11 release date.

https://www.theguardian.com/te...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Banning them won't do anything. Do you understand how cryptocurrencies work?

Yeah, generally when the government tries to protect people from their own stupidity, the "solution" is poorly implemented and doesn't end well. Maybe if the slimmest prospect of becoming wealthy didn't make most people immediately shut their brains off, we wouldn't need the nanny state to step in.

You realize they are currently being used to free humanity from government capital controls and asset thievery?

Damn, I almost choked on my covfefe there. So, you're telling me the government can't seize cryptocurrency? I guess this must be fake news, or something.

The primary uses of cryptocurrency are enabling rich people to play a game of Greater Fool Theory with each other, wasting electricity, and making ransomware authors cum in their pants. Don't get me wrong, the concept of digital currency as an encrypted blockchain on a peer-to-peer network isn't an inherently bad idea - it's just that people are too greedy to agree on an implementation which doesn't heavily reward the early adopters.

Ya know, I expect that if these people currently in prison actually went into the armed services, their chances of committing crime and ending up in prison would been cut dramatically.

The light of the US forces already have had serious problems with their soldiers going on murder sprees on civvies both in Iraq and in Afghanistan, without sending people who actually didn't have an established record of not being able to control themselves.

Yeah, these instances seems to be relatively isolated, but now you're proposing to "open the cages", as it were. Really?

What could possibly go wrong?
 

I'm sure the Russians are the only ones trying to hack elections.

We've moved from secretly hacking elections to directly stumping for candidates we like:

https://www.theguardian.com/wo...

I don't think Obama is a French citizen - why should he impose his opinion on the French people if for no other reason than to influence the outcome of that election?

Every worldwide election in recent memory that went or was in danger of going the populists' way has been singled out as being meddled with by the Russians, from Brexit to France.

No one's going to call for a new election because Russians posted stuff on facebook any more than they would've called for a new election after Obama flew to London to campaign against Brexit.

The proposal to ban laptops from the cabins of planes appears to be attempting to take advantage of the following logical fallacies and cognitive biases:

• * Zero-risk bias: Prefer to reduce a small risk to zero, over a greater reduction of a larger risk. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
• * Nirvana/Perfection fallacy: Prefer to abandon functional good for unachievable perfection. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
• * Identifiable victim effect: We respond more strongly to a single identified victim, than a faceless group of victims. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Remember that time they said they needed porno scanners? It turned out that the porno scanners didn't work. https://radsec.org/secure1000-... And, DHS upper management (Chertoff http://www.motherjones.com/moj... ) got rich off the sale of the porno scanners. This shows that we should not blindly accept TSA/DHS proposals.

The TSA success rate at finding known weapons and explosives is 5%. IE, they only find 1 out of 20: https://www.theguardian.com/co... This means that the laptop change will not actually make a difference to the real risk.

If they are worried that a well funded group will make explosives that look like a laptop, why would they only do laptops? Why wouldn't an attacker make explosives that look like a suitcase? A CPAP? A baby stroller? Why can't an attacker disguise explosives as a big enough item that it doesn't make any difference where it is on a plane? If they can't find an explosive shaped like a laptop, they are not going to find an explosive shaped like other things. Are they going to ban all carry-ons and checked items?

On the face, It seems looke like they have decided to increase their security theater.

While we wait for the TSA's analysis, lets review a few facts. Here are some reference pages on various types of death in the US:

• * https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fasta...
• * http://www.nsc.org/NSC%20Image...
• * https://www.start.umd.edu/pubs...
• * https://www.theguardian.com/us...

So, your chance of dying of various things in the US is:

• * US Citizen killed by terrorists from 2005 through 2014: (about 1 in 240K deaths.)
• * Killed by lightning in the US: (about 1 in 160K.) For every terrorism death, there are about 1 and 1/2 deaths by lightning.
• * Dying in a plane crash: (about 1 in 10,000) For every terrorism death, there are about 25 deaths by plane crashes
• * Being killed by police in the US: (about 1 in 2300) For every terrorism death, there are about 105 deaths by police
• * Drowning in the US: (about 1 in 1200) For every terrorism death, there are about 200 deaths by drowning.
• * Dying in a motor vehicle accident: (about 1 in 100.) For every terrorism death, there are about 2,200 deaths by motor vehicle accidents
• * Heart disease & cancer in the US: (about 1 in 7 deaths.) For every terrorism death, there are 35,000 deaths by heart disease and cancer.

There hasn't been a big increase in deaths by terrorism. Or laptop. Why aren't we banning laptops in order to protect people from lightning? It would make just as much sense.

It looks like you could show a decrease in deaths by

The proposal to ban laptops from the cabins of planes appears to be attempting to take advantage of the following logical fallacies and cognitive biases:

• * Zero-risk bias: Prefer to reduce a small risk to zero, over a greater reduction of a larger risk. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
• * Nirvana/Perfection fallacy: Prefer to abandon functional good for unachievable perfection. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
• * Identifiable victim effect: We respond more strongly to a single identified victim, than a faceless group of victims. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Remember that time they said they needed porno scanners? It turned out that the porno scanners didn't work. https://radsec.org/secure1000-... And, DHS upper management (Chertoff http://www.motherjones.com/moj... ) got rich off the sale of the porno scanners. This shows that we should not blindly accept TSA/DHS proposals.

The TSA success rate at finding known weapons and explosives is 5%. IE, they only find 1 out of 20: https://www.theguardian.com/co... This means that the laptop change will not actually make a difference to the real risk.

If they are worried that a well funded group will make explosives that look like a laptop, why would they only do laptops? Why wouldn't an attacker make explosives that look like a suitcase? A CPAP? A baby stroller? Why can't an attacker disguise explosives as a big enough item that it doesn't make any difference where it is on a plane? If they can't find an explosive shaped like a laptop, they are not going to find an explosive shaped like other things. Are they going to ban all carry-ons and checked items?

On the face, It seems looke like they have decided to increase their security theater.

While we wait for the TSA's analysis, lets review a few facts. Here are some reference pages on various types of death in the US:

• * https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fasta...
• * http://www.nsc.org/NSC%20Image...
• * https://www.start.umd.edu/pubs...
• * https://www.theguardian.com/us...

So, your chance of dying of various things in the US is:

• * US Citizen killed by terrorists from 2005 through 2014: (about 1 in 240K deaths.)
• * Killed by lightning in the US: (about 1 in 160K.) For every terrorism death, there are about 1 and 1/2 deaths by lightning.
• * Dying in a plane crash: (about 1 in 10,000) For every terrorism death, there are about 25 deaths by plane crashes
• * Being killed by police in the US: (about 1 in 2300) For every terrorism death, there are about 105 deaths by police
• * Drowning in the US: (about 1 in 1200) For every terrorism death, there are about 200 deaths by drowning.
• * Dying in a motor vehicle accident: (about 1 in 100.) For every terrorism death, there are about 2,200 deaths by motor vehicle accidents
• * Heart disease & cancer in the US: (about 1 in 7 deaths.) For every terrorism death, there are 35,000 deaths by heart disease and cancer.

There hasn't been a big increase in deaths by terrorism. Or laptop. Why aren't we banning laptops in order to protect people from lightning? It would make just as much sense.

It looks like you could show a decrease in deaths by

I'm calling bullshit on this. The Manchester bomber - Salman Abedi - is the one with which I'm familiar. He was from a traditional, "super religious" family, according to his neighbours. Even leaving aside the matter of which religion it was, being devoutly religious is already antithetical to mainstream British culture - and the fact that the family kept up a traditional Libyan lifestyle after immigrating suggests that they didn't really take on British culture, except for a few of the more superficial ones, like football and console games.

Yes, a vodka-drinking, weed-smoking party guy is EXACTLY what a conscientious follower of "traditional religious" values would be.

Salman Abedi profile.

You really didn't think anybody paid attention to the reports on him?

Just don't have any threatening math in your notebook.

Tessa must have some pretty damning evidence against her to fire her for this, ....

Something seems wrong with this picture https://www.theguardian.com/te....
I cannot imagine that there was he level of harassment that she claims.

Google's EU headquartes are in Ireland. It must obey European law to continue to operate in the Single Market.

I also don't believe that she was being harassed or catcalled after seeing a picture of her.

I'm not sure that the harassment was specifically on her according to what she told TG back in February. Who knows?

Vandermeyden recounted to the Guardian an incident in 2015 when she said a group of roughly 20 men standing on a platform above her and a female colleague began taunting as they walked past.

Though, why did she expect that the company would keep her when she was actually damaging the company's image whether or not it is true. Companies are always companies; especially when they are big (e.g. corporation)...

Vandermeyden recently took out a hefty loan to buy the cheapest version of the Model S Tesla car and has a reservation for the upcoming Model 3. She is hopeful her lawsuit and public comments won’t end her career at a company she loves: "I think they’re a revolutionary and innovative company."

LastPass has had some recent problems as well.

https://www.theguardian.com/te...
https://blog.lastpass.com/2017...

Oh, you mean like this? https://www.theguardian.com/te...

The commenters were prosecuted as well. Source: https://www.theguardian.com/te...

I thought you were full of it because I didn't think that was even possible, so I went to look for evidence to the contrary. Instead, it turns out that you're actually right. From The Guardian's reporting of the US ratifying the Paris Agreement last year (emphasis mine):

In Washington, the Republican-controlled Congress has questioned Obama’s legal right to ratify the accord by decree, noting that the constitution grants the Senate a role of “advice and consent” in making treaties.

But the chamber does not ratify treaties, and the US also has increasingly relied on “executive agreements” since the second world war. Those agreements are not submitted to the Senate but are also considered binding in international law.

Wikipedia talks about ratification in the US in a bit more detail, since it's apparently more nuanced than I even realized as an American (again, emphasis mine):

Treaty power is a co-ordinated effort between the Executive branch and the Senate. The President may form and negotiate, but the treaty must be advised and consented to by a two-thirds vote in the Senate. Only after the Senate approves the treaty can the President ratify it. [...]

The US can also enter into international agreements by way of executive agreements. They are not made under the Treaty Clause and do not require ratification of two thirds of the Senate. [...] If the agreement is completely within the President's constitutional powers, it can be made by the President alone without Congressional approval, but it will have the force of an executive order and can be unilaterally revoked by a future President. All types of agreements are treated internationally as "treaties".

So, basically, a President has the authority to make executive agreements that bind their office, inasmuch as those agreements do not extend beyond their authority. Without having looked into the specifics of the Paris Agreement, I don't know if any of its requirements go beyond the authority of what the President alone can do, but if they don't, then Obama's actions were entirely legal, even if they commit future Presidents, such as Trump, to abiding by the terms of the agreement lest they face consequences.

Of course, if the Paris Agreement required anything beyond the President's authority, then you're quite correct about it being an illegal ratification, in which case...well...nothing really changes. Trump would still have the authority to revoke it, but his office would still be bound by it anyway, given that it has already entered into force internationally.

1 and 3 are going ahead anyway because they understand the economic implications:
https://www.theguardian.com/en...

India is steaming ahead with solar with plans to install 100s of GW's by a prime minister with a proven track record .

Russia, well, Putin, oil baron.

We all know that this outage was caused by bad faith outsourcing to unqualified persons. Who are they kidding?

https://www.theguardian.com/bu...

Oh yeah, power surges are to blame! haha no.

Amtrak is quite up-front about the limits on the WiFi they provide and why.

So would've been Facebook's "Free Basics" Internet-service in poor countries — denounced by all the progressives and, indeed, banned by India's government already... Because KKKorporations are evil and mean only to enslave you, whereas government-provided services always have good reasons for their limitations...

They aren't intending to be a full service ISP.

However you justify its deficiencies, the "free WiFi" being discussed will use the same justifications for sucking...

Re Cite
Project Bullrun, Cheesy Name, Edgehill
"Revealed: how US and UK spy agencies defeat internet privacy and security" (6 September 2013)
https://www.theguardian.com/wo...
".. agency has capabilities against widely used online protocols, such as HTTPS, voice-over-IP and Secure Sockets Layer (SSL), used to protect online shopping and banking."

ROTFLMAO, dream on.

The problem with the USA is that it now eats too much of its own dog food.
https://www.theguardian.com/ne...
The USA is 14th for Reading
The USA is 25th for Maths
The USA is 17th for Science.

And the US fares little better for Health, welfare, life expectancy, democracy, corruption, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, equality, social mobility, etc etc etc etc.

You are number 1 for Prisoners (per 100,000) ,Military spending, health spending (though results don't match), generosity (charity donations)

China should be the worlds biggest economy soon, the EU is probably not far behind (would have been faster without Brexit)

Being American does not automatically mean you win, it requires far more than that.