Slashdot Mirror


Air Marshals Place Innocents on Secret Watch List

An anonymous reader writes "The Denver Channel 7 News reports that federal air marshals are operating under a quota for reporting a minimum number of suspicious travelers which is resulting in innocent people being placed on a secret government watch list. From the article: 'These unknowing passengers who are doing nothing wrong are landing in a secret government document called a Surveillance Detection Report, or SDR.'"

571 comments

  1. No wonder by MECC · · Score: 5, Funny

    It was posted anonymously...

    --
    "We are all geniuses when we dream"
    - E.M. Cioran
    1. Re:No wonder by PhrostyMcByte · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Apparently my dad was put on this a while ago when he flew into Las Vegas.

      Nobody bothered him that day, but a few days later when he was checking in to go back home he was told he was put on a watch list. I guess the checkin person probably shouldn't have told him that, but she said it only meant a little extra attention on him at the airport and not to worry.

      Since then, no one at checkin has mentioned him being on a list. However after that he hasn't been allowed to go back into the terminal to pick up my younger brother (which he had done several times before).

    2. Re:No wonder by x2A · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "probably shouldn't have told him that"

      Maybe she was meant to? Could have various effects, such as
      a) Deterrent. This person's less likely to do something bad if they know they're being watched.
      b) Spread calm. A none-terrorist is gonna tell people "hey they put me on a watchlist!", giving people confidence that the government is actually on the watchout, keeping ppl safe.
      c) Spread fear. Same as b, but in order to convince people there is something to fear, so they can be controlled better and hand over liberties in the name of safety.

      Or maybe of cause they haven't put anywhere near that much thought into it :-)

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    3. Re:No wonder by MECC · · Score: 4, Funny

      Makes me wonder if that's how GWB's brain cell works.

      Spread calm, spread fear, spread calm, spread fear - oops gotta pee - spread calm, spread fear...

      --
      "We are all geniuses when we dream"
      - E.M. Cioran
    4. Re:No wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you can explain to me b), how a government incompetent enough to put an innocent on the watch list would be competent enough to catch real terrorists.

      Kinda like doubting this "war on terror" can be handled smartly by a country attacking country that has nothing to do with 9/11, and letting a situation like Israel/Hamas/Hezbollah blow up into this mess. I would like to know who here really thinks the world is a safer place since 9/11, I have a real nice bridge to sell you

    5. Re:No wonder by x2A · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "Maybe you can explain to me b), how a government incompetent enough to put an innocent on the watch list would be competent enough to catch real terrorists"

      That would depend on how quickly their "innocence" is established and removed from the list. It shows that they're watching people. But unless you're seen switching a bomb on in your shoe, it's always going to be a case of guesswork, which means "I would like to know who here really thinks the world is a safer place since 9/11"

      9/11? To you that might be some significant date, but more a lot of the rest of the world it's an arbitrary date plucked out of the air. For certain countries, the date that sticks in their minds may be the date their own country was attacked (by usa/others, or something completely unrelated). Question really is, how do you think the date in which one arbitrary country (USA) was attacked was meant to make the world safer? Bush doesn't care about safer, he just cares about not being made to look a fool again, which means tightening the grip so much to avoid an attack on usa soil again. That's all.

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    6. Re:No wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> However after that he hasn't been allowed to go back into the
      >> terminal to pick up my younger brother (which he had done
      >> several times before).

      And that has nothing to do with a secret watchlist, by the way. TSA policies recently changed -- no one without a boarding pass or escort can go past the checkpoint. Watchlist or not.

    7. Re:No wonder by Andrewkov · · Score: 4, Funny

      Have you considered the fact that your dad might indeed be a terrorist??

    8. Re:No wonder by Jim+Hall · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I had something similar happen to me when I was flying to Birmingham, England for a business meeting just before Christmas. Didn't think I'd ever have a problem leaving the country. When I tried to do Express Checkin at the NorthWest counter, the computer told me to see an agent in person. The guy taps my passport number into his terminal, says "Oh!" (never a good sign) and makes a phone call. I can only hear his side of the conversation, but I'm not really paying attention until ten minutes later when I hear the phrase "... he's attempting to use an American passport." Not something you want to hear in an airport. That's when I moved the poinsettia out of the way so I could see and hear him better. (I'm thinking, "Hey, maybe I'll spend Christmas in a 6'x6' chain link cell in Guantanamo ... at least it's warm!") Five minutes after that, he says I've been cleared (?) and gives me my passport and ticket. Never found out why the delay. Weird.

    9. Re:No wonder by macdaddy · · Score: 1

      You make it seem as if his brain cell was actually moderately busy throughout the day. In the binary sense his brain cell is either on or off. I'm thinking it's "0" most of the time.

    10. Re:No wonder by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      letting a situation like Israel/Hamas/Hezbollah blow up into this mess.
      Why does the United States get blamed for this? Why not blame the other hundred and some odd countries? Why does the United States get blamed (1) for not stepping in and doing something about bad situations AND (2) for not staying out of other people's business.
      Amazingly, sometimes both (1) and (2) apply. The U.S. gets blamed both for being in Iraq when they shouldn't be and also for doing enough in Iraq.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    11. Re:No wonder by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      no one without a boarding pass or escort can go past the checkpoint.
      So, I guess no more burgers or magazines during layovers. Oh, well.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    12. Re:No wonder by epee1221 · · Score: 1

      I think the basic idea is this:
      1. blame for making a mess
      2. blame for not doing enough to clean it up

      --
      "The use-mention distinction" is not "enforced here."
    13. Re:No wonder by epee1221 · · Score: 1

      How recently was this change made?

      --
      "The use-mention distinction" is not "enforced here."
  2. Secret government list? by Weaselmancer · · Score: 4, Funny

    Well, I wouldn't call it a secret anymore.

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
    1. Re:Secret government list? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    2. Re:Secret government list? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well see, its not the existence of the list that is secret, but the contents...

    3. Re:Secret government list? by Aqua_boy17 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      These unknowing passengers who are doing nothing wrong are landing in a secret government document called a Surveillance Detection Report, or SDR
      And WTF is this? Is this like being put on double-secret probation? When you have a government program that, according to the article, withholds bonuses and raises based on quotas, I suppose we shouldn't be surprised when agents just make stuff up. How incredibly ludicrous is this? We've once again managed to build the incompetence right there into the system.

      Boy, I'm feeling more secure everyday...Not.
      --
      What if the Hokey Pokey really is what it's all about?
    4. Re:Secret government list? by Skater · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Personally, I'm considering the source. The local stations here will do everything they can to sensationalize a story...I don't know why any other networks or affiliates would be any different. (I don't trust the news outlets much, but I trust local television stations FAR less.)

    5. Re:Secret government list? by arivanov · · Score: 1

      I think it is about time to reread some of Neil Stephenson novels.

      Snow Crash and especially the Cobweb...

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    6. Re:Secret government list? by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      True. Damn those journalists! Don't they know that when they report things like this, the terrorists win?! :^)

    7. Re:Secret government list? by sgt_doom · · Score: 1
      Huuuhhhhhhhhh!!!!

      But I thought if we weren't guilty of anything, we didn't have anything to worry about (common rant of the neocon, neofascist, neofucktard).

    8. Re:Secret government list? by sorak · · Score: 1
      And WTF is this? Is this like being put on double-secret probation? When you have a government program that, according to the article, withholds bonuses and raises based on quotas, I suppose we shouldn't be surprised when agents just make stuff up. How incredibly ludicrous is this? We've once again managed to build the incompetence right there into the system.

      Yeah, but now they're competing to look good on paper. We've not only built incompetence into the system, but we also built a lie-your-ass-off-or-get-fired system. Don't you love all that "no child left behind" high stakes bullshit?

    9. Re:Secret government list? by cagle_.25 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Ya know, I don't like the trend in government these days, either ... libertarian streak and all that.

      But this article is bogus. You have anonymous sources, who are supposedly federal air marshals, who are supposedly under pressure to file one report per month, come rain or shine. Notice that these "sources" are complaining about the quota system while still participating in it. That's some integrity for ya.

      Do you know what a *trustworthy* air marshal would do in this situation? He (gender-neutrally speaking) has at least two options:

      1. He could resign under protest and take his story to the NYTimes or Washington Post. Even if he's worried about losing his job, a book deal would take care of him for life. Denver Channel 7? Please.
      2. He could appeal to the General Accounting Office, which has oversight over all federal programs and runs accountability audits for each of them. There are even Whistleblower Laws to protect sources who call foul. There is *no way* that a quota system could be hidden, because an audit would pick it up. A memo like the one alleged in the article is a smoking gun.
      "I would like to see an investigation -- a real investigation conducted into the ways things are done here," the air marshal in Las Vegas said.
      It's just a phone call away, buddy.
      --
      Human being (n.): A genetically human, genetically distinct, functioning organism.
    10. Re:Secret government list? by permaculture · · Score: 1

      "He could appeal to the General Accounting Office"

      Perhaps many of them have, and it's been quashed? An FBI agent testified that he'd warned his superiors about Massaui SEVENTY TIMES. He said airplanes would be flown into buildings and even picked the WTC as a target, though afterwards he said that was a lucky guess.

      Seemingly, the Massaui/FISA warrant request was altered by HQ so that it wouldn't be effective. Perhaps appeals to the GAO are being similarly obfuscated?

      --
      Environmentalism is the new Victorianism. Everyone ties on a green corset and pretends we're virtuous.
    11. Re:Secret government list? by Schraegstrichpunkt · · Score: 1

      What is there to sensationalize? Either the story is a complete fabrication, or such a quota really exists, which is clearly idiotic.

    12. Re:Secret government list? by Matrix2110 · · Score: 1

      "The local stations here will do everything they can to sensationalize a story..."

      Isn't this more of a national story?

    13. Re:Secret government list? by Skater · · Score: 1

      Did you notice what site it's posted on? It's not on the AP, Reuters, Washington Post, Reuters, BBC, etc. It's a local TV news site. I'm not saying it's false, I'm saying "consider the source" before you fly off the handle.

      But of course this is /. and we can't be bothered with getting the full story before we post our indignant comments...

    14. Re:Secret government list? by Sarisar · · Score: 1

      Or there are no trustworthy air marshals and thus no-one wants to speak out...

    15. Re:Secret government list? by cagle_.25 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      The GAO is not like the FBI. The FBI has interdepartmental squabbles with CIA and NSA which lead to a large amount of secrecy. The purpose of the GAO is to bring sunshine to bear on other agencies, and it has a culture that accords with that practice.

      Also, the FBI operates on guesswork -- taking this piece of info and coordinating it with that piece. If you're an FBI field agent and your superior doesn't agree with the way you are connecting the dots, well, too bad for your theory.

      In the GAO, there is a process for dealing with complaints. If a complaint comes up, it is documented and investigated. There is no "quashing", unless that comes from the Inspector General or something. You'll notice that the article alleged that this was a regional practice (Marshal Strange indicated he didn't encounter it in Atlanta), so it's not possible that this would receive some kind of departmental cover.

      Further, the other option I mentioned is always possible: resign under protest and take it to a repuatable paper -- NYTimes, Wash Post, or (likely in Nevada) the LATimes.

      (Aside) And the <P> tag is *still* broken; I can't get a decent paragraph break after the first paragraph.

      --
      Human being (n.): A genetically human, genetically distinct, functioning organism.
    16. Re:Secret government list? by cagle_.25 · · Score: 1

      In which case, air marshals are not a good source for the story, which was my point. If they aren't trustworthy doing their job, they are compromised as a source of information about their job.

      --
      Human being (n.): A genetically human, genetically distinct, functioning organism.
    17. Re:Secret government list? by Sarisar · · Score: 1

      Well I figured either they are picking on innocent people or they aren't a good source... either way it's bad news for us :(

  3. Good thing.. by ackthpt · · Score: 5, Funny

    Good thing I'm too broke to fly.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:Good thing.. by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Well you don't have to be rich to be invited for a free overseas flight on skylarov air for the one way BDSM express, all you have to do is be a nasty foreignor and press button nine on the phone. Looks like I won't be travelling to the US for at least the next few years.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  4. Obvious solution.... by MagicDude · · Score: 5, Funny

    The marshalls should just put everyone under the age of 5 on the "no fly" list. Marshall's meet their quota, and the flight is much more enjoyable for everyone else. Everybody wins.

    1. Re:Obvious solution.... by TedTschopp · · Score: 1

      Until 10 - 15 years later when that person wants to take an airplane trip to a college out of state to start working on a degree.

      --
      Fantasy remains a human right; we make in our measure and in our derivative mode... -- JRR Tolkien
    2. Re:Obvious solution.... by Dr+Tall · · Score: 4, Funny

      So 20 years from now everyone between the age of 20 and 25 will be on the watch list? You're letting the 26 year-old terrorists win.

    3. Re:Obvious solution.... by lewp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We'll all be on the watch list by then anyway.

      --
      Game... blouses.
    4. Re:Obvious solution.... by cashman73 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Put everyone with a cell phone on the secret watch list, too. That should put just about,... everyone,... on the list. ;-)

    5. Re:Obvious solution.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Won't somebody think of the terrorist children?

    6. Re:Obvious solution.... by fm6 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But then somebody would realize that the quota system was stupid. That would defeat the whole purpose.

      No, the purpose is not to defeat terrorism. The purpose is to look like you're defeating terrorism.

    7. Re:Obvious solution.... by segra · · Score: 1

      Not likely, in 20 years we wont have enough oil to fly lol

    8. Re:Obvious solution.... by Gryle · · Score: 1

      Jihad Elementary - My kid's da bomb! /so going to hell for this

      --
      Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely sure about the universe - Einstein
    9. Re:Obvious solution.... by dcam · · Score: 0, Troll

      No, the purpose is not to defeat terrorism. The purpose is to look like you're defeating terrorism.

      No, the purpose is to manage the marshals. They are doing this by trying to measure how effective they are. The side effect is that it adds noise to the list.

      Take off the tinfoil hat. If true, this is just plain incompetence rather than malice.

      --
      meh
    10. Re:Obvious solution.... by fm6 · · Score: 1

      We're talking about classifying all 5-year-olds as terrorists, and you don't get that it's a joke? That's sad.

    11. Re:Obvious solution.... by ccmay · · Score: 1
      Ah, my little martyrs! They blow up so fast, don't they?

      -ccm

      --
      Too much Law; not enough Order.
    12. Re:Obvious solution.... by AGMW · · Score: 1
      We'll all be on the watch list by then anyway.

      They'll probably have turned it all on it's head and have a "don't watch" list instead by then.

      "Good morning sir, you appear to be on the don't watch list, you may board immediately. No. It's OK, I don't need to see your passport."

      --
      Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
      handmadehands.co.uk
  5. IT? by mrxak · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm sort of curious as to why this was placed under IT, and not YRO or Politics...

    1. Re:IT? by idontgno · · Score: 3, Funny

      YRO would be too suspicious. Let's not make their jobs easier, eh?

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    2. Re:IT? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I'm sort of curious as to why this was placed under IT, and not YRO or Politics..."

      To warn those most likely to end up on the list in order to meet quota's?

    3. Re:IT? by ackthpt · · Score: 1

      I'm sort of curious as to why this was placed under IT, and not YRO or Politics...

      Maybe they're usin a Beowulf Cluster of iPods to do it?

      bad boys, bad boys, what you gonna do? what you gonna do when they come for you?

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    4. Re:IT? by VitaminB52 · · Score: 1
      I'm sort of curious as to why this was placed under IT, and not YRO or Politics...

      Because YRO means "your rights online", and this story is about "your rights offline".

      B.t.w.: if the Denver Channel 7 News report is correct, then this watch list will become so huge it will make it useless because of it's size + bad signal/noise ratio. Stupid stupid stupid - I wonder which shit-for-brains government official came up with this brainfar^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hidea.

    5. Re:IT? by crabpeople · · Score: 1

      so your saying that this is more an IT story? maybe the watchlists are on COMPUTERS! yeah!

      sorry no. As i said before to someone else, YRO can be both "your rights, online" and "your online rights". This article is clearly your rights, online , as the "article" was posted online.

      I think they put it in IT because of people like you who complain everytime its posted into YRO because they dont understand a phrase can mean more than one thing. They put it here to taunt us with how much more wrong it could be. Its a tease by the editors.

      --
      I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
    6. Re:IT? by VitaminB52 · · Score: 1
      so your saying that this is more an IT story?

      No way. I made a wordplay by explaining YRO as "your rights offline". Thought it was obvious.

    7. Re:IT? by StikyPad · · Score: 4, Funny

      Strategic Data Report
      26 July, 2006

      Agent: StikyPad
      Subject: mrxak

      Individual was seen on Wednesday July 26, at approximately 0619 making suspicious inquiries regarding the nature of data categorization and storage. The subject posed as a "concerned reader," and asked what appeared to be harmless questions, however informants have stated that he may, in fact, have been planning to submit his own stories to improper categories. Surveillance indicates that this is just the beginning of a massive campaign of disinformation and misinformation designed to thwart intelligence collection and law enforcement capabilities -- clearly a grave threat to national security.

      It is further believed that "mrxak" may actually be an alias, however his true identity has yet to be discovered. Subject must remain under continued observation at all times.

      NNNN


      Haha.. made quota!

    8. Re:IT? by mrxak · · Score: 1
      Haha.. made quota!
      Glad I could help!
  6. The gov't ruining innocent peoples lives by hsmith · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Boy, color me shocked.

    Sad that this "protection" we all pay for is causing headaches for people who are minding their own business.

    1. Re:The gov't ruining innocent peoples lives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I have a relatively common anglo name (like John Doe) which has found its way onto the air watch list. To try and take myself off of the list, I had sent stacks of documentation, my birth certificate, copies of my passport and volumes of other personal crap to the TSA with a request to clear my name. The TSA, after many months, sent back a one page form letter that said they had taken some "actions", but said that those actions may or may not be ignored by the airlines. Some airlines still will not let me check in without going thru the counter and a confirmation phone-call to somebody in the back room somewhere. I don't know if that watch list is the same as the SDR, but it's causing a lot of unnecessary and unwarranted grief.

      I'm sure Bin-Hiding is laughing his ass off. He won.

    2. Re:The gov't ruining innocent peoples lives by VitaminB52 · · Score: 1
      I have a relatively common anglo name (like John Doe) which has found its way onto the air watch list.

      Try a less common name, like Franz Kafka or Don Quixote :) ...

    3. Re:The gov't ruining innocent peoples lives by TopShelf · · Score: 5, Interesting

      That's not surprising - we had a consultant on our project go back to India on a 3-week vacation, which got extended another 6 weeks because his name was on the "do not fly" list. It took him that long to get his identify clarified and his visa restored, along with monumental efforts on our end to work through Senatorial offices, etc. to try and clear through the red tape.

      And in the end, our company's legal advisors said that 6 weeks should be considered a very quick turnaround under the circumstances...

      --
      Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
    4. Re:The gov't ruining innocent peoples lives by lgw · · Score: 1

      Do they have the "fly clear" program in your local airport yet? You volunteer for an FBI background check, but get to skip much of airline security as a result. Kind of a silly program, IMO, but I suspect it would be helpful in your case to get an actual ID card to prove that you're not the droids they're looking for.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    5. Re:The gov't ruining innocent peoples lives by soft_guy · · Score: 2, Funny

      I have a relatively common anglo name (like John Doe)

      Were you in the band X?

      --
      Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
    6. Re:The gov't ruining innocent peoples lives by Potor · · Score: 3, Funny

      I didn't know that Anonymous Coward was a relatively common anglo name. Clearly, though, with a name like that, the cowboys will hate you.

    7. Re:The gov't ruining innocent peoples lives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Sad that this "protection" we all pay for is causing headaches for people who are minding their own business.

      That is the entire point of a protection racket. To make sure the "protectees" live in fear of "protectors." Of course, this terminology is deceptive.

      What we're really talking about are "parasites" and "host organisms," which is, in a nutshell, the story of governments from the beginning of human history.

    8. Re:The gov't ruining innocent peoples lives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Actually it is not an FBI background check but a TSA background check. Having the same name as somebody on the list will almost certainly immediately disqualify you. Having your fingerprints in any criminal database (unless registed as victim's prints) will probably immediately disqualify you. Being "scary looking" will probaly disqualify you... You get the picture...

      And it really does not exempt you from security checks. You merely get a fast lane (think like E-ZPass or the other fast Toll lane systems), and exemption from the random screenings.

    9. Re:The gov't ruining innocent peoples lives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, this sounds like a great way to get an extended holiday. I will have to think this over and see if it is worth the hassle.

  7. One thing's for sure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    If it means free air travel, I'm all for it.

  8. Re:WTF by andrewman327 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    So the Denver news is now a reliable source of information? Let's see some Washington Post or NYT article being linked to.


    Personally I disagree with quotas in law enforcement, as I do not think that they help catch the bad guys out there. I do think there is a lot more to the story than TFA indicates.

    --
    Information wants a fueled airplane waiting at the hangar and no one gets hurt.
  9. It's not so bad... by Lord_Slepnir · · Score: 5, Insightful
    If you're not smuggling drugs, then you should have nothing to worry about with the random cavity searches.

    </sarcasm>

    Seriously, I can't think of a worse system than quotas to put investigators under. It just screams Civil-Rights-Violation-Waiting-To-Happen.

    1. Re:It's not so bad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously, I can't think of a worse system than quotas to put investigators under.

      Then you aren't really trying.

      / Though I admit, putting all fat people on the watch list would make it more comfortable to fly economy class.

    2. Re:It's not so bad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you like those body cavity searches ;)
      The problem with quota system you will get innocent people on this list. Sometimes there is nothing really dangeruos happening but since you must create an report you will fill it something (ie a while female passenger picking her nose. Biological Terrorist. Mother changing infant's diaper. Biological Terrorist. Asian male farting. Chemical Terrorist...).

    3. Re:It's not so bad... by Brandybuck · · Score: 4, Insightful

      California (unofficially) has their housing inspectors on a quota system. You are expected to write up at least one violation per inspection. So building contractors learn to create one obvious but easy to fix code violation on every house they built. The inspector would find it, write it up, and leave.

      The problem isn't contractors taking advantage of the system, but rather that it's bureaucrats running the system. You don't get paid any more for doing a good job instead of a bad job, and the bureacracy as a whole actually benefits from bad jobs because they'll get more funding to fix the problem.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    4. Re:It's not so bad... by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      It just screams Civil-Rights-Violation-Waiting-To-Happen.

      So, you say your name is Achmed?

    5. Re:It's not so bad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are these 'civil rights' of which you speak?

      -M

    6. Re:It's not so bad... by davidsyes · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Maybe the ACLU should encourage EVERYbody to know EVERYbody. Then, the TSA will have some REAL work load and have to do a REAL job for a change. Then, all flyers show up at the last minute. When the planes have to leave empty, the airlines will scream murder down the necks of the pricks using the no-fly list beyone what it is supposed to be.

      Assholes, if you SCAN a person and there are not any traces of this or that banned/suspicious substance on their person or in their luggage, then don't hinder their flying. Otherwise, JAIL them under charges that are real. We live. We die. But like the reckless fisherman out for tuna, all sorts of other items/people get caught up in the drag/trawl net.

      Pretty soon, someon'll extend this to: "The No RAIL" system, "The NO BUS" system. "The Nor RAZOR/Scooter" system, and "The NO CAB" system. (Months ago, I rode in a cab in SF and saw a camera watching me in the back seat...). They won't be satisfied until one too many a prominent person is delayed one time too many. Hopefully, such a person does the right thing and rips some ass, once and for all.

      This is absolutely nuts. No longer Innocent til proved guilty. RFID/Biometric passports. All because a few assholes dump their friends, kick over a hornet's nest or two, then want all the rest of us to be stung for it.

      I suppose next (if not already in existence) there will be an "unreliable/unable to clear for patriotism/hireability background check..." meaning no matter your grades, your interviews (if you don't get screened out in advance), your community service/volunteer work, no matter you passion to SAVE the world by legal/non-violent means, you're FUCKED.

      (Cross the cabal, the cadge, the cloister, and you're doomed.

      Maybe somebody ought to crack the lottery and share the money with those burned for trying to save the world?)

      But, as it is, some employers so much want to wring/extract utility from employees and contractors they don't even want to contract or hire them/us unless they/we have a frickin' car. And I'm using public transit cuz I cannot afford a car, and if I could, I'd STILL use public transit to be just ONE MORE PERSON trying to minimize the oil addiction.

      I suppose I'm on all sorts of shit list by now, if not long ago...

      --
      Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
    7. Re:It's not so bad... by BalanceOfJudgement · · Score: 3, Funny
      Maybe somebody ought to crack the lottery and share the money with those burned for trying to save the world?
      If I came into that kind of money, I would buy 10,000 acres in the middle of nowhere, build my own little town/city and invite everyone who wants to live free, to live there.

      Oh, and build a secret army while I'm at it for when the Feds come accusing me of voluntarily leaving paradise, because NOBODY leaves paradise. Everyone should be a happy little Borg.
      --

      We are the fire that lights our world.. and we are the fire that consumes it.
    8. Re:It's not so bad... by Damvan · · Score: 2, Informative

      Why the hell is this modded up?

      Construction building inspectors are employees of the individual cities they work in, not the State government. So there can't be a quota in California unless all the cities in California agree, and agree to keep in "unofficial" Knowing California, that would be impossible. It might occur in some cities, but a unified "unofficial" statewide conspiracy? Get real.

    9. Re:It's not so bad... by davidsyes · · Score: 1

      In that case, better build a dome on the dark side of the moon. But if they find it, it'll be the

      Marked side of the dune... (okay, a bad Spoonerism)

      If I had that kind of money, I'd surely find my own abode, buy an island somewhere OUTSIDE of the US, then one at a time buy a few ships, crew them internationally, then DARE anyone to attack it. See, if they do attack it, they attackers would be telling the world F.U., which I hope the world would most certainly redress/address real quicklike....

      --
      Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
    10. Re:It's not so bad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      David Koresh, is that you?

  10. I just wish... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that I could say I was surprised to hear this one.

  11. From the Marshall's Journal by Aqua_boy17 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Just got my ass chewed out for being under quota. Gotta keep my eyes open. But look ,over there, by the window. That frail old lady kind of looks suspicious to me. Got kind of an evil look about her. And what's that in her hands? OMG - Holy crap - knitting needles!! Quick, take her down she might just be trying to knit....

    (wait for it)


    AN AFGHAN!

    --
    What if the Hokey Pokey really is what it's all about?
    1. Re:From the Marshall's Journal by femtoguy · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but you do realize that you don't knit an afgan, you crochet it. You think that these guys know their technology, but they on't even know their point needles from their hooked ones.

    2. Re:From the Marshall's Journal by Aqua_boy17 · · Score: 1

      Owing partially to your user name, I bow to your better knowledge of the subject and consider myself better informed.

      Now, please excuse me. I have to go change my spark plugs or something.

      --
      What if the Hokey Pokey really is what it's all about?
    3. Re:From the Marshall's Journal by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1, Informative

      Yeah, but you do realize that you don't knit an afgan, you crochet it. You think that these guys know their technology, but they on't even know their point needles from their hooked ones.

      You might want to re-check your facts. To quote, "An Afghan is a blanket, wrap, or shawl of colored wool, knitted or crocheted in geometric shapes.". Look here for just one example of a knitted afghan. Many more can be found with an appropriate Google search.

    4. Re:From the Marshall's Journal by femtoguy · · Score: 1

      Darn, these slashdot geeks. Well, I don't care what wikipedia says, I still think of them as crocheted.

    5. Re:From the Marshall's Journal by mfrank · · Score: 1

      No, darning is yet another technique.

    6. Re:From the Marshall's Journal by gardyloo · · Score: 1

      Darn, these slashdot geeks. Well, I don't care what wikipedia says, I still think of them as crocheted.

            That's truthiness, my man. You're a good American. Even if you're British. But not French.

    7. Re:From the Marshall's Journal by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      Thank you.
      That made my day, sent a wasabi pea across the room, and got some co-workers over to se WTF just happened.
      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    8. Re:From the Marshall's Journal by femtoguy · · Score: 1

      And a darning needle would definitely get you in trouble with the TSA folks. Those things are like little swords.

    9. Re:From the Marshall's Journal by Kittenman · · Score: 1

      Down here in NZ, an Afghan is a type of biscuit - sorry, "cookie". It's chocolate, has chocolate icing on the top and the topping of the chocolate is a walnut. Rumour has it that the walnut resembles an Afghan's (Sikh's) turban, hence the name.

      I guess in the US of A that would have been a "freedom cookie" or something.

      Not essential, but interesting nonetheless.

      --
      "The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
    10. Re:From the Marshall's Journal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, yes -- you just brought a smile to my face.

      I guess you can always trust the politicians to perform inane actions such as renaming food items, just like with the Freedom Fries recently, and Liberty Cabbage during World War 2.

    11. Re:From the Marshall's Journal by oyenstikker · · Score: 1

      He ain't kidding. My wife and I got all of our baggage emptied and searched because she had some knitting needles and a 1" metal crochet hook. We anticipated something along these lines. The security guards were not the least bit interested in printed copies of the airport's rules and the airline's rules clearly stating that non-metal (bamboo) knitting needles and crochet hooks shorter than X inches were allowed.

      --
      The masses are the crack whores of religion.
    12. Re:From the Marshall's Journal by jo42 · · Score: 1

      and are those wooden sticks on her American flag? Got to get ride of those. Might be a "security risk". Feckheads.

  12. Re:WTF by snowgirl · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This is always the problem with quotas. If you have a quota that you must meet, and your job can be done well but below that artificial quota, you "pad" it with stuff that no one will notice, just so you can meet the quota, even though you've done your job completely already.

    --
    WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
  13. rights? by headonfire · · Score: 1, Troll

    We don't need no rights. Thank you for the illegal surveillance, "Homeland Security"!

    Fuck you.

    1. Re:rights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You misspelled "Fatherland."

    2. Re:rights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      We don't need no rights. Thank you for the illegal surveillance, "Homeland Security"!


      Why is this modded "Troll"? Just tell it like it is: Homeland Security might as well be the fucking Stasi.

      This is getting old.
    3. Re:rights? by PhxBlue · · Score: 1

      The parent should not have been modded "troll." Seriously--if randomly putting people's names on government "watch lists" isn't illegal, what is? Whomever modded this should go back and read about probable cause.

      --
      !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
  14. Cool! by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I hope *I* made the list. :) Yay!

    1. Re:Cool! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do I know I'm already on the Canadians to Watch List...

  15. Justice, in America? by schroedogg · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What would you expect? It's not as if we have a true justice system here in America. A criminal breaks into a home and causes $2,000 worth of damage and what do we do? Feed him and take car of him in a jail while the homeowner is left to clean up the mess and insurance money (paid by the homeowner) takes care of the losses. Or, more often than not, simply let the criminal go with a warning. Then we spend our money falsely accusing innocent people just to keep up a "quota". Greed then drives what we like to think of as justice. It happens more than you think: e.g. officer's needing quotas for traffic violations & arrests and so caring more about their quota than justice in a certain situation. I know, it's not all bad and there are cops and agents that really DO care about justice. It's just the system that is messed up...

    1. Re:Justice, in America? by Jerry+Rivers · · Score: 1

      "A criminal breaks into a home and causes $2,000 worth of damage and what do we do? Feed him and take car of him in a jail...."

      So what are you suggesting as an alternative?

      --
      The pursuit of absolute tolerance leads to the most rigorous and ludicrous intolerance. - REX MURPHY
    2. Re:Justice, in America? by vidarh · · Score: 1

      If he thinks the treatment the burglar gets is so fantastic, I'm sure he can think of ways to get the same treatment himself...

    3. Re:Justice, in America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how about we take from the brutal mid-easterners and refine... instead of cutting their hands off, we simply break their hands.

    4. Re:Justice, in America? by nolife · · Score: 0

      Placing them in cages in the center of a busy suburban divided road or in a shopping mall near where the crime was committed. You can place big signs above them with their name, address, and what crimes they committed. This would help in two ways. Gets the criminal into the public view so he can be publicly humiliated and face the public while still in "jail" and let the common folks see that people who commit crimes and get caught really do get punished. Put them in the open so people can see other people actually doing time. It might make that teenager about to do a car jacking remember what happens if he gets caught and he can reevaluate his decision if the crime is worth the punishment. Right now jail time and jail life is completely hidden from view and probably not something people will think about at all. The US had a history of public hangings and I believe many countries still practice that. I am not talking about execution or death to the criminal, just a portable jail cell.

      There are some down sides though, the criminal could strip down and start masturbating in front of all the pretty looking teens walking by in the mall and in the center of the divided highway, some of the crime victims might be hiding in the weeds across the street shooting paint balls at the criminal. Obviously not a perfect solution and it needs some work but I think it might work.

      --
      Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
    5. Re:Justice, in America? by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      And that's why we call it the criminal justice system. That's just what it is.

      It's just the system that is messed up...

      It wouldn't be if we were to do something about it, like, for instance, stop re-electing crooked politicians. 99% percent of the voters think things are just fine. So if you want any changes, you all know where to start.

      --
      What?
    6. Re:Justice, in America? by dr_dank · · Score: 1

      There are some down sides though, the criminal could strip down and start masturbating in front of all the pretty looking teens walking by in the mall

      That's a downside?

      --
      Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
    7. Re:Justice, in America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only in America you consider food and "care" the only difference between inside jail and outside jail. You seem to be accustomed to having no freedom anyway, already.

    8. Re:Justice, in America? by schroedogg · · Score: 0

      OK, but is that even justice? How does that make recompense for the crime committed? Instead of locking somebody up for stealing $2,000 worth of equipment, they should be forced to work a job until they can pay the offended party back 2 or 3-fold. No need to lock them up, just use modern GPS tracking technology. If they are unwilling to work or try to escape, THEN stick them in the hardcore prison where guards are trained to actually shoot people who try to get out or get in fights, etc. Make that a place that nobody wants to be, and even then make them do some sort of labor (I'm not thinking concentration camp, but probably something closer to that than what we have now). Oh, and the person who committed the crime should be made to pay for the court / legal fees as well. Perhaps our justice system could start paying for itself.

    9. Re:Justice, in America? by Sassinak · · Score: 1

      Its been my experience that by the time a politician has reached a level of notoriety and money to be able to run for presidential office.. they are so mired in grime, grifts, kickbacks, obligations, etc... that there is simply no chance for a honest one to get elected.

      That coupled with the fact that everyone seems to suffer from NIMY (Not In My Backyard) for anything remotely social or beneficial and quite a large number of our population want the best looking or acting person for the job (which says nothing of the most competant or the most intelligent. I mean come on... Al Gore lost an election because he was not popular. (not because he was not intelligent or competant, but because he was "dry as toast" and "dull as a wet sock" (I am quoting actual people here). No one once questioned his ability or drive, it was his personality that people latched on to and bashed.

      So personally, its GIGO (Garbage In, Garbage Out)... You will only get competant leaders if you look for ACTUAL Leaders.. not this week/Month/year's flavour of the month with a great dentist (smile) and a sharp speech writer (wit).

      --
      God made the Idiot for practice, and then He made the School Board -- Mark Twain Look for http://Thebar.steelbeachca
    10. Re:Justice, in America? by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      But shouldn't the penalty also be a deterrent. Why would the criminally minded pay for anything if they can buy $2000 worth of stuff or they can steal $2000 worth of stuff, and only work for it if they get caught.

    11. Re:Justice, in America? by Kadin2048 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I would support making them work to pay full restitution for their crime. With interest.

      And they couldn't pay this out of existing assets -- this is to keep rich folks from simply walking -- it would have to be paid out of money earned by labor after the crime, in some industry chosen by the judge. And this would be after recouping the State for their imprisonment.

      They could take some of those jobs the politicians keep saying that we need illegal immigrants for, because "Americans won't do them." After a few weeks in an 8x8, even scouring the inside of a sewage-treatment holding tank somewhere, sweating your ass off tarring roofs, or picking strawberries from dawn till dusk, probably seems positively fascinating.

      Obviously, violators who are security risks and can't be let out into society would have to be given your basic in-prison license-plate stamping jobs, but there are probably a lot of non-violent, low-security inmates who could be let out during the day with some sort of GPS collar on to work and come back at night. If they didn't return, you could have a standard reward for bringing them back and have bounty hunters to it (and add that to their tab, naturally).

      It's ridiculous that we have people just sitting around in prison, essentially doing nothing but being a cost to society after they've already been a cost to society (doing whatever it was that landed them in prison in the first place). At the very least, prison should be a break-even proposition. There's more than enough crappy manual labor to be done, particularly in the agricultural industries; we might as well put our prisoners to work, especially since the jobs are just going to illegal immigrants anyway -- the old argument that they'd be taking the jobs from legitimate industry doesn't apply.

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    12. Re:Justice, in America? by mfrank · · Score: 1

      Put them in stocks. With a basket of rotten fruit and tomatoes conveniently located nearby.

    13. Re:Justice, in America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You assume these criminals would care, some may actually enjoy being in the public view. This system works only if the criminal considers themselves a part of society and values what it thinks of him. Anyway, jails are understaffed right now and overcrowded due to a certain war on drugs. It will take all of 10 minutes for someone to ram the cage with a stolen pickup truck and spring their friends out of jail. The sheer cost of such a decentrilized system would probably bankrupt the justice system in weeks. Then there is the non-trivial problem of the innocent people who get put in jail who'se lives are now ruined even more than before.

      And paintballs, heh. I give it two days till rival gangs figure out they can easilly take out their opposition when they get sent to jail. Of course they will probably also kill innocent bystanders due to bad aim or lack of empathy.

    14. Re:Justice, in America? by QRDeNameland · · Score: 1

      Just where the hell in America do you live where the cops even bother investigating a home break-in resulting in $2000 worth of damages? (Never mind that someone would actually be convicted and sent to jail.) My home was broken into 3 times over a decade, and the cops didn't even pretend like they would actually investigate it.

      But yes, they do have quotas for those tough-to-solve crimes like traffic offenses, even though they'll never admit to it publicly.

      My experience has been that municipal "justice" in the USA is a sham (just try to exercise your constitutional right to a jury trial), more highway bandits with a cash register than anything to protect and serve the public.

      --
      Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
    15. Re:Justice, in America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Welcome to America two years from now.

    16. Re:Justice, in America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sub NIMBY -> NIMY

    17. Re:Justice, in America? by StikyPad · · Score: 5, Informative

      What are you talking about?!?!? The U.S. incarceration rate in 2004 was the highest in the world, at 724 per 100,000 population. Second was Russia, at 532 per 100,000. Obviously we're doing something right, catching all those criminals. We're number one!

    18. Re:Justice, in America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My experience has been that municipal "justice" in the USA is a sham (just try to exercise your constitutional right to a jury trial)

      The constitution applies only to acts of the federal government, so it only guarantees you a jury trial in federal cases.

      Geeze, and I'm not even American. Don't your schools teach you anything?

    19. Re:Justice, in America? by BalanceOfJudgement · · Score: 1

      Been a long time since I saw such a well thought out possible solution to the problem.

      Mod the f- up!

      --

      We are the fire that lights our world.. and we are the fire that consumes it.
    20. Re:Justice, in America? by QRDeNameland · · Score: 1

      Well, no they don't. However, all by myself I learned that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees the rights of the US Constitution apply beyond the federal government. Hence, that's why the 1st amendment rights to fredom of speech and religion doesn't only apply to the Feds. All Americans do have a right to a jury trial in all jurisdictions, but only for felonies.

      --
      Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
    21. Re:Justice, in America? by Damvan · · Score: 1

      But those incarcerted are more likely to be in for drug crimes. Drug crimes that are also victimless crimes. So we are doing a great job catching pot smokers and methheads, but ignore the others. Heck, most drug defendents get more time than violent criminals. Look up the mandatory minimum sentencing for things like LSD possesion.

    22. Re:Justice, in America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Greed then drives what we like to think of as justice.

      An extreme case of abuse is the goddamned red light traffic cameras. You'd think they'd nearly all be at the intersections with the highest rate of crashes or pedestrian injuries. Instead, it's been well documented that the favored locations are at high-traffic intersections where there is, preferably, a downslope leading to the intersection. More traffic, more red light infractions. The downslope ensures that people will be travelling faster than they might otherwise. The clincher is when they also shorten the yellow light, so that those who've used the intersection for years get swept up when they think they still have that extra three seconds before it goes red. Instant fucking revenue source. Not to mention the location selection is heavily guided by the camera vendor, who always gets a percentage of the take.

    23. Re:Justice, in America? by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      Al Gore lost an election because he was not popular.

      Well, that's generally how elections are determined. He also picked an extremist for a running mate. He really blew it there. It was as if he threw the election(And I'm fairly convinced that the dems didn't really want it in '04 either.). While I curse those who voted for Bush, I definitely thank them for keeping Lieberman out. Remember, he not only voted for the Patriot Act, he helped to write it! I very much doubt his loyalties, and I hope he gets thrown out of Washington completely. I consider him a dangerous radical. Given his druthers, he would vaporize the Constitution to protect his real constituents. He demonstrated that after 9/11. I will never figure out who Gore sold his soul to for him to pick such a person.

      ...that there is simply no chance for a honest one to get elected.

      Sure there is...all it takes is a majority of votes. The corruption is in the voters. They are the ones more influenced by big spenders and promises of the pot of gold. The politicians are simply following their lead.

      You will only get competant leaders if you look for ACTUAL Leaders...

      That has been my point in all my rants. Even after looking for them, you still have to vote for them. They can't get in any other way, big money or no.

      --
      What?
    24. Re:Justice, in America? by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 1
      Just where the hell in America do you live where the cops even bother investigating a home break-in resulting in $2000 worth of damages

      "Hey man, are you going to find these guys, or, you know, I mean, do you guys have any promising leads?"
      "Leads? Yeah sure, I'll just check with the boys down at the crime lab. They've got four more detectives working on the case. They got us working in shifts. Leads?"

    25. Re:Justice, in America? by sgt_doom · · Score: 1

      Holy crap! Next you'll be accusing the Department of Commerce of using taxpayer funds to go around the country trying to convince American companies and corporations to lay off American workers and offshore their jobs --- with the corporations doing the most offshoring awarded by bennies and cheap - no cost - loans from the Import-Export Bank....Ah..oh..too late!!!

    26. Re:Justice, in America? by schroedogg · · Score: 0

      Because they must pay it back 3 times - $6,000 and are under strict rules and a timeline in which to pay it. They would basically be on a more strict form of probation where if they didn't pay back 3x (or 4x, whatever) within a set period of time, then they must go to prison. Except this is a prison nobody wants to go to. You must labor all day (chain gangs? I don't know, but this would need to be thought out) and guards cary big guns and know how to use them. Yes, they are fed and given an uncomfortable bed to sleep on, but they are made to work.

    27. Re:Justice, in America? by schroedogg · · Score: 0

      I never said the treatment was fantastic nor do I argue that now. I simply made that point that it is not JUST. Our ideas of what is just are so warped that we think putting somebody in a cage would be just recompense for them stealing $100,000. What about the person from whom that money was stolen? Is it just for them to not receive the money back? Or is it just for others to pay them back (via insurance companies)? I say, NO. Justice demands that the one who stole it repay it, and not just repay it but repay it 3 - 4 times again. But in America we just throw them into increasingly overcrowded prisons, spend more money building more prisons (which are some of the most expensive structures to build) and never require true recompense. So in the end, I get money stolen from me and I then pay taxes to "punish" those who stole it. Please explain to me how that is just!

    28. Re:Justice, in America? by schroedogg · · Score: 0

      Very well put! Exactly what I'm trying to get at. The other benefit would be greatly reduced taxes since criminals would be paying for their own system and some. I don't think it would work without some motivation to want to chose the working outside of prison option, though. Prison would have to be only where the "really bad ones" go, and would have to be more like a concentration camp except where people are well fed and treated humanely. But they would be forced to work and shot if they try to escape or attack anybody. I would imagine that such a system would also greatly reduce crimes of stealing.

    29. Re:Justice, in America? by Sassinak · · Score: 1

      ...Well that is generally how elections are determined.

      My point was slightly different in the fact that his popularity (or lack of) was less about his ability and goals and more about his personality. I would certainly concede popularity if he was preaching a plan that was decidedly unfavourable, or his goals were far out of line with the masses' (scary) desires. But it seems that the overriding comments had nothing to do with that.

      --
      God made the Idiot for practice, and then He made the School Board -- Mark Twain Look for http://Thebar.steelbeachca
    30. Re:Justice, in America? by sorak · · Score: 1
      What are you talking about?!?!? The U.S. incarceration rate in 2004 was the highest in the world, at 724 per 100,000 population. Second was Russia, at 532 per 100,000. Obviously we're doing something right, catching all those criminals. We're number one!

      Maybe I'm restating the obvious, but the sad thing is that we have the highest incarceration rate, but we never catch any criminals. Instead, we're arresting people for getting high, while the guy who breaks into your home pretty much walks

    31. Re:Justice, in America? by sco08y · · Score: 1

      It's not as if we have a true justice system here in America.

      Uh, it's *because* we have a justice system that only innocent people are on the list. After all, by the time someone is legally guilty he's in jail or deported.

      Greed then drives what we like to think of as justice.

      Whose greed are you talking about? The officer who puts people on the list? Look, all he knows is that he's looking for a certain profile and maybe following some tips. And through the quota his boss is effectively saying, "based on what we know, cast your net this wide." And since security means you're always playing defense (apologies for the sports metaphor...) you usually don't know nearly as much as you'd like to.

      e.g. officer's needing quotas for traffic violations & arrests and so caring more about their quota than justice

      Dude, that's crap. I've gotten speeding tickets. I fucking hate them. But the reality is that lots of people need to share roads and the only way to get certain people to behave in a reasonably sociable manner is to penalize bad behavior. With limited manpower, the government has to, again, cast a net.

      As to arrests... the injustice is almost never Joe street cop arresting poor minorities left and right. It's the poverty and crime they're living in.

    32. Re:Justice, in America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Drug crimes are not victimless crimes.

      You may want to argue whether the harm comes from the drugs or the imposed illegality, but you must be damn well protected in your middle/upper class neighborhood to claim drug traffic has no victims.
      Even if you put health concerns aside, the social, political and economic consequences cripple communities, and even nations.

    33. Re:Justice, in America? by schroedogg · · Score: 1

      Uh, it's *because* we have a justice system that only innocent people are on the list. After all, by the time someone is legally guilty he's in jail or deported.

      Whoah, the implication of your statement is that innocent people would not be on the list if we didn't have a justice system. What would it be like to live in a society with no justice at all? That is, I could come and take your car and you would have no right to do anything about it. Or I could kill someone and there would be no legal way of making me pay for that crime. Obviously we have a system we call a "justice system." I am simply saying that it isn't really a "justice" system because it is not JUST.

      Dude, that's crap. I've gotten speeding tickets. I f___ hate them. But the reality is that lots of people need to share roads and the only way to get certain people to behave in a reasonably sociable manner is to penalize bad behavior.

      Wow, so you think no officer cares more about his quota than justice!? How many examples need I provide? A friend who is an ex-cop has provided me with plenty, though I could stick to my own. One lady I know has been pulled over for speeding 10+ times but never got a ticket. She intentionally/knowingly sped but was good at crying and the officers always let her off. Yet another friend NEVER speeds, never had any tickets, and accidentally was going a few mph over on a downhill and didn't realize it. BAM, Ticket, no warning! Now in looking at these two examples together, can you honestly say that justice is being exercised? But my example was actually dealing with stealing and how it is unjust for the criminal not to pay back the one from whom he stole. Simply punishing somebody by throwing them in jail is not just because they have not righted their wrong. Obviously a wrong cannot always be repaid/righted (speeding, murder, etc.) but where it can be it should be and yet our so-called "justice" system does not seem to care at all about righting the one who was wronged.

    34. Re:Justice, in America? by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1

      Actually, Gore won the popular vote. He received more votes than Bush.

      In what way do you figure Lieberman is an extremist? Extremely conservative for a Democrat?

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    35. Re:Justice, in America? by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      Democrat, Republican, you know that makes no difference. Both parties are falling all over each other to be like the other. The Middle East policies that he pushes are a big problem. His view of the situation is way too heavily(?) biased to bring about any kind of real balance. He will do what he can to bury the truth, fitting right in with the Bush regime(I call it that for lack of a better name. Bush is a puppet). I will go so far as to call him an outright racist. That he supports terrorism. His participation in writing the Patriot Act, as mentioned in my previous post. His loyalties are not with the US, much less with others not in his group. He may be bringing home the bacon for Connecticut, but he's no good for the country or even the planet in general as a whole. I believe his interests lie elsewhere, with one particular group at the expense of the rest. I don't like him one bit. As far as his other domestic policies are concerned, he simply is representing his own special interests, like most others. So I'm sure he's reasonably popular in his state, politics being local and all that. But he has far too much influence on unrelated matters. Like Rostenkowski did for the people of Chicago. He had way too much power on Ways and Means. But he was great for Chicago. If he didn't get caught, he would have had the job for life. I can only hope that the people see his real agenda and get him out. I believe some people have. That's why he's in trouble with the party. And he's certainly not the kind of non-aligned candidate that I'm looking for. You may as well vote for David Duke. Even I would prefer mantaining the status quo over him. If he were in power, the Midde East wars would be far more extensive. What's left of the constitution would be up in smoke(something which far too many people would applaud and might happen anyway). He's a war monger of the worst kind. He must go.

      --
      What?
    36. Re:Justice, in America? by epee1221 · · Score: 1
      And through the quota his boss is effectively saying, "based on what we know, cast your net this wide."
      This is kinda like telling an OCR system to find, in a 1000-letter input, exactly 127 E's, 91 T's, etc.
      You've got a passage from Gadsby? If you look hard enough, you'll still find 127 E's.
      --
      "The use-mention distinction" is not "enforced here."
    37. Re:Justice, in America? by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a mainstream politician to me. Like it or not, Lieberman's not on the fringe, and thus not an extremist. He's a "conservative" Democrat, to be sure, and that's why he's had some rough sledding so far in the primary, but he's far from being a radical at either end of the political spectrum.

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    38. Re:Justice, in America? by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      ...Lieberman's not on the fringe...

      That's the sad part, that most people think it's ok to continue doing what we are doing. Freedom be damned. Extremism is now mainstream.

      --
      What?
  16. Innocence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    These unknowing passengers who are doing nothing wrong...

    Ha! Everyone's doing something wrong. We just need to find out what it is.
    1. Re:Innocence by ackthpt · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ha! Everyone's doing something wrong. We just need to find out what it is.

      The spirit of Tailgunner Joe lives on.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  17. Ayn Rand was an optimist. by Tackhead · · Score: 5, Insightful
    "Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against - then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens' What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."

    Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

    ...and when one only has so many laws on the books that the libraries are ready to undergo gravitational collapse into a black hole, and when one has enough criminals that it has a higher incarceration rate than the Soviet Union (the very same dystopian hellhole that spawned Rand's original screed in 1957), and still doesn't have enough criminals, one fabricates them out of thin air.

    Homeland Security: Our budget is proportional to the number of terrorists we find. When there aren't enough terrorists, we make them.

    Ayn Rand was an optimist.

    1. Re:Ayn Rand was an optimist. by snowgirl · · Score: 1

      Homeland Security: Our budget is proportional to the number of terrorists we find. When there aren't enough terrorists, we make them.

      This makes me laugh and cry at the same time. I laugh because it's so utterly hilarious, and I cry, because I worry that it were actually true.

      --
      WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
    2. Re:Ayn Rand was an optimist. by Bryansix · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's true though. I had a law professor (business law) tell me that the law is designed so that you are always breaking it at any given time. Then the authorities enforce the law when they feel it is required or they want to "throw the boook at you".

    3. Re:Ayn Rand was an optimist. by Cederic · · Score: 3, Insightful


      I have mod points, but unfortunately there isn't a mod option for "trotting out the same old Ayn Rand quote whether it's applicable or not"

      These people aren't being turned into criminals. They aren't breaking laws.

      Don't get me wrong, I don't support what's going on. Hopefully it's another step towards the populace finally taking a stand against overly authoritarian government and saying 'no more'.

      But please, enough of the Ayn Rand already.

    4. Re:Ayn Rand was an optimist. by Garrett+Fox · · Score: 1

      As a law student, I agree that the law is far too complicated. Understanding your own country's laws should not take a graduate-level education. If the laws are incomprehensible to the average citizen, how can we call them democratic? I'd like to have not just "civics," but the basics of torts, contracts and civil procedure taught in grade school!

      In defense of the law, though, look at the Model Penal Code, which attempts to declare that "everything not forbidden is allowed."

      --
      Revive the Constitution.
    5. Re:Ayn Rand was an optimist. by teasea · · Score: 1

      for "trotting out the same old Ayn Rand quote whether it's applicable or not"

      I would submit the quote was entirely appropriate. There may not be total authoritarianism yet but, there is the concept of the slippery slope, a concept that has been misused to protect true evil (e.g. paedophiles) but still remains valid.

    6. Re:Ayn Rand was an optimist. by florescent_beige · · Score: 1

      The working title for "Atlas Shrugged" was "The Strike". Wherein those with talent stopped working for everyone else and went off to live in their own secret utopian enclave. It's elitist enough in it's own right, and I could never understand who actually built all those clever machines the super-geniuses drove/flew/submarined around in. I never really understood why she thought it would work, but then again I'm just a gear-head.

      Plus, Rand had big BIG problems ever getting to the point. Why-use-three-words-when-45-thousand-will-do type of thing.

      --
      Equine Mammals Are Considerably Smaller
    7. Re:Ayn Rand was an optimist. by drooling-dog · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ...and when one only has so many laws on the books that the libraries are ready to undergo gravitational collapse into a black hole

      Well, the Bushco solution to that is simply to keep laws secret. Not only do you save printing costs and shelf space, but it then becomes impossible to be sure that you're not breaking them. And when you inevitably do, your lawyer can't defend you because she's not allowed to read the applicable law, either.

      All hail the GOP!

    8. Re:Ayn Rand was an optimist. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      In defence of the law, though, look at the Model Penal Code, which attempts to declare that "everything not forbidden is allowed."

      The MPC approach to the law runs through the whole of American history and society and is the root cause of many of its biggest difficulties. It is very common to see outrageous actions justified by the idea that there is "no rule that says you can't". Thus we see in American Football cases where teams had handles sewn to their uniforms so that they could hurl each other up the pitch at lethal speeds until the rules were amended to prevent it. Any rational system would have allowed the referee to throw out players attempting such things.

      In American society more generally the "no rule against it" has been the foundation on which rail-barons, land-grabbers, and all sorts of polluting, enslaving, dangerous, or plain homicidal activities have been justified.

      The other side of the coin that naturally follows, of course, is "No one said I shouldn't have done that, therefore it's not my fault" and all the frivolous lawsuits that have stemmed from that (not to mention the Darwin Award winners who took that approach). Every way you look at it, the MPC negates the concept of personal responsibility and replaces it with a notion of society as a whole having to take responsibility for accruately, and minutely, failing to properly define criminal or reckless behaviour.

      Ironically, this is exactly the reason America HAS huge numbers of laws. If every undesirable activity has to be listed - often in their many combinations - then the law becomes huge and impossible to grasp very quickly as the law-makers pass law after law to try to block the gaps. The MPC approach means that the law has to be picked over by lawyers and professionals. It also means that the law must be administered inhumanly and without any recourse to notions of guilt or justice: they are overridden by a simpleminded, largely semantic, rule-based technical argument which has great difficulty in taking intent or motivation into proper account.

      Judges and juries should have the leeway to say "That is not acceptable", or for that matter "That is strictly illegal but anyone would have done the same in your situation, you're free to go" without some lawyer being able to jump up and say "There's no rule against taking a leak while driving a rig; my client is not guilty of driving over those schoolkids".

      It simply isn't true that we have a choice between "If it's not mentioned then it's allowed" and "If it's not mentioned then it's not allowed"; there is a space in between for "If it's not mentioned and it was immoral, we reserve the right to amend the omission starting with you.

    9. Re:Ayn Rand was an optimist. by ethereal · · Score: 4, Informative

      Being on a "watch list" is worse than being an accused (but innocent) criminal, since there's no formal way to challenge that status. The quote seems apt to me.

      --

      Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and

    10. Re:Ayn Rand was an optimist. by Moofie · · Score: 1

      What are your due process rights worth when they can put you on a list that prevents you from flying, and there's no way to get off?

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    11. Re:Ayn Rand was an optimist. by Fallingcow · · Score: 1

      This is a big part of why I think that a larg portion of the power of government should be shifted toward the local end and away from the federal government. A huge chunk of the powers and responsibilities of the federal government should be offloaded to the states, which in turn can choose to give more power to the counties and cities (or not, it should be up to the states, that'll get us a good variety of governmental structures, which is a good thing)

      People can take a direct interest in and have an influence on their own town and county politics and law more easily than they can in the federal or even state governments. One or two activists would be able to go through a town or county's laws, and bring up those that seem pointless or poorly thought out in city council sessions to work to get them removed or revised. SO much easier to do at that level, with the resources available to the average citizen, provided a little dedication.

      If the laws of the federal government were few, and those that applied directly to most citizens were even fewer, then it would be much easier to learn them, and the same goes for the states. Then, if people had a more direct influence over the laws that affected them every day (i.e. they were mostly local laws), then I think that the law would tend to be less complicated and far more concise.

      I agree with the Chinese guy from the game Deus Ex, who says that government needs to be brought to a level that people can comprehend. Of course, he wanted to bring about a new dark age to accomplish that, which is why I don't usually pick his side at the end...

    12. Re:Ayn Rand was an optimist. by Fallingcow · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      Plus, Rand had big BIG problems ever getting to the point. Why-use-three-words-when-45-thousand-will-do type of thing.


      Or, why write an essay when I can write a novel by creating a few characters and one or two situations, then just copy those situations over and over again, keeping at least one character constant throughout, but changing nothing else about them except for a few of the names? Why, I can even go ahead and write that essay and stick it in somewhere around the end! I'll just have my main character read it! Wow, that's so much better than an essay; why, I'd have had to write a WHOLE BUNCH of essays with all kinds of DIFFERENT IDEAS to fill up the same space and sell it, but now I've got just ONE idea filling a whole damn book! And I didn't even need to worry about any of the traditional elements of a novel, like plot or characterization! BRILLIANT! I wonder why no-one's done this before?

      I think I'll call it The Fountainhead!

      Worst. Book. EVAR.
    13. Re:Ayn Rand was an optimist. by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      It's true though. I had a law professor (business law) tell me that the law is designed so that you are always breaking it at any given time. Then the authorities enforce the law when they feel it is required or they want to "throw the boook at you".
      Exactly. On the local level it's even called "proactive policing". I find the fact that the have the utter brass balls to call it proactive the most astounding thing. They're effectively admitting that they're trying to arrest people before any real crime has been committed. And, of course, Joe Public thinks this is a grand idea. Arrest criminals before they commit crimes? Super! Never mind that they have to define a whole raft of nebulous illegal "pre-crime" acts to do it-- they'll only use those "precursor crimes" to arrest bad guys, right? Now quotas for Sky Marshals? Ah, just like the old days of Uncle Joe Stalin, where the local bosses had to name five names of political enemies a month, and if he could only come up with four, he would be number five.
      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    14. Re:Ayn Rand was an optimist. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you kidding? The objective is fear, because fear is the last critical milestone on the path to total government. The threat of being watched even though you have done no wrong, obviously, will create fear among the innocent.

      Perhaps I can explain it better with a quote:

      When the people fear the government, it is tyranny. When the government fears the people, it is liberty. -- Thomas Paine

      Increasing fear of authority is more or less the same concept, and achieves the same goal, as increasing the amount of crimes one can be arrested for.

      What, did the thought just never occur to you? How else do you think the US federal government, which already runs the most powerful empire the world has seen, is possibly going to expand its powers even more? By persuasion?

    15. Re:Ayn Rand was an optimist. by sacrilicious · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The Ayn Rand quote is right on the money. The guilt she's talking about is the very same guilt being relied upon to make people accept an arbitrary watch list with no oversight and no process.

      --
      - First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
    16. Re:Ayn Rand was an optimist. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly, it's the ambiguity. If the law was straightforward, the US federal government would be 1/10 the size that it is today, measured both in revenue and power over the people.

      There is a reason why the law is incredibly complex and ambiguous, and contrary to popular belief, it ain't for the benefit of lawyers.

      Somebody mod the "tired old Ayn Rand quote" guy down. That quote is entirely appropriate to the topic.

    17. Re:Ayn Rand was an optimist. by sootman · · Score: 1

      I have mod points, but unfortunately there isn't a mod option for "trotting out the same old Ayn Rand quote whether it's applicable or not"

      "Did you really think that we want those mod points to be used?" said Cmdr. Taco...

      --
      Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
    18. Re:Ayn Rand was an optimist. by Damvan · · Score: 1

      "Hopefully it's another step towards the populace finally taking a stand against overly authoritarian government and saying 'no more'."

      Dream on. This is America you are talking about. Take away their American Idol, and there will be rioting in the streets. Otherwise, forget it.

    19. Re:Ayn Rand was an optimist. by PMuse · · Score: 1

      Doesn't this sound like the RIAA's method for calculating sales lost to piracy? No, no, hear me out.

      RIAA
      1. Assume that RIAA labels should make n sales.
      2. Declare anything less to be the result of piracy.
      3. Pass new laws to combat increasing piracy.

      TSA
      1. Assume there are n suspicious people on each flight.
      2. Put n people per flight on the watch list.
      3. Pass new laws to combat increases in potential terrorists.

      --
      "We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
    20. Re:Ayn Rand was an optimist. by John+Miles · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I have mod points, but unfortunately there isn't a mod option for "trotting out the same old Ayn Rand quote whether it's applicable or not"

      It's also a shame there isn't a mod option for "trotting out the same old knee-jerk, ad hominem Ayn Rand criticism whether it's applicable or not."

      Put another way: if there were no Godwin, the Nazis would have found it useful to invent him.

      --
      Dahlmann tightly grips the knife, which he may have no idea how to use, and steps out into the plain.
    21. Re:Ayn Rand was an optimist. by sco08y · · Score: 1

      But please, enough of the Ayn Rand already.

      You've got to love it when quoting Ayn Rand has become a substitute for independent thought...

    22. Re:Ayn Rand was an optimist. by sco08y · · Score: 1

      Put another way: if there were no Godwin, the Nazis would have found it useful to invent him.

      But we don't need to trot anything else out because you just invoked Godwin's law on yourself. YHL. HAND.

    23. Re:Ayn Rand was an optimist. by Eivind · · Score: 1
      Yes. Actually it goes something like this:

      You can't fly sir. Why not ? I'm afraid that's classified Sir. Wait, I'm not on one of those lists, am I ? I'm afraid that's classified. Who maintains these lists ? Classified. Why am I on the list ? Classified. What are the general rules for adding people to the list ? You're not allowed to know. How can I get off the list ? There's no procedure for challenging a wrong addition. This is insane ! Who is responsible for this mess ? Who added me to the list ? On what grounds ? That, Sir, is classified.

      Welcome to land of the free !

    24. Re:Ayn Rand was an optimist. by Garrett+Fox · · Score: 1

      I agree with the Chinese guy from the game Deus Ex, who says that government needs to be brought to a level that people can comprehend. Of course, he wanted to bring about a new dark age to accomplish that, which is why I don't usually pick his side at the end...

      That would be Tracer Tong. One of the problems with the real world's secret surveillance programs is how little we're allowed to know, which makes conspiracy theories that much more credible.

      --
      Revive the Constitution.
    25. Re:Ayn Rand was an optimist. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You misspelled "All heil the GOP"

  18. Sweet by Tweekster · · Score: 1

    Next time I fly I will make sure I am doing something just a bit suspicious so I can be in a government document. I think it would be cool actually.

    Cause then I will be a part of history, when the government has to open these records (or more likely they are forced open during the next revolution)

    --
    The phrase "more better" is acceptable English. suck it grammar Nazis
    1. Re:Sweet by captainClassLoader · · Score: 1
      Tweekster says:
      Next time I fly I will make sure I am doing something just a bit suspicious so I can be in a government document.


      You mean like sitting in the terminal posting a comment to Slashdot via a wireless connection?

      --
      "The plural of anecdote is not data" -- Bruce Schneier
    2. Re:Sweet by IgLou · · Score: 1

      Nah, it would only be suspicious if he language settings was set to Arabic, then they'd consider it suspicious!

      --

      Oops, how did this get here?
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
  19. clubhouse by sulfur_lad · · Score: 1

    I want to know where the clubhouse is, I want to join! Seriously, it's like everything 'they' do makes it look more and more like there's a little club 'they' are all in and they just kind of poke their heads out the window every once in a while. I can see the 'no girlz allow'd' sign on the door now. Like pick every 5th kid who walks on the schoolyard to watch all day long. When I fly into the US they'll certainly be making full use of their resources watching me walk from my hotel to the 7-11 to buy some nachos to go with I-Robot on TBS. Whether it's true or not, everything that turns out to be true these days is just this goofy, so it fits the profile, lol. Maybe the strategy is to keep everyone guessing?

    you want a funny protest? Get enough people to ring the White House and have them all just stand there and stare. Or just get 50 random people a day to do it for an hour each day. arrested!!

    1. Re:clubhouse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is a great idea. Let's start the "Stare randomly and blankly at the White House for 10 straight minutes" campaign today! No shouting, no signs, no obvious intent whatsoever. And not necessarily in sync with fellow protesters.

    2. Re:clubhouse by Stripe7 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually getting lost in Washington DC is probably enough to get you on the list. I spent a night driving around in circles around the White House late at night looking for my hotel. Took me about 4 trips around it before I found my hotel. It was up a narrow street with a very small sign pointing to the street. The view of the sign was mostly blocked by a hedge. My consultant partner did the same thing, except it took him even more circles and he ended up being stopped by the Secret Service who directed him to the hotel. This was before 9/11. I imagine things would be worse now days, hopefully the Secret Service has figured out that they need to get that hotel's sign enlarged and remove a certain hedge or they will keep having to stop lost visitor's from circling the White House, and adding lots of innocent names to their watchlist. Garbage in garbage out, the more garbage they toss into the Federal database the less useful it is and the more likely real terrorists will actually get through.

    3. Re:clubhouse by Duhavid · · Score: 1

      What channel is that on?

      I'll stare.

      --
      emt 377 emt 4
    4. Re:clubhouse by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1
      Where I live, there is an terminally asshole suburb (it's full petty bourgeois who think they run the show, but in reality, they have cranks up their arses that are being turned by the true big bourgeois [who wouldn't be caught dead living there] who DO run the show) which, before the Urban Community consolidated several services like the police, water treatment, etc., had it's zealous police farce kick-out "suspicious" (read: old) automobiles. A former colleague grew up in a "poorer" adjacent suburb and whenever he drove to visit his buddies, he was **ALWAYS** stopped by the cops who then radioed the police station who then called his buddies to check if he really was wanted there.

      That fucked-up suburb is bordered by a poorer suburb on the north, a very poor central city neighbourhood on the east, a rich central city (but former suburb) neighbourhood AND a extremely poor central city neighbourhood on the south and an industrial wasteland and railroad yards on the west.

      On the north, runs an elevated highway that is not elevated as it runs through that asshole suburb, to insure that the rabble from the poorer suburb would not cross into their territory.

      On the east, bordering the poor neighbourhood, is nothing less than an actual fence with a few gates in it that makes sure the poor rabble doesn't wander in the rich asshole suburb. The gates are locked on Hallowee'n to make sure that the poor kid would not get the rich candies.

      And on the south and west, railroad tracks do a fine job at keeping the rabble out (those who try get sliced by trains).

      Okay. Now, ever since they "lost" their very "own" police farce, they cannot keep the rabble out, but they have rent-a-cops doing the same thing.

      Well, I was walking through that asshole suburb last sunday, and as soon as I hit the fence, looking for a hole in the fucking fence, I got zeroed-in by one of those rent-a-cops who started to ask me who I was, where I lived and all that crap, clearly conveying the message that I had not business being there.

      Of course, I told him to go fuck himself. Then I kept walking until the next gate in the fence. Last thing I saw was the flashers of a police cruiser turning the corner, several streets away... (but thanks for the byzantine street plan, it would have took them 10 minutes to navigate to the other side of the fence, and I was careful enough to be unlocatable when the cops arrived where the rent-a-cop was...)

    5. Re:clubhouse by surprise_audit · · Score: 1
      Garbage in garbage out, the more garbage they toss into the Federal database the less useful it is and the more likely real terrorists will actually get through./i>

      I think maybe they're working on an "infinite number of monkeys" basis. You know - the "infinite number of monkeys banging on typewriters, and one of them will produce all the works of Shakespeare" theory. Except in this case they're collecting an infinite amount of crap in the Federal databases so that one day they can ask it, "Where's Bin Laden??" and get the right answer. Of course, the answers they're getting at the moment are on the order of "a curious shade of lilac", and "a fish", so they *know* they need to keep piling the crap up...

  20. I can't wait! by plopez · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Until you get the possessions of the people you denounce. I've got my eye on spiffy leather couch.

    --
    putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
  21. Spooky,,, by Itninja · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It seems a little odd that these guys have such a vested financial interest in finding "something" every month. I'm sure it's just a method of weeding out the slackers who just want to sleep on all the flights and say 'everything was fine'. But couldn't they find a better way to check on these marshals? Like a secret shopper program or something? It works in retail.....

    --
    I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
    1. Re:Spooky,,, by Nesetril · · Score: 1

      right, i was saying this all along. those air marshals are entirely a dead weight. the least we can do is sneak some snakes on the plane and make sure the marshals personally subdue and tag each one. with a quota of five snakes per marshal.

      --
      Jesus said to his disciples: "If you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one" - Luke 22:36
    2. Re:Spooky,,, by Strolls · · Score: 1
      ...couldn't they find a better way to check on these marshals? Like a secret shopper program or something? It works in retail.....
      I can just imagine it now:
      "Hey, that dude over there in the turban & the false beard looks just like my boss. I guess I'd better file an SDR."

      Stroller.

    3. Re:Spooky,,, by Jimmy+King · · Score: 1
      But couldn't they find a better way to check on these marshals? Like a secret shopper program or something?

      I read that as "Secret chopper program". I was wondering how you intended to keep the helicopter hovering right outside the window of the air marshall, watching to make sure he's not slacking, from being spotted.
    4. Re:Spooky,,, by ougouferay · · Score: 1
      But couldn't they find a better way to check on these marshals? Like a secret shopper program or something?
      And what exactly would this 'secret shopper' do? Maybe act like a terrorist?....I see a fatal (and I mean fatal) flaw in your argument :D
    5. Re:Spooky,,, by Duhavid · · Score: 1

      The secret shopper would know who the air marshal is,
      and observe them. Then we will have a secret shopper
      shopper to watch the secret shopper.

      I'll bet they can find jobs this way for all their friends.

      --
      emt 377 emt 4
    6. Re:Spooky,,, by winkydink · · Score: 1

      The flight crew knows who the FAM's are. If you fly often enough, you can figure it out too. I doubt anybody is snoozing.

      --

      "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

    7. Re:Spooky,,, by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      And Luke replied, "Dude, my cloak is NODROP, and besides, disciples can't even equip swords!"

    8. Re: Spooky,,, by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      > It seems a little odd that these guys have such a vested financial interest in finding "something" every month. I'm sure it's just a method of weeding out the slackers who just want to sleep on all the flights and say 'everything was fine'.

      I think it's just a symptom of the fact that the DoHS (indeed, the entire executive branch of our government) has adopted a CYA approach to defending against terrorism. The goal of preventing it has become lost among the more immediate goals of making sure you're not the one who takes the fall when it does happen.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    9. Re:Spooky,,, by surprise_audit · · Score: 1

      ah, but as everybody knows, the secret government black helicopters can see you right through the walls, so it would hover *above* the aircraft, out of sight.

  22. Secure the foil and ditch the scat porn... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The stereotypical image of the tin-foil hat donning conspiracy nut is finally laid to rest, the government really are watching!

    1. Re:Secure the foil and ditch the scat porn... by ackthpt · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The stereotypical image of the tin-foil hat donning conspiracy nut is finally laid to rest, the government really are watching!

      This crap must have to happen every so many years. We had the Commie witch-hunt in the 50's (Ever listen to a radio play, "I Was A Communist For The FBI"?), Nixon's personal enemies list of the late 60's/early 70's (included well known subversive peace activist and pot smoker John Lennon), now under W. You know W's regime is loaded with old Cold Warriors, right? Some ideas die hard. If we don't have an emeny, we create one, thus keeping the public's attention on the War while we loot the treasury.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    2. Re:Secure the foil and ditch the scat porn... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very interesting point of view.

      Why not to *intervene* every news paper and then do some magic tricks like in the movie Orwell 1984?

      The government may control all information and deceive even the people in the Ministry of Information. Why not?

      The Stazi had records of every citizen, and they didn't protest, didn't they? Maybe it is the way it was supposed to be...

      The point is that the more terrorists => the more control => the more terrorists => the more control => the more terrorists... ad infinitum and ad nauseam.

      There is no turning back...

      Countries which have succeeded in stopping terrorism are the ones that have the least controls, like the US used to have. Trusting people and allowing them to do as they wish is the best way to avoid them terrorizing each other. This is not to say there should be no police, but people need to have plenty of room, time and possibilities and all they see are ways to improve what they are doing.

      On the contrary if you put a dog in a small cage for several days, and then you stress the dog, the dog becomes very dangerous, even for its owner...

  23. Re:WTF by andrewman327 · · Score: 2, Informative

    TFA also says that this system only exists in Vegas. They should have no trouble finding strange activity there!

    --
    Information wants a fueled airplane waiting at the hangar and no one gets hurt.
  24. Re:WTF by snowgirl · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So the Washington Post or NYT are the only reliable sources of information?

    I'm very much worried about the reliablity of my sources also, but rejecting a story just because it isn't from a headlining news source?

    That just seem as dead-brained as blindly believing anything anyone says.

    --
    WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
  25. Re:WTF by iminplaya · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So the Denver news is now a reliable source of information? Let's see some Washington Post or NYT article being linked to.

    Yeah, them damn hicks out west don't know squat. Now then, care to explain what makes an eastern paper more credible?

    --
    What?
  26. Re:WTF by rumblin'rabbit · · Score: 2, Funny
    So the Denver news is now a reliable source of information?
    Indeed, perhaps the Denver 7 news reporter was under a deadline, and just made stuff up.
  27. I'd rather be safe than free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How about you?

    [neo con parody off]

    1. Re:I'd rather be safe than free by Amouth · · Score: 2, Funny

      Bush that you???

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    2. Re:I'd rather be safe than free by rthille · · Score: 1

      Shouldn't that be:

      "I'd rather have more power over others than less, wouldn't you?"

      --
      Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
    3. Re:I'd rather be safe than free by BobSutan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "I'd rather be safe than free."

      This is the most concise interpretation of the Franklin quote I've seen to date. Seriously. Good job.

      The unfortunate part is that a lot of people in this country really would rather be safe than free. Or to be more precise, they want to FEEL safe than be free. True safety will never occur. Period. Just when you think every risk has been mitigated something new will come along. Its just human nature. Hell, scratch that, its the universe. Whether it be an act of violence, terrorism, or an asteroid slamming into the Earth, bad things will always find a way. The only solution is to accept it, move on, and live life to the fullest.

      In regards to terrorism, Americans simply need accept that despite our best efforts bad people will do bad things from time to time, and if anything bad does happen they'll be punished for it. Surrendering to our fears and trading liberty for security is the cowards way out. The last 5 years has been a dark time in our nation's history, but its time we change that and start embracing the liberties we still have left. Put your chin up and your best foot forward and lets show them they can't keep us down.

      --
      "On a scale from 1 to 10, people are stupid"
    4. Re:I'd rather be safe than free by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1
      Amen!

      When will the american public wake up and realize we have he ability to conquer just about anybody. sure a few pot-shots get thru, but that's the price of being on top. If we give up the freedoms that got us on top then we won't be there much longer.

    5. Re:I'd rather be safe than free by 0-9a-f · · Score: 1

      You need to get out more, and have a look around.

      Most of the world stopped looking up to the USA a long time ago, but the response to _September 11_ only served to confirmed suspicions.

      --
      With each breath in, a flower somewhere opens; with each breath out, a flower withers away. In between lies beauty.
    6. Re:I'd rather be safe than free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      When will the american public wake up and realize we have the ability to conquer just about anybody.

      "Conquer" or just "defeat", because I think Iraq is showing the difference rather starkly.

    7. Re:I'd rather be safe than free by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      The unfortunate part is that a lot of people in this country really would rather be safe than free.

      I don't see that. I think that it's more that people don't understand what freedom is... however:

      accept that despite our best efforts bad people will do bad things from time to time

      You apparently don't either...

      if anything bad does happen they'll be punished for it ...and apparently you've confused vengence for justice as well.

      Just because you're an extremest on the other side of the issues you oppose dosen't mean you're protected from being unintentionally hypocritical. Stop and think, won't you? Perhaps actually try reading some of what some great americans have written. I recommend the Atlantic Charter (FDR & Winston Churchill), and Ben Franklin's letters. I think you will find that you, like are current government, are forgetting two of the four freedoms... The other two... At the very least, you'll find that like most great thinkers, their perspective is more nuanced than what you might learn from a single clever quotation.

    8. Re:I'd rather be safe than free by Techman83 · · Score: 1

      "Life Sucks, Get a fucken helmet" - Denis Leary

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i cat
      Damn, my RAM is full of cats. MEOW!!
    9. Re:I'd rather be safe than free by Elbowgeek · · Score: 1
      Here in Bermuda, after 9/11, they commenced "hardening" the local US consulate from a nice, sedate, old former house into what looks like a maximum security prison, with bars and all.

      So now we see these Americans looking out at us in the Real World(tm), from behind bars.

      --
      Who is this delectable creature with an insatiable love of the dead?
    10. Re:I'd rather be safe than free by Ruie · · Score: 1
      The unfortunate part is that a lot of people in this country really would rather be safe than free. Or to be more precise, they want to FEEL safe than be free. True safety will never occur.

      Nonsense. Milk cows on a farm are safe.

    11. Re:I'd rather be safe than free by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      Only because almost no-one has any interest in attacking them. Were there organised groups actively seeking to do them harm, that would be a rather different story.

    12. Re:I'd rather be safe than free by Ruie · · Score: 1
      Only because almost no-one has any interest in attacking them. Were there organised groups actively seeking to do them harm, that would be a rather different story.

      They are called wolves and the farmers delt with them.

    13. Re:I'd rather be safe than free by trwww · · Score: 1

      I'd rather be free. I'll keep myself safe.

      I'm the only one that does it anyway.

  28. oblig. 1984 reference by cvd6262 · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Innocent passengers are being entered into an international intelligence database as suspicious persons, acting in a suspicious manner on an aircraft ... and they did nothing wrong," said one federal air marshal.

    2006.07.25 DenverChannel malsaid "unorthodox" as "suspicious". rectify.

    --

    I'd rather have someone respond than be modded up.

    1. Re:oblig. 1984 reference by Tackhead · · Score: 4, Informative
      > > "Innocent passengers are being entered into an international intelligence database as suspicious persons, acting in a suspicious manner on an aircraft ... and they did nothing wrong," said one federal air marshal.
      >
      > 2006.07.25 DenverChannel malsaid "unorthodox" as "suspicious". rectify.

      2006.07.25 cvd6262 malsaid oldspeak "unorthodox" as "facecrime" rewrite fullwise.

      It was terribly dangerous to let your thoughts wander when you were in any public place or within range of a telescreen. The smallest thing could igve you away. A nervous tic, an unconscious look of anxiety, a habit of muttering to yourself, anything that carried with it the suggestion of abnormality, of having something to hide. In any case, to wear an improper expression on your face, was itself a punishable offense. There was even a word for it in Newspeak: facecrime"

      ref unbook 1984, author unperson orwell

    2. Re:oblig. 1984 reference by cvd6262 · · Score: 1

      I bellyfeel your doubleplusgooder comment.

      --

      I'd rather have someone respond than be modded up.

    3. Re:oblig. 1984 reference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Facecrime, interesting that you mention that. In the lovely state of New Jersey, it is in fact illegal to frown at an officer of the law. Land of the free, right?

  29. Paranoia? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you have nothing to hide, what's the problem?

    This is only to catch criminals, molesters, etc. If you are INNOCENTS person, then NOTHING WILL HAPPEN.

    1. Re:Paranoia? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem, you bloody SHEEP, is that I shouldnt have to be subjected to snap inspections and treated as a criminal in the first place. I should not have to prove my innocence to the authorities, ("innocent until proven guilty"). The attitude that as long as you do nothing wrong its ok to be under constant surveillance is the kind of mentality that leads to police states. Seriously, read 1984 or go live in N. Korea, do something, anything, and get a fucking clue before opening your word-hole.

      "Those who surrender their freedoms in exchange for protection will neither recieve or deserve either."-Ben Franklin

  30. More From the Marshall's Journal by Reverend528 · · Score: 1

    There's... something... on... the WING!

    1. Re:More From the Marshall's Journal by Aqua_boy17 · · Score: 1

      Marshal: Sweating profusely, attempts to light cigarrette

      Smart assed little girl: "N-O-S-M-O-K-I-N-G, Nooooo Smoking!"

      --
      What if the Hokey Pokey really is what it's all about?
    2. Re:More From the Marshall's Journal by Duhavid · · Score: 1

      Here is your strait-jacket, Bill.

      --
      emt 377 emt 4
  31. Re:WTF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, because that has never happened at the New York Times....

    Oh wait.. never mind.

  32. Quotas for security personnell by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Just how silly is that, I ask? How do you meet a quota when you're looking out for suspicious people? You declare someone suspicious who isn't, how else?

    God, just how DUMB are those national security morons? If anything, the NSA makes me feel LESS safe when I'm in the US. I feel like I'm under constant surveillance, being a suspect for being ... well, there.

    Is that what you want to accomplish, NSA? Is that the goal? Alienate the rest of the world, even those that used to LOVE your country, turn the rest of the world into your enemy so you can have perpetual war? The US are turning faster and faster into everything I hated about the communist system.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:Quotas for security personnell by Moofie · · Score: 1

      "God, just how DUMB are those national security morons?"

      I'm afraid that they're not dumb at all.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    2. Re:Quotas for security personnell by Chris+Burke · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The US are turning faster and faster into everything I hated about the communist system.

      Here's what really pisses me off about it:

      When I was in grade school, I was taught about how great and free the USA was, and how horrible the USSR was, and the reasons were that over there people had to show their papers everywhere they went, the government was constantly spying on them, and they could be locked away without due process of law based solely on the accusation of treasonous acts.

      Now those same things that made the USSR so bad are starting to happen here, and I'm told that this is okay because we're the USA, and we're inherently better.

      It used to be that the USA was great and free because we didn't do those things. Now we're great and free because we're the USA, and therefore its okay for us to do these things. Greatness is now an inherent property of the USA, not the result of our actions.

      The sad part is that I really believed what I was taught as a kid, that the USA was great because it did great things, and seeing what's going on now, even if it isn't nearly as bad as the USSR, strikes deeply at that childish part of me that still believes in honor, freedom, and greatness.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    3. Re:Quotas for security personnell by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      The US are turning faster and faster into everything I hated about the communist system.

      Under Communism, government runs industry. Under Facism, industry runs government. I must be dumb, I don't see much difference.

      Italy won WWII, obviously.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    4. Re:Quotas for security personnell by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1
      God, just how DUMB are those national security morons? . . .

      Is that what you want to accomplish, NSA? . . . [T]urn the rest of the world into your enemy so you can have perpetual war?

      Perpetual war means we can keep claiming that "We're at war!" If we can claim we're at war, certain rights can be suspended. If war were to "end" then it wouldn't be war anymore, and people might want their rights (and government) back.

      So perhaps they're not so dumb after all. Perhaps this is an actual case of malice, not incompetence.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    5. Re:Quotas for security personnell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would it make you feel better to know that whoever thought up the system is paid at least triple your salary?

    6. Re:Quotas for security personnell by Jorgandar · · Score: 1

      Would it make you feel better to know that whoever thought up the system is paid at least triple your salary? :)

    7. Re:Quotas for security personnell by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I'm usually inclined to attribute the lesser evil to people unless proven otherwise.

      So I do consider them dumb. Unless there's proof that they are trying to turn the US into a fascist dictatorship. Then again, I'm not directly affected, so I have the luxury of waiting and seeing.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    8. Re:Quotas for security personnell by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Only triple? What a poor, poor man he is! He should become a politician for the EU.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    9. Re:Quotas for security personnell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're within the reach of the US military, you're directly affected.

      That's everyone on the planet.

    10. Re:Quotas for security personnell by Apoklypse · · Score: 1

      Fascists ... not communists

    11. Re:Quotas for security personnell by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Let's be honest here, what existed in Russia was closer to fascism than it was to communism. Still, most people will call it communism.

      Propaganda goes a long way.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    12. Re:Quotas for security personnell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fascists not Communists.

    13. Re:Quotas for security personnell by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Well, at least we can then still hold the schedule. After all, a major war (with "war" meaning two sides clashing that have roughly equal potential of destruction. Not "war" as in "we go there and sweep 'em out") is due within the next 15 years.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    14. Re:Quotas for security personnell by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      The difference is whether the chieftain is a politician or a manager. Now, which one do you think is more capable of being able to see the long term ... bad example, ok. Which one do you think is more rooted in realit... no, wait, lemme think of something better. Which one is better at screwing his underlings for his own profi... damn, you're not making it easy here! Which one doesn't have to give a rat's ass about his people's opinions about h... doesn't work out in a dictatorship either.

      We're both dumb. Neither of us is in politics or management.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    15. Re:Quotas for security personnell by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Didn't you get the memo? The current definition of "patriotic" is:
      Supporting your country, right or wrong.

      Note synonym: country - government.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    16. Re:Quotas for security personnell by Cybrex · · Score: 1

      You've read my mind, and I agree completely. We have become the very example of what we once looked down upon as evil and barbaric.

      Of course, I'm also going to sue you under the DMCA for possessing an unauthorized copy of my thoughts.

      --
      Boundless Expansion, Self-Transformation, Dynamic Optimism, Intelligent Technology, Spontaneous Order- BEST DO IT SO!
  33. Re:Justice League, in America? by krell · · Score: 1

    "So what are you suggesting as an alternative?" Space him if you have spaceships with working airlocks. Barring that, keelhauling will do just fine. Arrrr!

    --
    Where were you when the voynix came?
  34. Quota by ClayTapes · · Score: 0

    The whole quota system is inherently flawed. Just like speeding tickets, it's a means of revenue. A means of hassling the average american.

    1. Re:Quota by Lead+Butthead · · Score: 1
      The whole quota system is inherently flawed. Just like speeding tickets, it's a means of revenue. A means of hassling the average american.
      Quoting a friend in uniform, there is no quote. It's... minimum performance requirement.
      --
      ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
  35. oblig by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In Soviet Russia... hey wait...

  36. Bullshit by Tony · · Score: 5, Interesting

    That is utter and complete bullshit.

    I am on that list. I don't know why; I have never been arrested or convicted or tried or anything else. I served honorably in the US Army. I fly all the time.

    About 18 months ago, I got on this watch list. It isn't so secret if you are a traveller. You can't use the fancy-shmancy self-service kiosks. You have to wait for a representative to help you. They have to make phone calls. The entire process takes an addiotional 10-15 minutes of not only my time, but the service representative, as well.

    There was some poor Thai girl in Bangkok. It was her second day on the job, and she freaked out when my name came up as I was checking in. It took them about 20 minutes to make the call to the US and get stuff squared away.

    No, I have not been arrested because of it. But, as an innocent person, why am I singled out for bureaucratic harrasement? I am denied the conveniences of other citizens simply because of my name existing on a watch list.

    So, I call bullshit.

    --
    Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
    1. Re:Bullshit by nojomofo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      My 3-year-old nephew is on the list. This has resulted in such events as him getting into a tugging match with a TSA screener over his teddy bear....

    2. Re:Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      for a while I had the same problem; my name is shared by a Texan who happens to be a convicted pediophile -- landed me in the extra observation lane till they caught the fella and then another 6 months

    3. Re:Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same story with a member of my family. Apperently they have the same name and birthdate as a known persona-non-grata (at least thats the explanation we get when we ask the poor attendant "Why am I being harrassed like this every damn time I walk into an airport?") You would think that the government would use something more unique than name and birthdate to identify potential suspects (SSN, or if non-US citizen, some form of national ID from home country)

    4. Re:Bullshit by shawb · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Oh... there's a reason for it. They want to piss someone off enough that they go ballistic. When they do get pissed off and attempt some act of revolt, then the watchers can say "See, there are revolutionaries. We need more funding to stop them."

      --
      I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
    5. Re:Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you should stop coming to /. :) .

    6. Re:Bullshit by Jherek+Carnelian · · Score: 1

      My 3-year-old nephew is on the list. This has resulted in such events as him getting into a tugging match with a TSA screener over his teddy bear....

      Please, please, please have some supporting proof for your claim. It is just too perfect of an example of the problems with the system. If it were documented, it would be the kind of thing that no one, not even the most deeply-dyed-in-the-wool law-and-order-over-freedom neo-con-luvin sheeple could argue as being OK.

    7. Re:Bullshit by johnny+cashed · · Score: 1

      Maybe because you're selling alien insurance? But seriously, could being in the US Army qualify? You have training which might be considered threatening? Maybe not, might depend on what you did in the Army. Demo expert? Hand to hand combat? Maybe your are considered an asset to the bad guys?

    8. Re:Bullshit by dbc · · Score: 2, Interesting

      My neighbor's 6 year old kid was on the watch list a couple of years ago. Took months of paperwork to get him off the list.

    9. Re:Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Please give me written proof I am on your secret list ..." Probably not going ot happen!

    10. Re:Bullshit by RyoShin · · Score: 1
      But, as an innocent person, why am I singled out for bureaucratic harrasement?
      Beacuse your three digit Slashdot ID number associated you as a liberal technophile who hates freedom in the FBI database, that's why.
    11. Re:Bullshit by Jherek+Carnelian · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "Please give me written proof I am on your secret list ..." Probably not going ot happen!

      No, but a video of the kid fighting it out over the teddy bear with the TSA would be ideal youtube fodder.

    12. Re:Bullshit by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      I am on that list. I don't know why; I have never been arrested or convicted or tried or anything else. I served honorably in the US Army. I fly all the time.

      Hmm, a perfect record. Perhaps too perfect. You seem suspiciously unsuspicious, citizen, and this raises our suspicions.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    13. Re:Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      He should be on the list. Just yesterday he threw his ball into my yard and WALKED ON MY GRASS TO GET IT! Then HE DID IT AGAIN!!!!

    14. Re:Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't use the fancy-shmancy self-service kiosks. You have to wait for a representative to help you. They have to make phone calls. The entire process takes an addiotional 10-15 minutes of not only my time, but the service representative, as well.

      Oh my God! Call the ACLU, someone is taking up 10-15 minutes of your time! That's gotta violate some civil right somewhere, right?

      Get off it, soldier. So you got put on the list erroneously. So you were inconvenienced to the tune of a few minutes, and then the problem was rectified, and it has not had any other recurring effects on you or your ability to travel. Big freaking deal! Were you anally probed? Were you taken to a cell and beaten? Did you have your fingernails pulled out while forcing you to sign a confession? Methinks thou dost protest too much, which bespeaks a political axe to grind beyond this immediate issue.

      What you want is a perfect system where no innocent person is ever wrongfully accused and every malicious terrorist bastard is caught with a 100% no-failure rate. When you perfect such a system, call me, because I've got a spam filter that's never has any false positives or false negatives I want to sell you. Yeah, right. Keep wishing. In the meantime, innocent people are going to get on this list every now and then, just as bona fide terrorists will probably slip through from time to time. No system is perfect, but if it catches the one terrorist that's about to blow up the plane you're embarking on, I'm pretty sure you're not going to bitch about your lost 10 minutes.

      Now, don't get me wrong, I think our current system of "security" is anything but secure. But I think it's so laughable because it's so politcally correct. We shouldn't be looking for weapons, we should be looking for terrorists, which means we profile. Murder investigators profile when trying to figure out serial murder cases, so why is it somehow taboo to profile someone who's intent on mass murder. To date, how many non-Muslim, non-Arabic, non-male, non-under-30-years-old foreign terrorists have we had to deal with? Umm...none? So we profile. Young, male Muslims of Arabic origin should receive extra scrutiny, and to absolute hell with CAIR and all the other apologist groups who claim they're against terrorism but are conspicuously absent when it comes time to condemn terrorist actions (i.e. Beslan, 9/11, Hezbollah rockets, etc.)

      Sure, profile offends the pantywaist liberals. Tough shit. If young, male Muslims of Arabic origin don't want to be lumped in with terrorist groups, perhaps they ought to try taking steps to make them stand out from terrorist groups, such as denouncing Hezbollah, Fatah, etc. and committing themselves to non-violent means of achieving their goals. But that's the logical approach, and I'm not about to hold my breath waiting for logic from that corner of the world.

    15. Re:Bullshit by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      But, as an innocent person, why am I singled out for bureaucratic harrasement? I am denied the conveniences of other citizens simply because of my name existing on a watch list.

      What, you haven't sued them? Np wonder you're on a watch list! That's unamerican!
      </sarcasm>

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    16. Re:Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lawn terrorists are the worst kind!

    17. Re:Bullshit by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Over the past few years, I've traveled to China (Shanghai) twice now. I wonder if by "default" I'm on this list. If so, how do I know it?

      Can I check my civilian status or shadow profile online (did I just say "status" as though I'm legally less of an American)?

      How else does this bad mark effect me legally? Does it hurt my credit rating or prevent me from getting a loan? Just how deep does this hell hole go? Will I meet Satan if I deep enough...

      This is seriously fucked up and for the first time in my life, I'm nervious about my citizenship status EVEN THOUGH I WAS BORN HERE. And no, my parents arn't immigrants.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    18. Re:Bullshit by kfg · · Score: 1

      I am on that list. I don't know why

      Low UID. The first digit is only one odd number lower than 9. The second is 9 upside down. The second two add up to 11, but the real kicker is:

      There are 3 digits in your UID. Reiterating the middle digit 3 times is - 666!

      KFG

    19. Re:Bullshit by surprise_audit · · Score: 1

      You're not one of the David Nelsons are you?? Personally, I think it would be interesting to watch the TSA meltdown when 30 or 40 David Nelsons show up for the same flight. Picture the chaos after boarding when they announce, "Would David Nelson please exit the plane". Be really funny if one of them was the pilot, with a license to carry a handgun in the cockpit... I wonder if potential Air Marshalls are checked against the No Fly list?? There could be an armed David Nelson legitimately on a flight, writing bogus reports about random strangers. :)

    20. Re:Bullshit by BandwidthHog · · Score: 1
      a video of the kid fighting it out over the teddy bear with the TSA

      You really think you’d get out of the airport with that tape?

      --

      Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
    21. Re:Bullshit by Jherek+Carnelian · · Score: 1

      Of course not. That's why it would be really good youtube fodder if he did.

    22. Re:Bullshit by nojomofo · · Score: 1

      Please, please, please have some supporting proof for your claim.

      see: http://terrorwatchlist.org/About_Us.html/ (at the bottom). I can't give you a link about the teddy bear, but it's true. And of course, that's the thing about the terror watchlist. There's really no way to get "proof" that anybody's on it.

  37. Whoosh by rumblin'rabbit · · Score: 1

    It was a joke. A joke. The irony of making up a story about people making up stories... Ah, never mind.

    1. Re:Whoosh by x2A · · Score: 1

      I thought it was clever :-)

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
  38. How much of what you read do you REALLY believe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How much of what you read is really true? A quota really does not make sense, and if found out, would look really, really bad for the Air Marshals. Of course, this is slashdot and anything anti-Bush or anti-DHS is fair game!

  39. LOL More racial profiling please! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Welcome to the world of the minority. We get racially profiled all the time while driving, minding our own business, etc. Now everyone else will know how it feels to be harassed because of the way you look.

  40. Re:WTF by mrxak · · Score: 1

    While I agree that any kind of quota system isn't helping the system, I do find it a bit odd that Air Marshalls can't find at least one suspitious-looking person on a flight over the course of a month. Aren't these people flying pretty much all the time? I don't fly all that often but when I do there's usually at least one person who approaches the cockpit (trying to get to the bathroom maybe, but during a time when the cockpit door is open, or something). Maybe the policy is to prevent these guys from just sleeping all day on their assigned flights.

    Again, quotas seem stupid, and I don't think suspitious activity of a fairly benign nature should put you on some kind of "banned for life" list, I'm just trying to see the issue from all sides.

  41. So What ?? by Chris+whatever · · Score: 1

    So what if you get on a list, they can track your every movment as soon as you use your atm or credit card, they know what you eat, what you like and can create an exact profile of you without ever laying eyes on you so it doesn't matter if they do it on plane as well.

    So i'm asking, SO What? People want protection on airplanes, if i'm put on a list but at the same time there is guy with a gun that could potentially disarm a terrorist on a plane,i'm all for it if i can land safely and enjoy life.

    Protection comes at a price, they cant know for sure who's a risk and who's not, is it a caucasion, ans asian or middle east man, you never know so they have to take a guess and if by doing what they do they come upon a drug dealer, pedophile or other criminal, well i say thankya Big Big gunslinger!

    1. Re:So What ?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."
      -Benjamin Franklin

    2. Re:So What ?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You missed the whole false accusations part, huh? Trust me, someone in a position of authority will falsely accuse you of just about anything in order to get themselves a big fat raise. While they are out buying a new house and chowing down on a prime rib dinner, they will no doubt think about how funny it is that all the normal people like you are getting probed in the name of security. Make sure you say "thankya Big Gunslinger!" when they bend you over and reach for the KY.

    3. Re:So What ?? by nathanicus · · Score: 1

      People want protection on airplanes, if i'm put on a list but at the same time there is guy with a gun that could potentially disarm a terrorist on a plane,i'm all for it if i can land safely and enjoy life.

      Having air marshals put people on "watch lists" has no effect whatsoever on the phenomenon of guys with guns disarming terrorists.

      An air marshal devotes a chunk of his life to ensuring that the plane is not forcibly hijacked, hence he carries a gun. Apart from actual hijackings, there is very little terrorist-indicative activity that can go on at all (taking pictures? spending too much time in the lavatory? :S ). In fact, terrorists not currently commiting a terrorist act would be very careful NOT to act suspicious anywhere near planes or airports. (Its called "Operational Security") If the terrorists were currently commiting a terrorist act, then the watch list would be irrelevant anyway, for obvious reasons. Thus planes are not the place to search for future terrorists. If the police department has a watch list, thats very different, and far more permissible.

      Wanting security is no reason to blindly trust people with bad track records.

    4. Re:So What ?? by Duhavid · · Score: 1

      How about this:

      All the people who prefer safe to free, go form your
      own country elsewhere. YOu can call it the land
      of the safe and the home of the not too brave. Then
      the US can rever to being the land of the free and
      the home of the brave.

      I dont know about anyone else, but I prefer free to safe.

      David

      --
      emt 377 emt 4
    5. Re:So What ?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      are you new here, or just a troll?

    6. Re:So What ?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what?

      While I'm shooting a harmless photograph out the window, and getting put on some security list for greater scrutiny next time I go through the system, the REAL badguy is getting less attention than they should.

      Spurious, false positives make people LESS secure.

    7. Re:So What ?? by Damvan · · Score: 1

      God I hope you are trying to be funny.

      Attitudes like that are the reason we are rapidly sliding down this slippery slope to totalitarianism. Enjoy your safety, coward.

    8. Re:So What ?? by FloodSpectre · · Score: 1

      Because this nation and the world at large has a serious problem with terrorists hijacking planes, right ? Maybe some percent-of-a-percent of the number of deaths due to, say, domestic crime ? Well, I say damn the Wright brothers and their terrorist-attracting mechanical flying contraption ! That's the problem.

    9. Re:So What ?? by madcow_bg · · Score: 1

      bravery:
      1. n, one of the most typical characteristics of a man enjoying safety.


      quote from Ambrose Bierce: "The Devil's dictionary".

      Jokes aside, you're perfectly right. And EVEN if you prefer safety over freedom, just explain to me how being in THAT list is going to stop terrorists? I mean, if you *know* you're on their list, you're not going to carry guns on the aircraft, are you?

    10. Re:So What ?? by Duhavid · · Score: 1

      :-)

      Maybe we should all carry guns.

      --
      emt 377 emt 4
    11. Re:So What ?? by Chris+whatever · · Score: 1

      You cant have security without a little bit of privacy prying!

      Do you have a house?
      Do you have a credit card?
      Do you lease an appartment?
      Do you have a job?
      have you ever given your social security number?

      Do you think they dont already have your life on records?

  42. We try by krell · · Score: 1

    " The US are turning faster and faster into everything I hated about the communist system."

    We don't yet have slackjawed leaders with eyebrows that look like sewn-on welcome mats, waiting queue line 2 days just to get a box of powdered milk, and the glory of yearly weapon parades on mainstreet. Also, Bush does not yet get in a snit if you don't introduce him as The Great Father of All the Peoples. But we're working on it, give us SOME credit. We're also working hard to get rid of that pesky "freedom on the Internet" thing, but some $#@##@.||.--@.. NO CARRIER

    --
    Where were you when the voynix came?
    1. Re:We try by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Hey, Moscow ain't built in a day. Revel in what you have already. A government that spies on its people because it doesn't trust them anymore. A government that fears everyone from abroad for being a spy or, worse, someone who threatens the "perfect" system. Constant fear that your government might consider your a traitor and send you to some gula... I mean gitmo. Using the UN as a cheap tool to leverage the own agenda while throwing a fit if it dares to consider you some bad guy. More and more emphasis on military and its glory while at the same time not giving a shit about the people in the country.

      The list is building slowly, but hey, you're getting there. After all, Marx said already 150 years ago, sooner or later everyone will have communism, all over the world!

      I fear he might be right...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:We try by Omestes · · Score: 1

      The day Bush uses his shoe as a gavel, then we know we are doomed.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    3. Re:We try by krell · · Score: 1

      (I agree with and like your SIG, by the way, but was inspired by it to base mine on even worse examples in both fields).

      --
      Where were you when the voynix came?
    4. Re:We try by GungaDan · · Score: 1

      "The day Bush uses his shoe as a gavel"

      He would never do that. At least not without "Dr. Rice" closeby to re-tie it for him when he was ready to put it back on.

      --
      Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
    5. Re:We try by krell · · Score: 1

      Last time I knew, Bush had dispensed with wearing shoes altogether. Rather confining to his prehensile feet.

      --
      Where were you when the voynix came?
    6. Re:We try by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      waiting queue line 2 days just to get a box of powdered milk,

      How about waiting for 3 days just to get some electricity in New York?

  43. Wecome to Guantanamo Bay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Welcome to Guantanamo USA. There are people at Gitmo are as innocent as any poor fool who got dinged by an Air Marshals filling a quota. It is truely the start of the slippery slope to tyrrany. Rememeber, this is a secret list, so your will never know if you are on it, and even if yoy knew there is no way to get off it. How long will it be until they start torturing connfessions out of people here in the US? This is not a retorical question, it's only a matter of time.

  44. Re:WTF by monoqlith · · Score: 1

    I don't know if quotas are always ineffective I think quotas increase effectiveness for law enforcement where the expected number of law violations is realistically going to be greater than the set quota, like with traffic violations. But with something like terrorist activity where the expected result of terrorist monitoring is one or two suspicious people, tops, the quota is just going to falsely inflate the amount of suspicious behavior reported and going to mislead authorities and ultimately hurt us all. They should be instead concentrating on hiring and training people who are quick and alert - this is a job that takes skill in order to be able to identify true threats.

  45. Jean Pierre Melville said it best by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "All men are guilty. They're born innocent, but it doesn't last." -- from "le circle rouge" (1970)

  46. The wonderful thing about the air watch list by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    is that once you're on, it's almost impossible to get off of it.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  47. I think you're all missing something very bad... by voice_of_all_reason · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The air marshals, whose identities are being concealed, told 7NEWS that they're required to submit at least one report a month. If they don't, there's no raise, no bonus, no awards and no special assignments.

    If true, these people have just admitted they weren't subjecting innocent people to punishment because they'd lose their job otherwise and be unable to support their family -- an understandable, if still morally weak position. No, they did it because they wanted more money. Or a dental plan. Or a longer vacation. That's what's known as being stunning and embarassingly selfish.

    At the risk of godwinning myself, what's that famous quote about the holocause that goes along the line of "there will always be number-crunchers behind the scenes eager to see if they can make the count even higher next time?"

  48. Sheep by prophet5590 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them." - Frederick Douglass

  49. Re:WTF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    What is truly remarkable that the article uses the word suspicious, the summary uses the word suspicious and yet you still spell it suspitious more than once.

    Please stop showing the world how lousy our public school system is. I thank you in advance for your cooperation.

  50. Hasn't anyone realised... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that if you give a person a job they will find something to do that fills it? Otherwise they will be out of a job.

    When I learnt it it used to be called 'Parkinson's Law' (Northcote Parkinson). Work expands to fill the time available for it's completion.

    Hasn't anyone wondered why we still have a lot of fighting in the world? Hint, when the cold war ended the victors did not dismantle their standing armies. So there are a lot of military looking for a justification.

    Call me a cynic, but I have had experience of just this issue in the 1990s with a European Security Service. I have a very good idea why there is a continuous (we hope) war on terror going on.

  51. If you are too independent... by MindPrison · · Score: 1

    ...you'd be on their shitlist too.

    Me? I'm a DIY electronics freak with a little too much gear and a motormouth to go.
    If I'd be on that plane - they'd have a field day on me. Kind of makes me happy living where I do - phew!

    --
    What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
  52. Quotas decrease security of Americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It seems to me that by instituting a quota system, the SDR system is in fact jeopardizing the security of Americans. After all, by filling the list with harmless people, doesn't this decrease the validity and usefulness of the system?

  53. Bigger than the Las Vegas Air Marshll office by GlowingWhispers · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A couple of thoughts. 1. Sadly various 'US no fly lists' are being used by airlines in countries that don't yet have their own list -- e.g. Canada -- in an attempt to reduce liability. Meaning, the implications of this article are greater than some might realize. 2. A key question about no-fly lists is the criteria used to put people on it. Ideally, it should be transparent so, for instance, everyone out there with a criminal record isn't concerned every time they get on a plane that law enforcement officials will descend upon them. Beyond the quota issue, this article points to a series of systemic problems relating to the criteria used to make these lists, which from my reading seem to be: a. arbitrary b. left to individual discretion c. without oversight or review checks and balances d. unappealable, regardless of how flimsy the evidence is. As more and more countries draft their own no-fly lists, such issues are likely to grow in importance and become bigger problems within the international (rather just American) political sphere.

  54. Re:WTF by h4rm0ny · · Score: 2, Insightful


    I do find it a bit odd that Air Marshalls can't find at least one suspitious-looking person on a flight over the course of a month.

    Why? Just how many terrorists do you think are out there? And of them, how many will be trying to take over a plane? If there were even a handful trying this, then it would be all over the news (as it supports the government agenda). And if someone isn't trying to take over the plane then what on Earth makes them suspicious and worth putting on a watch list? Flying while asian? Reading Noam Chomsky? Not only is the government jumping at shadows, it's now got a quota of how many shadows you have to jump at each month?

    --

    Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
  55. Please read the related article..... by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · · Score: 4, Informative

    There is an article linked to from that page about how horribly mismanaged the Federal Air Marshals Service is.

    1. Re:Please read the related article..... by mambodeath · · Score: 4, Insightful

      i think people are missing the point. there IS NO threat that these air marshalls are supposedly there to protect us from. (this is clearly obvious from tfa and the one linked in this thread.) there may be miscellaneous threats, but they cannot protect us from those any better than pre-air marshall security.

      they are there for psychological puposes, so that people who think there is a threat feel safer. people can point to some action that the government is doing. "look, they have air marshalls and no-fly lists."

      there is no worldwide terror organzation or network. go to archive.org and download (bbc documentary) the power of nightmares (i wonder how long it'll be up?) i have friends who work for "homeland security" and it's all a sham. too bad it costs us money.

      --
      if you're not outraged, you're not paying attention.
  56. this isnt news for nerds by khaaela · · Score: 0, Troll

    Put your cry baby government complaints somewhere else. This website has gone downhill and half the articles are about how you think the government is fucking you in the ass. Guess what. All governments have, are, and will always screw you, do stupid things, mismanage money, and fuck you over. Nothing will ever change. STFU and post real tech posts.

  57. Quantity or Quality by NMagic · · Score: 5, Interesting
    This seems to be a case of education. They haven't invested the time/funds to train the marshals enough to recognize who they're looking for. Instead of fixing the problem, they compensate with higher numbers to keep up with the odds.

    This is your typical case of quantity being chosen instead of quality.

    1. Re:Quantity or Quality by Murgatroyd · · Score: 1

      These marshals are required to submit at least one report per month. This is beyond a simple lack of education - they're filing Surveillance Detection Reports on random people because that's the only way the marshals can earn raises and bonuses, not because they're unable to tell the difference between "good" people and "bad" people.

    2. Re:Quantity or Quality by NMagic · · Score: 1
      Then again, I'm left wondering if this is created by public demand...

      Would the public be more outraged by this, or by a 6 month training delay in getting qualified air marshalls in the air? If they were to train them correctly, it would also cost more. Who wants to be the one that has to tell the people why it costs so much to put a guy on a plane?

      I think it may have actually been a case of what-would-be-more-noticeable-and-cost-least. They probably decided that not only would it be cheaper, but the general populace would probably not notice this as much. Hence the reason that this is not in the NYT or any other big name newspaper. They don't much care if a town or even a city makes a stink. It's the entire nation that they care about, and as a government agency, they're only going to do what isn't going to get them screamed at, not what's best.

  58. Wrong focus by Kesch · · Score: 5, Funny

    I think these guys are spending too much time looking for possible terrorists and not enough time on the real threats.

    Like snakes.

    What I'm really scared of is mothaf*cking snakes on mothaf*cking planes!

    --
    If this signature is witty enough, maybe somebody will like me.
    1. Re:Wrong focus by SydShamino · · Score: 1

      If I could draw, there'd be a political cartoon here.

      Air Marshal says "I need to hit my quota... let's report that old lady with the knitting needles!" In the picture, there would be the marshal, the old lady a few rows away, and every other (filled) seat would be have a Far Side-styled snake looking suspicous...

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    2. Re:Wrong focus by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      More people die from heart attacks and strokes induced by terror alerts than die from terrorist attacks in North America.

      Fact.

      Yet we leave our ports wide open.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    3. Re:Wrong focus by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1
      More people die from heart attacks and strokes induced by terror alerts than die from terrorist attacks in North America. Fact.
      Reference?
    4. Re:Wrong focus by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      Well, let's just do the numbers, shall we?

      Heart attacks and strokes - very large number. Easily gullible people who have heart attack or stroke brought on by unwarranted fear and stress from terror alerts - based on what I've read in medical journals, probably fairly high.

      Number dead from terrorist attacks in North America - um, I'm sorry, can't think of many, other than NYC.

      More people probably died from heat stroke from global warming in North America this year than from terrorist attacks as well.

      Now, you can go live in fear. Me, since I've actually been on counter-terrorism ops and know exactly what the relevant risks are, I'm much more concerned about crossing the street, thanks much.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    5. Re:Wrong focus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Number dead from terrorist attacks in North America - um, I'm sorry, can't think of many, other than NYC.

      There were a few in northern Virginia several years ago, some in Pennsylvania around the same time, and some in OKC several years before that. I think that about covers it.

  59. This reminds me of... oh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My old english teachers 2 year old child is named ashmedd, and apparently he is on the international wanted list because of his name. What is worse is that the people at the airport actually ask which person is ashmedd even though the ticket for the airlines and the birth certificate STATE he's still two years old...

  60. no big surprise here by jt418-93 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    the system is broken from the top down. the only solution is to format the goverment and reinstall. this image is corrupt.

    --
    -.no
    1. Re:no big surprise here by c0d3h4x0r · · Score: 1

      The poster may be making a sarcastic joke, but they are absolutely right.

      The system is too corrupted and too far gone to be fixed within the system. The only solution to all the problems the U.S. faces, and to all the flaws in the U.S. government, is to completely start over with a better (e.g. more fair) government.

      --
      Moderator hint: a comment is neither "Flamebait" nor "Troll" if it is true.
    2. Re:no big surprise here by the-amazing-blob · · Score: 1
      the system is broken from the top down. the only solution is to format the goverment and reinstall. this image is corrupt.


      Problem is, the last people seen with the boot disk were the founding fathers. I hear they're dead now.
    3. Re:no big surprise here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You just gave the Libertarian Party their new slogan. =)

    4. Re:no big surprise here by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      Can we install a free, open-source government, next time? :P

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    5. Re:no big surprise here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What gets me is that crap like this was completely foreseeable, yet September and October of 2001 were full of cries to nationalize airport security.

      9/11 happened for the simple reason that airline policy was to cooperate with hijackers. That policy existed because hijackers always wanted to go somewhere or trade hostages and the risk of losing a single passenger life made it a no-brainer to drop some guy off in Beruit. After 9/11, you'd better believe that policy has changed.

  61. Fahrenheit 451 by teasea · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is in response to All of the Above rather than the direct parent comment.

    In this book, they "killed" Montag at the end of the book by finding a random guy walking down the street and shooting him while the live cameras proclaimed that the "dangerous criminal" has been taken off the streets by the ever-vigilant government.

    Simple smoke and mirror style politics. We need X number of criminals to justify actions A, B and C.

    Obviously this does not apply to an Air Marshall who gets drunk and falls asleep on the plane but is the guy on the De Moines to Bend Oregon run going to find as many suspicious people as the guy on the NY to Boston run?

    1. Re:Fahrenheit 451 by ultramk · · Score: 2, Funny

      Obviously this does not apply to an Air Marshall who gets drunk and falls asleep on the plane but is the guy on the De Moines to Bend Oregon run going to find as many suspicious people as the guy on the NY to Boston run?

      Sorry, but having stayed in both cities, I can categorically state there there is no valid earthly reason to be in either Des Moines, IA or Bend, OR. Obviously there's something truly fishy going on.

      m-

      --
      You catch enchiladas by picking them up behind the head and holding them underwater until they don't kick anymore -VeGas
    2. Re:Fahrenheit 451 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've never been to Des Moines, but I have had the misfortune of flying out of Bend, OR. If you gone through security there, prehaps you might have some idea why they had to unpack my entire suitcase and swab it for 'bomb residue' as they explained to me... Also, they claimed it was vital to wake up sleeping babies in case they were just corpses stuffed full of explosives...

      I can imagine any sort of logical rational for that kind of security check in a place like Bend f-ing OR...

      I did take the time to fill out a complaint card as i waited...which incidentally has prolly landed me onto some list of evil-complaining-shouldn't-be-flying-people...

    3. Re:Fahrenheit 451 by ultramk · · Score: 1

      I think they're just pissed at the world that they have to live there. Guess they feel the need to take it out on someone. I hate that whole region of the state (not that the rest of OR is such a prize).

      Some parts of the coast aren't bad, but I'll take Washington any day.

      m-

      --
      You catch enchiladas by picking them up behind the head and holding them underwater until they don't kick anymore -VeGas
  62. The people who invented this quota, by Bromskloss · · Score: 1

    ...I anticipate would never succeed in creating a (working) computer program or come up with a logic chain of mathematical statements. A _quota_ for such a thing?! How flawed isn't that? Like they could know that the number of terrorist (or tourists or whatever they are chasing) always will be greater than, or equal to, the number mentioned in that quota.

    --
    Swedish plasma phys. PhD student; MSc EE; knows maths, programming, electronics; finance interest; seeks opportunities
    1. Re:The people who invented this quota, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It probably comes from former salesmen,, who learned the routine but weren't successful at it.

      "Coffee is for closers!"

  63. Mr Kruschev says we will bury you... by krell · · Score: 1

    "The day Bush uses his shoe as a gavel, then we know we are doomed"

    History does repeat itself. Just a couple of weeks ago, I saw the Great Father of the Peoples of South America (Hugo Chavez) give a speech on C-SPAN. He actually said that he would bury the United States. Oddly enough, he kept his shoes on. Maybe just so no one would cause him Shoeless 'Go.

    --
    Where were you when the voynix came?
    1. Re:Mr Kruschev says we will bury you... by Omestes · · Score: 1

      Love the sig!

      Though I do like early Marx... Late Marx though...

      I never even thought of the Balmer - Kruschev link...

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    2. Re:Mr Kruschev says we will bury you... by krell · · Score: 1

      "Though I do like early Marx... Late Marx though..."

      I suppose, just like someone can like the early Hitler (the angry young theatre-scene painter) compared to the older one.

      "I never even thought of the Balmer - Kruschev link..."

      What, did Krushchev have a crazy dance too? "Proletarians! Proletarians! Proletarians!"

      --
      Where were you when the voynix came?
  64. Sensationalism by LindseyJ · · Score: 0

    This is even more of a non-story than is usually posted on these boards. Everybody on a 'watch-list' is innocent, as they havn't yet been proven guilty in a court of law (keep your snyde comments to yourselves).

    More sensationalist crap, brought to you by /.

    1. Re:Sensationalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what you are saying is that its OK for the government to institute a quota system where Air Marshalls have to report suspicious activity and as a result, Air Marshalls, wanting to keep their job, have to report SOMETIHNG, even if it is totally bogus?

      I sure hope you end up on a watch list and suffer as a result when you are denied bording without a reason. Then come back on Slashdot and tell us you took it like a patriotic American!

  65. In Russian Accent by Belial6 · · Score: 1

    "waiting queue line 2 days just to get a box of powdered milk,"

    No, in USA, you wait 5 hours in line just for piece of paper that say you can drive car!

  66. Re:WTF by butterwise · · Score: 1, Funny

    Yeah, them damn hicks out west don't know squat.

    Excuse me, but we "hicks" are in the south, not west, thank you very much.

    --
    If a baby duck is a "duckling," why would anyone want to eat "dumplings?"
  67. Silly Ubiquitous Wars by LowlyWorm · · Score: 1

    The problem is we keep waging these silly ubiquitous wars. If we fight everything we will win nothing. How can we expect to win if what we are fighting is not even clearly defined?

    We have a war on terrorism, a war on drugs, a war on cancer, a war on fast food. When will it end!

    --
    Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
    1. Re:Silly Ubiquitous Wars by ArielMT · · Score: 1

      I heard that we fought a great world war to end all wars. Problem is, it was quickly followed by a second world war to end all wars. Things weren't much different fundamentally before or since.

      --
      It must be Windows. It needs half a gig of RAM and a hardware-accelerated graphics card just to run Solitaire.
    2. Re:Silly Ubiquitous Wars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After the war on warmongers?

    3. Re:Silly Ubiquitous Wars by LowlyWorm · · Score: 1

      Interesting. Things were quite different during those wars. Perhaps it is better that we are not so focused. My objection is that in declaring wars against such things as poverty or homelessness etc. what we really seem to be saying is I care about such issues but cant think of anything more constructive than to proclaim "I declare war against it". It wrongly frames the issue and ultimately reduces our ability to address them realistically.

      --
      Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
  68. Re:WTF by Vo0k · · Score: 1

    I do find it a bit odd that Air Marshalls can't find at least one suspitious-looking person on a flight over the course of a month.

    What about 100?
    We don't know how high these quotas are.

    --
    Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
  69. I See Disciplinary Action Report by mpapet · · Score: 2, Interesting

    coming for the poor saps who were idiotic enough to go to the media while they were still employed by the Contractor/Agency. The Federal agency may have bid the contract out won't do anything different. They get to blame someone else for being a "bad apple."

    The Marshalls just made the career limiting move of the rest of their *life* for what exactly?

    For the next person that finds themselves in a similar situation, learn how to do this the right way.

    1. If you disagree strongly enough, find another job.
    2. While you are finding said job, get some professional help objectivly evaluating your options and creating a strategy.
    3. Map out reasonable tactics and choose the plan that is best for you and your loved ones.
    4. Execute plan and prepare for unexpected things. In general, the contractor you worked for will publicly discredit you and do what it can to punish you.

    If you have done steps 1, 2, and 3 right, there's some protection from events in #4.

    --
    http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
    1. Re:I See Disciplinary Action Report by nasch · · Score: 1

      Are you expecting the news channel to rat them out, or do you think the Marshal service will subpoena them for the names? You noticed they spoke anonymously, right?

    2. Re:I See Disciplinary Action Report by TempeTerra · · Score: 1
      I don't really see where you're coming from. I mean, sure the advice you give would work if we're talking about a minimum wage Wal Mart job, but I'll bet that Federal Air Marshals have a lot invested in their work. Not just a job, a career. I hate replying point by point, but I guess that's the only way to deal with this:

      1. If you disagree strongly enough, find another job.
      Like I said, that might work at Wal Mart. Nobody cares about your complaints at Wal Mart. You can get a job at Target instead, it'll be just the same. What's a Federal Air Marshal going to do? Get a job as a Federal Rail Marshal? Do they even exist? Since when was it better to quit you job and start again than to try and fix your job?

      2. While you are finding said job, get some professional help objectivly evaluating your options and creating a strategy.
      Maybe they did? I couldn't offer professional help in a situation like this, but my amateur advice would be to do exactly what they did.

      3. Map out reasonable tactics and choose the plan that is best for you and your loved ones.
      As I said, I think they took reasonable actions and NOT QUITTING YOUR JOB is usually a good way of supporting your loved ones.

      4. Execute plan and prepare for unexpected things. In general, the contractor you worked for will publicly discredit you and do what it can to punish you.
      Ok. 'Be prepared' is good advice in any situation. As for being discredited, you seem to have overlooked the fact that they were speaking anonymously. Even if you assume that their bosses will know who them damn troublemakers are, what's the worst that could happen? Get fired? Maybe. Get successfully sued for leaking details of immoral and probably illegal business practices? Seems unlikely.

      Really, what are you actually suggesting? That they should have quit their jobs before going public with this? Why? You say that they should have made a plan - well it looks to me like they did. I'm guessing these are people who have pride in their work who have found that their career prospects have been ruined by a policy which rewards malicious busy-work over actually doing the job. Best case scenario, they leak this to the press and the management changes policy out of embarrassment. Problem solved (for them... the unfortunates who were put on the no-fly list are another matter). Career resumes, with the possibility of advancement based on legitimate success. Worst case scenario, get fired. Start a different career from the bottom of the ladder.

      And what do you call them? poor saps who were idiotic enough to go to the media while they were still employed! You think they should have just thrown away the careers they're trying to save?
      --
      .evom ton seod gis eht
    3. Re:I See Disciplinary Action Report by Stoutlimb · · Score: 1

      It's obvious you can't see why they did this because their systems of morals and judgement are radically different from yours. Perhaps these Marshalls valued honesty, integrity and justice far more than they valued a good job reference. Based on your post of ways to try to weasel out of the consequences, I'm sure that idea hasn't even occurred to you.

      The heroes are the ones who stand up and don't cover their ass.

  70. ODDS by NMagic · · Score: 1
    You know what's really frightening is that I fly at least once a month. If they're picking random people who sneeze wrong, the odds are that frequent flyers like me are going to eventually end up on this list for some silly infraction. The guys that report to me sometimes travel even more. What happens to them?

    Does anybody know what the requirements are to get off the list, or if there is a timeout period?

    1. Re:ODDS by Palal · · Score: 0, Troll

      Does anybody know what the requirements are to get off the list, or if there is a timeout period?

      There are none. It's just like microsoft's WGA - once installed, it takes a lot of effort to uninstall it and it has a lot of false-positives.

      --
      -Palal
    2. Re:ODDS by Cybertect · · Score: 1

      > random people who sneeze wrong

      bioterrorist!

  71. Alternatives to Tyranny? by Zaphod2016 · · Score: 1

    This whole thing stinks of tyranny to me. I know! I'll make my next vacation a roadtrip, and skip the airports altogether. Wait a minute...nope, that won't work.

    Ok, how about this: I'll stay home, and just catch up with my friends via phone calls. No, that's no good either.

    Ok guys, help me out. I know I'm just a wacky conspiracy theorist, but I'm willing to change. How do I go about a summer vacation without subjecting myself to Government inspection?

    1. Re:Alternatives to Tyranny? by funwithBSD · · Score: 1

      Take your pills and wear a tinfoil hat. That should about do it.

      --
      Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
  72. There is a reason ... by golodh · · Score: 4, Interesting
    *sighs* There is a reason that Americans are distrustful of governments, their own included. The article may have identified one. Mindless stupidity.

    Why? Because even if governments adhere to what we might call the "industry-average in mindless stupidity" governments can cause far more damage than most industries. From the article:

    "Q: What kind of impact would it have for a flying individual to be named in an SDR?

    A: That could have serious impact ... They could be placed on a watch list. They could wind up on databases that identify them as potential terrorists or a threat to an aircraft. It could be very serious," said Don Strange, a former agent in charge of air marshals in Atlanta. He lost his job attempting to change policies inside the agency."

    Ok, this former agent lost his job because he tried to change policies inside the agency. Anyone want to bet this was over SDR quota? And what other enlightened "policies" are in effect? And yes ... such things will stick around ... if only because it's a bit hard to shop around for alternative governments.

    Ok ... so putting someone's name in an SDR has potentially serious consequences for that person. Add to this the (probably MBA-driven) desire for "quantifiable targets" and see the result. From the article "Although the agency strongly denies any presence of a quota system, Las Vegas-based air marshals have produced documents that show their performance review is directly linked to producing SDRs.".

    Great ... just great. That leaves us with only one option ... don't fly near the end of the month.

    1. Re:There is a reason ... by kindbud · · Score: 1

      if only because it's a bit hard to shop around for alternative governments.

      Apparently you've never tried getting broadband from someone other than the local phone or cable monopoly. Renouncing citizenship and emmigrating is less hassle!

      --
      Edith Keeler Must Die
    2. Re:There is a reason ... by BandwidthHog · · Score: 1
      Great ... just great. That leaves us with only one option ... don't fly near the end of the month.

      Lovely. My girlfriend and I will be boarding a plane Monday afternoon. Guess I shouldn’t wear my BUSH LIES t-shirt, huh? Perhaps I’ll be low-key and wear my FAUX NEWS shirt instead.

      --

      Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
    3. Re:There is a reason ... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Please do not lump events that happen involving somepeople in an agency as 'The Government.'

      I noticed that you failed to note(heh) the this information is coming out. Enough outcry and it will stop.
      Granted it shouldn't happen at all, but to go on as if this is SOP in the government as a whole is disingenuous.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  73. Wrong by quokkapox · · Score: 1

    Pink Floyd fans go on a different list.

    --
    it's a blue bright blue Saturday hey hey
    1. Re:Wrong by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      It's from a Henry David Thoreau quote, actually, but thanks for playing our game. :)

  74. Re:Bigger than the Las Vegas Air Marshll office by bjk002 · · Score: 1

    As more and more countries draft their own no-fly lists, such issues are likely to grow in importance and become bigger problems within the international (rather just American) political sphere

    Good!!! This will eventually take care of the whole immigration debate!!

    --
    Opinion:=TMyOpinion.Create(Me);
  75. but do they deserve to die ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    Normally, your ass would be dead as fucking fried chicken, but you happen to pull this shit while I'm in a transitional period so I don't wanna kill you, I wanna help you. But I can't give you this joke, it don't belong to me. Besides, I've already been through too much shit this morning over this joke to hand it over to your dumb ass.

  76. Big Deal? by pete-classic · · Score: 1

    What's the big deal? I for one have nothing to hide!

    Fuck.

    -Peter

  77. It is pretty obvious who they are by v3xt0r · · Score: 1

    I flew from Burbank to Atlanta, and the guy who sat next to me was either an Air Marshall, or one roughneck (buff/scrappy) lookin' blue collar business man, wearing blue jeans, a t-shirt, and harley-style shit-kicker boots.

    There was no way that the guy could afford 1st class. He also ate his food as if it were his daily meal. Maybe the guy travels a lot, but probability leans towards the Air Marshall conclusion.

    He even looked like one of the guys on the discovery channel show about Air Marshalls, it was pretty obvious.

    I took photos of some clouds too, so now I'm probably on that list. *weaksauce*

    --
    the only permanence in existence, is the impermanence of existence.
    1. Re:It is pretty obvious who they are by Dryanta · · Score: 1

      You're kind of a dick man. I'm going to break six figures this year, and always fly first class. I wear band/nerd tshirts, jeans, and sneaks. I have tattoos, piercings, and wear funky glasses. I could by your judgement look like a young punk, and probably rake in more than you. Agriculture is really big where I'm from, and some real shit-kickers that didn't graduate high school are kabillionaires with their crops in liquid assets, 100% income of 100mil a year+! You cannot judge somebody's economic 'class' by the clothing they wear or the impression they leave on you.

    2. Re:It is pretty obvious who they are by v3xt0r · · Score: 1

      lol, true, didn't mean to sound off like some yuppy kack. I am closer to the HS dropout kabillionaire type (minus the kabillions), wearing baggy shorts and a ghetto beanie etc. too.

      I guess what I meant to say, was, if that guy was an air marshall, he sure did stick out like a soar thumb, or at least, was the closest to looking like an air marshall as I'd imagine, compared to the rest.

      If he wasn't an air marshall, he should have been, because I sure as hell wouldn't fuck with him! =p

      --
      the only permanence in existence, is the impermanence of existence.
    3. Re:It is pretty obvious who they are by f97tosc · · Score: 1

      I flew from Burbank to Atlanta, and the guy who sat next to me was either an Air Marshall, or one roughneck (buff/scrappy) lookin' blue collar business man, wearing blue jeans, a t-shirt, and harley-style shit-kicker boots.

      There was no way that the guy could afford 1st class. He also ate his food as if it were his daily meal. Maybe the guy travels a lot, but probability leans towards the Air Marshall conclusion.

      He even looked like one of the guys on the discovery channel show about Air Marshalls, it was pretty obvious.

      I took photos of some clouds too, so now I'm probably on that list. *weaksauce*


      I am sorry. In the US you actually cannot tell from simple clothing if someone does or does not have money. This is why if you go into a fancy store wearing jeans and an old T-shirt in the US, you will probably be treated with respect and as a potential customer. In Europe, you will probably be ignored. The employees in both stores are doing what they have been trained to do.

      Tor

  78. Re:WTF by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1

    Denver channel 7 has won a few Peabody awards, so it's not completely fluff. I don't get channel 7 myself (rabbit ears) but it seems to have a good reputation.

    --
    Man, you really need that seminar!
  79. Strange . . . by The+Angry+Mick · · Score: 1

    Where are all the "if you aren't doing anything wrong, you have no need to worry" comments?

    --

    I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.

  80. There are NO innocents! by stox · · Score: 1

    There are just those we have not found guilty yet.

    --
    "To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
  81. This is the problem with Management by Objectives by hey! · · Score: 2, Informative

    If any layer of the organization, the game becomes hitting the numbers set for it rather than achieving the mission of the organization, then chaos will ensue at that and all lower levels.

    It may take the form of playing games with when sales can be booked as income. It may be mucking with projections. It may be slamming the phone on the customer to goose up the number of calls per hour you handle.

    Measurable objectives are important, but they're only half the story. You need leadership too. Strong programs of performance measurement, in the absence of strong leadership, degenerate into numbers games that can be beaten.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  82. Double plusgood bellyfeel (GP post, too) (n/t) by ArielMT · · Score: 1

    Double plusgood bellyfeel. Grandparent post is double plusgood, too.

    --
    It must be Windows. It needs half a gig of RAM and a hardware-accelerated graphics card just to run Solitaire.
  83. Re:WTF by p33p3r · · Score: 0

    What happens when citizens demand quotas on Internal Affairs busts?

  84. Why are there quotas? by thesandtiger · · Score: 1

    Why force false-positives like this by having quotas?

    The Marshall's are supposed to be looking for people who present a danger to others - forcing them to deal with stupid administrative bullshit like a quota for how many suspicious traveller's they report does nothing to make anyone safer.

    It's like giving soldiers a quota of people they need to kill or something stupid like that.

    If there's nobody suspicious on the flight, then doesn't that mean the system is working (or that the people who would otherwise be suspicious have figured out how to avoid detection)?

    These are law enforcement officers, not salesmen. The people responsible for setting up the quota system need to be shitcanned immediately.

    --
    Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
    1. Re:Why are there quotas? by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1

      >Why force false-positives like this by having quotas?

      No reason whatever. None at all -- if the goal were to improve safety.

  85. MOS: 31V by Tony · · Score: 2, Funny

    But seriously, could being in the US Army qualify? You have training which might be considered threatening? Maybe not, might depend on what you did in the Army. Demo expert? Hand to hand combat? Maybe your are considered an asset to the bad guys?

    I was a 31V, cross-trained as a 31C. That is, I field-serviced two-way radios, and I did a little training as a RATT operator (radio teletype, for long-range communication). If the bad guys need a handset on a PRC-77 or their RC-524 replaced, I could do it. Not that I would.

    --
    Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
    1. Re:MOS: 31V by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      "If the bad guys need a handset on a PRC-77 or their RC-524 replaced, I could do it. Not that I would."

      Hang on a second - I thought you did do it. You did say you worked for the US Army, didn't you?

  86. News for nerds? by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I fail to understand in the slightest why this has any relevance at all on a "news for nerds" website, except for the possible purpose of pushing a political agenda. Could /. be any more transparent in its bias? I didn't think so, but I continue to be proven wrong time and time again as this whole site slides further and further to the left every day.

    --
    In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
    1. Re:News for nerds? by glwtta · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm sorry, which bias is this? The bias against putting innocent people on government watchlists to fill a quota?

      It's probably posted because people here seem to care about civil rights and, in particular, about how they apply to domestic government surveilance. What's wrong with that?

      this whole site slides further and further to the left every day

      So? If the concept of civil liberty offends you, then I guess this isn't the site for you. Problem solved.
      (I love how 'left' and 'liberal' are dirty words now, say what you want about the Republican party, but their PR is top notch)

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
    2. Re:News for nerds? by dreamer-of-rules · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Gosh, what political agenda is that? The summary only says that Air Marshals are meeting an arbitrary quota by putting innocent people on the secret watch list. You think this is a right-left issue? Are you fucking nuts?

      --
      Everyone is entitled to his own opinions, but not his own facts.
    3. Re:News for nerds? by confusednoise · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's relevant because the nerds who pay attention to this site are interested in the topic. Look, there are already almost 200 comments talking about it.

      And how is simply putting the story on the site transparent bias? Because only lefties would be interested in reading a story about government monitoring? Please.

      And on a wider topic, can I just tell you how freaking sick I am of reading jaded comments on every story about this or that is not worth of being posted to Slashdot? If you all don't like the stories posted IGNORE THE STORY AND DON'T READ IT or even START YOUR OWN DAMN SITE AND POST WHATEVER THE HELL YOU WANT.

    4. Re:News for nerds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Maybe there's some good discussion to be had from it?

    5. Re:News for nerds? by g00p · · Score: 1

      word! i guess u could stick with the them and say this dudes Ignorance is Bliss!

      eep, im dropping crappy jokes, quick, put me on the crappy jokes list.

      --
      g00p.
    6. Re:News for nerds? by bnenning · · Score: 1

      I didn't think so, but I continue to be proven wrong time and time again as this whole site slides further and further to the left every day.

      Slashdot generally leans left, but this article is not evidence of that. It's just the logical extension of traffic cops writing tickets to meet quotas, and I have no doubt the same thing would be going on under a Democratic administration. Conservatives are supposed to be distrustful of inflexible bureaucracies and centralized government power, but sadly many have abandoned those principles because "our guys" are in charge.

      --
      How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
    7. Re:News for nerds? by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Slashdot generally leans left, but this article is not evidence of that.

      The fact that this site is generally about technical issues and this hasn't even the slightest bit to do with it indicates to me that those approving articles want to stir up controversy over this non-issue. So a few innocent people get put on a bad guy list. The get questioned at the gate, the whole thing is over in 15 minutes and does not re-occur. This is a big deal...why?

      --
      In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
    8. Re:News for nerds? by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      It's relevant because the nerds who pay attention to this site are interested in the topic. Look, there are already almost 200 comments talking about it.

      Yelling fire in a crowded theater is sure to stir folks up, too. Doesn't mean it's any more appropriate of a forum. /. is a geek site, supposedly peddling news on geek-related issues like software, hardware, and technology in general. This article has none of that, and isn't even remotely close. Ergo, it has no place here except to stir folks up...but to stir them up in a particular direction which is all but spelled out in the article. QED.

      If you want left-leaning political blog forums, go to DailyKos.

      --
      In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
    9. Re:News for nerds? by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 1

      I love how 'left' and 'liberal' are dirty words now, say what you want about the Republican party, but their PR is top notch

      You act like the left hasn't demonized the term "neocon" to death. Excuse me, Mr. Pot? Your friend Kettle is calling.

      If liberals don't want to be "dirty words" then perhaps they ought to stop associating themselves with ideologies more akin to Marxist/Communist thinking. Being pink on the inside yet dressing yourself up as a "progressive liberal" isn't fooling anyone.

      --
      In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
    10. Re:News for nerds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think that nerd culture is necessarily apolitical.

      How many times have you, as a programmer, had to break the law on a technicality in order to get something working? Ever lost your Windows installation key, and had to grab one from a warez site? Ever downloaded an imported song or TV show that wasn't available for distribution in your country? Ever had to "tweak" anything to get a program running, but ended up violating some clause of the EULA as a side effect? If you say yes to any of these, then you ought to have a healthy fear of being monitored and punished, be it by Microsoft, the government, etc. This fear doesn't stem from the modern political circus - it isn't that the /. editors are puppets of the Left - but rather from the ethics of hacker culture, which intersects broadly with nerd culture.

      And because many current events involve issues of government spying, discussion of these current events is germane to a "news for nerds" site.

    11. Re:News for nerds? by Damvan · · Score: 1

      If neocons don't want to be "dirty words" then perhaps they ought to stop associating themselves with ideologies more akin to facist/totalitarian thinking. Being facist on the inside yet dressing yourself up as a "compassionate conservative" isn't fooling anyone.

    12. Re:News for nerds? by Damvan · · Score: 1

      To the conservatives, this is a right-left issue. To them, everything is a right-left issue.

    13. Re:News for nerds? by glwtta · · Score: 1

      You act like the left hasn't demonized the term "neocon" to death.

      Wasn't aware that I was, just saying that the Republican party (notice, the particular party, not a movement or an ideology) is doing a hell of a lot better at it. I mean, for gods sakes, the concept of "liberty" is a bad thing now.

      If liberals don't want to be "dirty words" then perhaps they ought to stop associating themselves with ideologies more akin to Marxist/Communist thinking.

      "Oh noes! That ideology shares concepts with what Cold War era propaganda taught me was teh devil!"

      Just how freakin' black and white is your world?

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
    14. Re:News for nerds? by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 1

      Imitation is the sincerest form of...well, you know. Since you're unable to come up with your own arguments, I really appreciate your attempts to ape my logical, rational thought process. Bravo! Perhaps next time you can use your own neurons, if that isn't too much of a stretch for you.

      --
      In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
    15. Re:News for nerds? by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Wasn't aware that I was, just saying that the Republican party (notice, the particular party, not a movement or an ideology) is doing a hell of a lot better at it. I mean, for gods sakes, the concept of "liberty" is a bad thing now.

      I'm sure a neoconservative would disagree with you vehemently and say it's the other way around. Perhaps that's why I'm a Libertarian.

      "Oh noes! That ideology shares concepts with what Cold War era propaganda taught me was teh devil!"

      That has nothing to do with it, and quite frankly you're being silly. I personally dislike the very very ideology behind socialism and communism, although I certainly understand the draw they have for "the common people." What a pity that both ideologies require humans to go against human nature, which is why they are all doomed to failure. Capitalism in Republic is the only ideology that embraces and encourages human nature, which is why it's proven to be the most successful form of government thus far.

      Just how freakin' black and white is your world?

      Pretty freakin' black and white. You see, I don't bother trying to find moral equivalence or compassion for those who oppose me. People fall into three categories: those that are on "my" side, those that are against me, and those that are neutral. Those who are on my side deserve and receive whatever benefits I can give them. Those who are neutral receive neither favor nor opposition. Those who are against me are my enemies, and I seek to defeat them using whatever means are appropriate.

      I'm sure this seems hopelessly Neanderthal to someone so cultured and nuanced as yourself. No doubt this kind of thinking is a complete enigma to you. The sad thing is that while people like you are so busy seeing shades of grey in every situation, people like me are actually taking action and getting things done and -- whether you like it or not -- looking out for your best interests. You won't recognize that, but there it is.

      --
      In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
    16. Re:News for nerds? by Stoutlimb · · Score: 1

      News about this kind of police state BELONGS ON EVERY FRICKING BLOG, NEWSPAPER, TV AND RADIO.

      Naw, nevermind. Go back to eating your cheetos and playing counterstrike.

    17. Re:News for nerds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This sounds more "kill or be killed" to me. How are you looking out for my best interests if I'm neutral or an enemy to you? Sounds like you want to live in a more violent animal world than myself. It has been painful to rise from our animal natures a bit to be more human... but look what we've built! Some pinkos really are trying to have a world for everyone even if their on the other side.

      So are you a violent animal... or rational (maybe even caring) human?

    18. Re:News for nerds? by DahGhostfacedFiddlah · · Score: 1

      When your "logical, rational thought process" is a series of unsources vague attacks, imitation becomes the sincerest form of sarcasm.

    19. Re:News for nerds? by DahGhostfacedFiddlah · · Score: 1

      What happens when you're wrong, and you've already "defeated" those who you now realize are right?

      Oh, I'm sorry - I'm sure you'll never make a mistake.

      More than anything else, it's the rank certainty of neocons that frightens me so much.

    20. Re:News for nerds? by jackbird · · Score: 1
      You act like the left hasn't demonized the term "neocon" to death.

      Would you prefer "crypto-fascist?"

  87. This will work! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Think about it...eventually every single american will be on the list which will guarantee that any terrorist's will also be on the list. :)

  88. I'm sure they are doing exactly what they are told by bobamu · · Score: 1

    after all, they are only obeying orders, that's what matters, as long as the system functions in the one correct way the current flavour of the month deems is appropriate.

    then everythings ok, after all, following orders means that the american way of life is protected.

    etc.. etc..

    This is the point at which I should make a quote from some random book and talk about slippery slopes, but why bother, -1, redundant.

  89. Re:Bigger than the Las Vegas Air Marshll office by Idarubicin · · Score: 1
    A key question about no-fly lists is the criteria used to put people on it. Ideally, it should be transparent so, for instance, everyone out there with a criminal record isn't concerned every time they get on a plane that law enforcement officials will descend upon them.
    I'd be inclined to narrow that a bit, perhaps, but I'm not sure why it would be unreasonable for law enforcement officials not to pay closer attention to certain types of convicted criminals.
    --
    ~Idarubicin
  90. Re:WTF by Hellasboy · · Score: 1

    Do a google search, KMGH's investigative team have won plenty of awards for investigative reporting. A couple peabody awards, IRE award, Dupont-Columbia award, NHA award, SPJ award, and several emmys. That's not everything, but what i found with a quick google search. the main investigator has appeared on 20/20, Good Morning America, and a few CNN broadcasts.

    They broke the Air Force sex scandal story and did reporting on internet pedophiles before Dateline started broadcasting it every week. Try to get a few facts before you go around not believing things just because it's not a "big name". Didn't Blair and Finkel make up things for their articles while working for the NYT?

    --

    "Tread softly because you tread on my dreams"
  91. Re:I think you're all missing something very bad.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To seek professional improvement is not selfish -- it is the nature of human beings. Quit blaming someone for trying to do right by theirs. The blame lies in the fact that raises, bonuses, awards, and special assignments are given according to a bogus metric.

  92. Guy I know is on the list by wowbagger · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I know a guy who is on the no-fly list. It's a real bitch, because his job requires him to fly a lot.

    So, he goes to the airport, checks his luggage, deals with the BS of being on the list, and flys to his job.

    Whereupon he gets his luggage, puts on his uniform, gets his piece, puts on his ID, gets in his plane, and takes off.

    He's a commercial airline pilot - authorized to carry a pistol in the cockpit, and to fly a plane full of people.

    But he cannot board a flight as a passenger without a bunch of BS because his name is on the No Fly list.

    1. Re:Guy I know is on the list by nasch · · Score: 2, Funny

      LOL a pilot on the no-fly list! That is so rich!

    2. Re:Guy I know is on the list by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looks like one of his "friends" air marshals framed him. That's what happens when you mess with the wrong people...

    3. Re:Guy I know is on the list by BandwidthHog · · Score: 4, Informative

      My mom’s boyfriend is on the list. He drives a fuel tanker, so he gets briefings from Homeland Security as they are considered terrorist targets. When he gets on a plane he’s a suspected terrorist, but when he’s in his truck the feds want him armed.

      --

      Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
    4. Re:Guy I know is on the list by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      He's a commercial airline pilot - authorized to carry a pistol in the cockpit, and to fly a plane full of people.

      But he cannot board a flight as a passenger without a bunch of BS because his name is on the No Fly list.


      You keep using that word: I do not think it means what you think it means. :-)

  93. Re:I'm sure they are doing exactly what they are t by NMagic · · Score: 1
    And that's what makes this sort of thing possible. I hate to cite a tired example from the Nazis, but it's just too appropriate...

    "Just doing their job" is what allowed the atrocities of WWII death camps to occur. I very strongly believe that there were good people in the Nazi organization that realized the insanity of what was going on and tried to do something about it. Whether they were killed or just fired, I'm sure they were removed from that decision making position.

    The article refers to an ex-marshal who was apparently removed for attempting to change the policies. 2 sides and all that, but if all people are removed for trying to change things, how long will it be before we lose all checks and balances? Isn't that the core of what makes us different from Nazi Germany?

  94. Why is this under IT? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shouldn't this be under your rights or something like that?

    I fail to see how this is an IT interest.

  95. Re:Bigger than the Las Vegas Air Marshll office by GlowingWhispers · · Score: 1

    The question is how large of a dragnet you cast. Here are a couple of trends that concern me though.

    (1) I've increasing been hearing police forces say that minor non-violent offences are 'gateway crimes' for terrorism. While this is a very convenient way to try to apply anti-terrorism measures to all citizen's, the civil liberty implications terrify me.

    (2) Once you start making the criteria more inclusive, other groups such as people with mental illness or such may be included.

    (3) Overall, the increasing marginalization of more and more people will likely create a large legal underclass where people with unpopular political views may either (a) find themselves put or (b) worry that they'll eventually find themselves put. Meaning, such an arbtirary, non-transparent list -- butressed on by permanent retention practices -- could become a new tool for the state to exert political control on people.

  96. If you're not doing anything wrong.... by ShaggyZet · · Score: 2, Interesting

    you don't have anything to worry about right?

    Isn't that what the willful violators of our civil rights always tell the public? This sort of blows that out of the water.

    I don't even know where to start arguing with this.

    A second management memo, also dated July 2004, said, "There may come an occasion when you just don't see anything out of the ordinary for a month at a time, but I'm sure that if you are looking for it, you'll see something."

    Are we really doing that bad a job of "fighting it abroad" that there are enough terrorists flying around the country for the thousands of air marshals to file one report every month?

  97. blame wistleblowers ftw by crabpeople · · Score: 1
    "They haven't invested the time/funds to train the marshals enough to recognize who they're looking for."

    What makes you think they arent properly trained? Perhaps, - and this might sound absolutely crazy - but perhaps there just arent that many terrorists flying domestically in the USA!

    I know that sounds completely crazy, not sure what i was thinking in that last sentance. Its a post 9/11 world after all...

    --
    I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
  98. HERE is the program for the broke patriots by megaditto · · Score: 4, Informative

    Too cheap to fly? Got a car? Love America and hate terrorists?

    Sign up for Highway Watch brought to you by DHS and the American Trucking Association!

    http://www.highwaywatch.com/newtoHWW/index.html

    --
    Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
    1. Re:HERE is the program for the broke patriots by sgt_doom · · Score: 1

      BTW, you know that name Garza is a very interesting name. Demographically speaking (and strangely enough, I am not kidding), more people with that name are either in prison or are ex-convicts....curiouser and curiouser....

    2. Re:HERE is the program for the broke patriots by megaditto · · Score: 1

      Do you mean Dr. Gatzke?

      I do not think he was ever in jail.

      --
      Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
    3. Re:HERE is the program for the broke patriots by Alan426 · · Score: 1

      From the same website:

      "In July 0f 2005 Highway Watch® partnered with the three largest school bus trade associations, the National Association for Pupil Transportation (NAPT), the National Association of State Directors of Pupil Transportation Services (NASDPTS), and the National School Transportation Association (NSTA) to create School Bus Watch, an anti-terrorism training program for school bus drivers."

      Uh .. huh!

    4. Re:HERE is the program for the broke patriots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too cheap to fly? Got a car? Love America and hate terrorists?

      Sign up for Highway Watch brought to you by DHS and the American Trucking Association!

      http://www.highwaywatch.com/newtoHWW/index.html


      My God. I thought this was a joke, but its REAL!

  99. Easy Solution by UconnGuy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Fly Southwest - then they don't know who you are because it is open seating and they can't look you up based on seat number.

    I fly SWA all the time and find they are usually ahead of schedule and I have never had a problem with them.

    Yes - I know they are now testing to see if assigned seating would be faster, but it is only in the testing phase. :-)

    1. Re:Easy Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SWA won't let me use the express check in. I asked why and was told that I was on a watch list because I have a common name.

    2. Re:Easy Solution by Peyna · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's not their fault there's so many people named Anonymous Coward. You could just login.

      --
      What?
    3. Re:Easy Solution by UconnGuy · · Score: 1

      Well, it's tough to get around that, but the good thing about SWA is that once you get on the plane, the marshall has no idea who anyone is because of the lack of seating assignments - so he won't be able to randomly write someone up that is taking pictures of things outside the plane.

  100. Heh by sm62704 · · Score: 1

    "Good thing I'm too broke to fly" parent modded insightful (I liked it!) while this ("Secret government list? Well, I wouldn't call it a secret anymore.") is modded funny.

    I think we've been infiltrated by the air marsha^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^[no carrier]

    --
    mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
  101. That's why I'm working on an invisibility device by sm62704 · · Score: 1

    So far it only works on slashdot

    --
    mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
  102. Go to security conventions, return with FBI file by sethstorm · · Score: 1

    Going to Defcon and/or pre-CMP Blackhat would put you on those kind of lists ;). Heck, you could spiral a cable around a wireless antenna next to a laptop computer in the bag and expect to be inspected.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
  103. Re:Someone will hang for this by mpapet · · Score: 1

    They'll blame someone. They have to.

    I once worked at a company where the executive managers blamed another executive that died of cancer for their woes.

    That's just what people do.

    --
    http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
  104. This is pretty standard for all laws / regulations by RexRhino · · Score: 0, Troll

    There is nothing new about this. If you make a new law, or a new regulation, you need "proof" that said law or regulation is working. Since real terrorists are about as rare as multi-million dollar lottery winners, and since these techniques have a dubious ability to stop terrorists at best, how can you show that you are "succeeding" against terrorists? You have to invent them.

    This same thing happens for just about any law they make, if it is gun laws, or drug laws (cause we have been winning the war on drugs these last 30 years according to the government!), or computer crime laws, or enviornmental laws, or whatever. You need to put a certain number of people away in order to look like you are "doing something" about the problem. People want "results", and people behind bars are "results".

    Every law needs to be looked at with a cost benifit analysis. Is the cost in innocent people being punished worth the cost to society caused by the crime? Unfortunatly, people think that they can pass a law against something, and there is not going to be a social cost in enforcing it. Laws are a crude and clumsy way to stop something before it happens (laws are designed to punish a crime after a crime, or to deter a crime because people want to avoid punishment after the fact, but not to prevent a crime).

    If you are completly against having a terrorist watchlist, then go ahead and complain. But all you people who support laws like these, and then complain when then turn out badly, shut the hell up! What the hell did you expect to happen when you put unconvicted people on a watchlist? What the hell do you think is going to happen when people are punished because of some risk analysis software decides it is OK?

  105. Supervision for air marshalls by chicago_scott · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's my understanding that the pilots and crew of a plane are told when an air marshall is on a plane and where he is sitting. If an air marshall wasn't doing his job and was, for example, "drunk and passed out" (as many people have posted as being a reason why quotas are implemented) wouldn't the flight crew report him to his superiors for repremand?

    It seems as if there's already a check and balance: the flight crew.

    So what's the real reason for the quotas? Budget? Do I even need to ask?

    1. Re:Supervision for air marshalls by surprise_audit · · Score: 1
      It seems as if there's already a check and balance: the flight crew.

      See the story a little way above your comment, about the commercial airline pilot who has difficulties flying as a passenger due to being on a No Fly list. That could happen to any flight crew that reported an Air Marshall for goofing off on the job.

  106. NOT SO FAST!!! by bratwiz · · Score: 1

    After six years of fun fun fun with ole' Dubya... lots of ./'rs are simply fed-fucking-up no matter WHAT their political affiliation. In fact, I'd wager that a very large portion of the whole wide world (and not just the terrorist-speaking parts) are sick and tired of the Bush Admonishtration... that goes for "Shut your fucking pie-hole or I'll shoot you in the face!" Cheney too.

    For myself, I really can't wait until Bedtime for Bonzo is over and the U.S. can finally start to pull itself together. The last six years have been remarkably like getting slipped roofies by your prom date and then waking up to discover him and the whole football team having a go.

    So, you assert that Slashdot is moving to the left-- could be-- its possible-- on the other hand it might also be true that the whole country-- indeed the whole world-- is busy sliding _away_ from the right. You know, I'm not really FOR Kerry or the Democrats, just ANYBODY BUT BUSH! And this time around that will include the Rephooligans too.

    All someone slick and savvy would have to do at this point to win an election is get up there and say "I'm not a Republican. I'm not for Bush or Cheney. And I'm not a Democrat either. I think they're all a bunch of scumbagging liars. If I'm elected I'm going to reach out to the people-- the REAL people and find the very best regular people who have NO POLITICAL AFFILIATION to advise me and help me run the country. And furthermore, if I could be so bold as to offer a bit of advice, I'd recommend you boot out all those no-good Senatwhores and Congress critters too. Elect some HONEST citizens. People who WORK for a living and don't have ties to the CORPORATE PUPPET-MASTERS and WEALTHY BASTARD ELITISTS. There are 250 _MILLION_ PEOPLE in this fine United States. How come we only get to choose from TWO of them to run our country? Elect good people. Elect HONEST people. Send them to Washington to clean house and THROW THE BUMS OUT! That's the PEOPLE'S HOUSE-- that's OUR HOUSE-- How DARE they come into OUR HOUSE and SHIT ON THE CARPET."

    That's all it would take and that person would be elected by a landslide.

    It ain't a left or right thing. Its just a "tired of taking it up the ass" thing.

    So just consider that next time you're busy doing the Texas goose-step and raising your arm in a cheery "Heil Dubya!"

  107. Re:I think you're all missing something very bad.. by jambarama · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Ironically enough, the Air marshalls are basically ensuring they won't stop any terrorists. The list will become so bloated, cumbersome, invasive and obnoxious that people will stop taking it seriously. The real work of hunting down potential terrorists - that some of the marshalls did - will be drowned out by innocent people who looked at the lazy marshalls cross eyed.

    Often, beurocracy cannot sustain its own weight. It expands and expands until it cannot do the purpose for which it was designed. Then it gets axed by a budget cutter, is reincarnated as lightweight version of itself, and expands until... you get the idea. It isn't a viscious cycle so much as a waste of resources and failed programs.

  108. Wait by Mark_MF-WN · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Wait a minute. Are you suggesting that living in a police state is a ... bad thing? How could that be? Americans are so safe now! Sure, terrorists are more committed than ever to attacking Americans and have increased exponentially in number thanks to certain poor choices by the government; but harassing American citizens must be doing something, right?

    Seriously, here's an idea: take all those government parasites that harass airplane passengers, run eavesdropping programs, make threats to journalists, and violate the constitution in so many other ways, and drop them all in Pakistan with hunting rifles. Sooner or later, a group of them will have to stumble onto Bin Laden's cave. And voila, terrorism is dealt a serious blow, Americans are substantially less annoyed, and taxes can go down because the government is no longer paying a bunch of people to fail at making America safer.

    1. Re:Wait by nsayer · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Americans are so safe now!

      Actually, since 9/11, American's are now less safe than before.

      How can that be?

      Because the cost of airline travel in both time, money, and convenience has gone up. That has made more Americans look to alternatives, like driving, which are much, much less safe (per passenger-mile).

      We'd probably be more safe had we responded to 9/11 by literally doing nothing at all.

    2. Re:Wait by demonbug · · Score: 1
      That has made more Americans look to alternatives, like driving, which are much, much less safe (per passenger-mile).


      But about as safe per trip.

      Just sayin'.

    3. Re:Wait by Meph_the_Balrog · · Score: 1

      someone requisition me a nice heavy guitar track and a nice slow beat.

      so who here knows the lyrics to Pink Floyd's "Another Brick in the Wall"?

    4. Re:Wait by HiThere · · Score: 2, Interesting

      We'd almost certainly be better off if we'd responded to 9/11 by doing nothing official. Except, perhaps, legalizing the creation and awarding of a reward for the perpetrators...with official judges to ensure that there was sufficient evidence that the persons turned over actually were the guilty parties.

      But then we'd need a new ... president? vice-president? head of the CIA? I don't know who the lead party is, but he's someone high up in the government (or, of course, with a lot of power over the people high up in the government). Unfortunately, that's a large list, and evidence is quite hard to come by. You see rulings here, and decisions there, and you don't know exactly who decided on them and who had to approve them. You see evidence ignored, and you don't know why. Was it reasonable, in this case? Perhaps. Or at least non-culpable. But when there's a pattern of behavior you know that somewhere in that bush there is a tiger. But it's a big bush, and you have only a few bullets (if any!).

      Ever made a decision in a large office. Sometimes things that shouldn't have been allowed to pass are let pass. Sometimes things that appear perfectly reasonable are overruled. And you may not know why. You know what the official chain of command is, but it doesn't match the real flows of power. And the person actually making the decisions may be someone aparently minor.

      Joseph Stalin became the power in the Soviet Union because he was the party secretary, i.e., the person entrusted with informing others of when the meeting would be held. By timing who he let know when he was able to affect who would show up to vote. Eventually his political foes started finding out about meetings only after the votes had been counted. History shows how things developed from there, but that was the start. He wasn't officially anyone important. Not then.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    5. Re:Wait by LouisZepher · · Score: 1

      Actually, I'd compare the whole bloody mess we're in to 'Run Like Hell'.

      And speaking of Floyd, I wonder if you spliced all of Dumb-ya's speeches together would they synchronize with Wizard of Oz.

    6. Re:Wait by sorak · · Score: 1
      Seriously, here's an idea: take all those government parasites that harass airplane passengers, run eavesdropping programs, make threats to journalists, and violate the constitution in so many other ways, and drop them all in Pakistan with hunting rifles. Sooner or later, a group of them will have to stumble onto Bin Laden's cave. And voila, terrorism is dealt a serious blow,

      Nah. If these guys stumbled accross Bin Laden they'd give him a pound of anthrax and ask him to throw it at Kim Jong Il, if he sees him

    7. Re:Wait by porcupine8 · · Score: 1

      I've read that they're equally safe per hour (or other unit of time) spent travelling. So when you look at a 12-hour car trip vs a 3-hour plane trip, the plane trip is several times safer. (And then, of course, you add in all the time you spend driving that couldn't be done in a plane...)

      --
      Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
    8. Re:Wait by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      We'd probably be more safe had we responded to 9/11 by literally doing nothing at all.

      Plus, THAT would have been a strong message to send to terrorist : We don't care

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    9. Re:Wait by SenseiLeNoir · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In fact that was the attitude shown by Londonners during the IRA bombings during the 80's we developed a strong I Dont care attitude that was also present in the government who clearly also had that policy of get on with life.

      Even now, with Mr Blair's mroe bush like responses, us Londonners are very strong in their "i dont care attitude" to thigns like 7/7.. simply because if u show fear.. the terrorists have won.

      --
      Have a nice day!
    10. Re:Wait by suffe · · Score: 1

      This reminds me of another security plan. One that was implemented in the UK. In order to make the trains safer they raised the prices by some amount that right now eludes me. This so they could pay for the aditional safety features and such. It wasn't security as in more guard or anything like that. Anyways, the end result? Due to the increase in ticket prices more people used cars to travel instead, thus resulting in far more overall deaths. [1]

      People always seem so focused on short term planing that they never see the long term consequences.

      [1] If you want a source for this you are out of luck. All I can remember is that it was from a reputable book on economics.

      --

      Karma: 2.71828182846 (Mostly due to small, fun pills)
    11. Re:Wait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      However, nobody really drives from California to Sydney, so fewer miles are driven.

    12. Re:Wait by kmo · · Score: 1
      We'd probably be more safe had we responded to 9/11 by literally doing nothing at all.

      But then the terrorists would not have won... Oh, wait!

    13. Re:Wait by Secret+Agent+X23 · · Score: 1
      I've read that they're equally safe per hour (or other unit of time) spent travelling. So when you look at a 12-hour car trip vs a 3-hour plane trip, the plane trip is several times safer. (And then, of course, you add in all the time you spend driving that couldn't be done in a plane...)
      But what these rather generalized statistics don't show is that when you're driving, you're in control of a number of significant factors. Keep your car in good repair, observe the rules of the road, don't drive impaired, avoid distractions as much as possible, watch other drivers carefully. Do all that as well as you can, and you improve your chances quite a bit.

      When you fly, all you can do is sit down and hope for the best.

    14. Re:Wait by nsayer · · Score: 1
      Do all that as well as you can, and

      ... you'll still be far more likely to get plowed by a drunk driver than have a terrorist fly you into a building.

    15. Re:Wait by Secret+Agent+X23 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Do all that as well as you can, and

      ... you'll still be far more likely to get plowed by a drunk driver than have a terrorist fly you into a building.

      Terrorists aren't the only problem to consider when you're talking about air safety. Crashes can happen for all sorts of reasons not related in any way to terrorism. And maybe air travel is indeed safer than driving even if, as a driver, you do everything you can to be careful.

      But still, I say a safety statistic that lumps all drivers into one category is meaningless.

    16. Re:Wait by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      so who here knows the lyrics to Pink Floyd's "Another Brick in the Wall"?
      Which Part?

      My stepson asked me the other day if I knew that "We don't need no education" song by AC/DC. I've lost all hope.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    17. Re:Wait by porcupine8 · · Score: 1

      Of course, and certain types of people (higher intelligence, more educated, not dealing with drug or alcohol dependencies) are far less likely to die in a car crash than the general population. But unless they fly a whole helluva lot (as in, almost daily), they're still less likely to die in a plane crash than a car crash.

      --
      Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
    18. Re:Wait by porcupine8 · · Score: 1

      Oh, and there's the fact that most air-related deaths are on private planes. If you only fly commercial, especially domestic, your odds of dying go WAY down. How long has it been since there was a fatal American commercial airline crash? 3 years or so? I think the last one was a commuter plane that flipped over in Charlotte during takeoff. I think someone in a car was killed last year at Chicago Midway, but no one in the plane was hurt.

      --
      Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
    19. Re:Wait by Secret+Agent+X23 · · Score: 1
      Oh, and there's the fact that most air-related deaths are on private planes. If you only fly commercial, especially domestic, your odds of dying go WAY down.
      Okay, so if you get to separate private planes out of the mix, I get to separate out all the drivers who are drunk or applying makeup or eating cheeseburgers, etc., and truckers who are jacked up on speed, and so on.

      But mainly, as I said elsewhere, the bottom line to what I'm saying is not so much that driving is safer. Rather, it's this: A statistic that lumps all drivers together as equal is meaningless because in the real world there's too much variation.

      Here's an analogy (and it's not about cars!): Suppose, in the course of chatting here, you find out I'm a doctor (I'm not, but just for the sake of argument). You ask me, for whatever reason, "Hey doc, what are my chances of getting cancer?"

      I could blow off the question with a superficial answer like, "Well, the population of Earth is x, and the number of people who have been diagnosed is y, so your chances would appear to be something like y/x." And what do you do? You say, "Gee, thanks," and roll your eyes because I haven't told you anything useful. Well, that's the equivalent of your stat that includes all drivers.

      Were I moved to give you an answer that's actually somewhat informative, I'd first ask about your family's medical history, your diet, smoking habits, and maybe even inquire about places you've lived and worked to see if you might have been exposed to something dangerous. Even considering all that, it's likely I'd still be reluctant to reduce it to a number, but I'd be able to tell you something meaningful.

    20. Re:Wait by Moridin42 · · Score: 1

      It isn't a meaningless statistic.
      It won't be a terribly accurate predictor for an individual's accident exposure, but it isn't meaningless. Its a very rough approximation. Of course if you want individual accuracy, statistics is .. well .. pretty useless. My 'chance' of getting cancer is either 1 or 0. Either I'll have it or I won't. I can't get 10% of cancer.

      Can I get a better approximation of my cancer risk? Sure. Is that going to alter any circumstances of whether or not I actually get cancer? Nope. Is the approximation of my risk useless? Nope.

      Even if you could account for every accident-causing factor in your driving, it wouldn't be a terribly useful statistic. If you came up with a 1% per trip chance of accident, what does that tell you? That, generally, you'd get into an accident every 100 trips. But for any given trip you'll either get into the accident or you won't. And if you make 99 trips accident free, your 1% chance in no way predetermines a bad outcome on your 100th trip.

      --
      I don't expect morality, equality, consistency, or justice from the law. I expect only legality.
    21. Re:Wait by Secret+Agent+X23 · · Score: 1
      You miss the point. The usefulness of a statistic showing the probability of being involved in a car crash or a plane accident or getting cancer is not that you expect it to be a predictor.

      The usefulness is that if you account for the most important factors that can cause a crash or a disease or whatever you want to avoid, you gain some understanding of what you can do to improve your chances. For example, it was mentioned earlier that statistically, commercial airlines are safer than private planes. So if I'm flying somewhere and have a choice, that knowledge tells me to go commercial.

    22. Re:Wait by Moridin42 · · Score: 1

      Actually, I haven't missed the point.

      You called the statistic meaningless. Here's how a statistic is meaningless: It has no use for anyone.

      Statistics that don't answer questions that you ask don't have much use. To you.

      You want an answer to the question "how does my driving affect my chances of being in an accident?" A statistic such as the one you claim is meaningless is answering the question "what are the chances American (assuming the statistic was built on American data, that is..) drivers get in accidents?" Different question. Does the stat as given earlier explicitly tell you that you're __% more likely to crash when fiddling with the radio? No. But it might be useful in soliticing funds for a study into accident factors. Might also serve a purpose in the airline industry to maintain or improve consumer confidence. In fact, the statistic as given is potentially useful to individual drivers. And as I said in my other post, the stat as given is a rough approximation. If I find the rough approximation alarming, I may take action. If I find it not worth troubling myself over, I do nothing different. I can identify factors of driving safety even though I have no information on how much they affect driving safety.

      --
      I don't expect morality, equality, consistency, or justice from the law. I expect only legality.
    23. Re:Wait by Secret+Agent+X23 · · Score: 1
      Does the stat as given earlier explicitly tell you that you're __% more likely to crash when fiddling with the radio? No. But it might be useful in soliticing funds for a study into accident factors.
      In such a case, your ultimate goal is to find the statistics I want.

      And as I said in my other post, the stat as given is a rough approximation. If I find the rough approximation alarming, I may take action.
      What kind of action are you going to take? Join MADD? Support a group that's promoting laws against using a cell phone while driving? Circulate petitions to install traffic lights at dangerous intersections? If you're using statistics as a basis for your actions, your next step is going to have to be finding statistics on individual factors.

      In reality, I don't think many people make decisions on that basis. Usually the story is that activists become active when a problem causes some sort of tragedy for them, personally. I would hope that government agencies take statistics into account when they disburse funds for reasearch, on the basis of which problems appear to be the most widespread. But then again, with the nagging feeling that it's not really that simple (as some problems are more complex than others), I'd also hope that numbers aren't the only thing they look at.

      I'll give you the point that the "overall" statistic isn't literally meaningless, in an absolute sense. But, to come back to the context that prompted my original remark that it was meaningless, throwing the statement that flying is safer than driving out to the general public is, I contend, meaningful only as something you'd look at and say, "Hmmm, yes, that's interesting," and argue about on Internet discussion boards.

    24. Re:Wait by Moridin42 · · Score: 1
      In such a case, your ultimate goal is to find the statistics I want.
      While this is potentially true, it isn't necessarily true. And even if you wanted to argue that it was necessarily true, it wouldn't matter to my point. Simply because the 'bland' stat furthers the goal of finding the stat you want gives the bland stat utility.

      What kind of action are you going to take? Join MADD? Support a group that's promoting laws against using a cell phone while driving? Circulate petitions to install traffic lights at dangerous intersections? If you're using statistics as a basis for your actions, your next step is going to have to be finding statistics on individual factors.
      No, no, no, and may I say.. no. All of what you say are ways for potentially ways for individuals or organizations to act in the hopes of reducing the American driver crash statistic. But if I felt the need to join some organization based on a general crash stat and then actually joined an organization focused on one potential factor, I am signaling one or some combination of three opinions. One, its the only available organization. Two, it is the only organization I believe has a chance of success. Three, I believe the difference between the general stat and my personal estimation is made up largely or entirely of the one factor. Your point, however, was that statistics describing factors of accidents was necessary to decision making about your individual driving behavior. I'm saying that isn't necessary to have them. It isn't even a necessary (although it is a somewhat probable) next step that I look for them.

      I don't need a statistic to tell me that driving with a blindfold on is a bad idea. I don't have such a statistic and still I don't do it. The mere existence of an accident statistic provides you, as an individual driver, information. If this statistic is higher than your personal estimation/gut instinct then you get to be confronted with the fact that you're less safe than you thought. Which in turn prompts rational people to re-evaulate their behavior. Maybe I decide to not fiddle with the radio. Maybe I decide to not make that call with only intent to chat for entertainment. Maybe I don't drive so fast.

      And if you assert that people don't generally/don't at all respond to a general accident statistic, I'd respond that there's no reason to believe they'd respond to a detailed accident statistic. After all, if a person thought driving was more dangerous than the benefit recieved by driving, they wouldn't be driving at all. If they believed they gained more than they lost by maintaining their vehicle or maintaining focus, they'd already have adjusted their behavior accordingly. The only people any crash statistic are going to reach are the ones who underestimated their risks. There's no reason to believe that someone who has accurately estimated his risk of being in an accident because he's an American driver is then going to underestimate his risk because he has a lead foot.

      Am I more likely to make a better decision with more detailed information? Yes. Am I better off with no information until I can get the level of detailed information I think I need/want/should have? Probably not. Is it potentially unfeasibile to obtain more detailed information about accident factors? Of course. Is it even potentially inefficient to obtain that more detailed information? Yes, it is. So while you may think its merely an interestic statistic, I'd contend that the general crash statistic is the most efficient approximation of driver risk. Why would I make this contention? Because, with the variety of groups and corporations that stand to gain from less accidents, I haven't seen the statistics you want.
      --
      I don't expect morality, equality, consistency, or justice from the law. I expect only legality.
    25. Re:Wait by Secret+Agent+X23 · · Score: 1
      No, no, no, and may I say.. no. All of what you say are ways for potentially ways for individuals or organizations to act in the hopes of reducing the American driver crash statistic.
      So, apparently erroneously, I took your mention of "taking action" to mean becoming an activist in some way. I suppose what you really meant was to take steps to improve your own driving habits?

      And if you assert that people don't generally/don't at all respond to a general accident statistic, I'd respond that there's no reason to believe they'd respond to a detailed accident statistic.
      To be more precise, I would assert that most people don't respond to statistics as the "primary motivator" for them to take some kind of action (although I'm sure that some do). But statistics could very well be a supporting part of a larger set of arguments that will be persuasive. I would also assert that a general statistic such as "all drivers" is not going to have the power that a more specific statistic such as "people who eat cheeseburgers while driving" will have if you, indeed, are a person who eats cheeseburgers while driving. People tend to respond more strongly to details they can relate to personally. It becomes more real to them. "All drivers" is too vague; almost everyone who's legally allowed to drive, drives. At least in the U.S.

      So while you may think its merely an interestic statistic, I'd contend that the general crash statistic is the most efficient approximation of driver risk. Why would I make this contention? Because, with the variety of groups and corporations that stand to gain from less accidents, I haven't seen the statistics you want.
      It might very well be the most efficient approximation we can get. We know how many drivers there are, we know how many accidents there are, and we know how many traffic fatalities there are.

      On the other hand, it's not so clear if you want to break it down into individual factors. We don't know how much driving people do in some sort of impaired or distracted condition, but with no incident. And if the police find a half-eaten cheeseburger in a car at a crash site, did the distraction of eating cause the accident? We can't be sure. The driver, if he survives, isn't likely to admit to it. So although I'd like to see statistics like that, I don't really think we can get them with any degree of confidence.

      Even if the general statistic is the best indicator we can realistically get, where I get off the bus is the place where people present it as anything that deserves attention beyond the aforementioned "yes, that's interesting" reaction. Even if the reality is that we're not likely to get anything more accurate, I say we shouldn't make this into something it's not.

    26. Re:Wait by Moridin42 · · Score: 1
      So, apparently erroneously, I took your mention of "taking action" to mean becoming an activist in some way. I suppose what you really meant was to take steps to improve your own driving habits?
      You erroneously interpreted "taking action" to mean only political activity. I meant, perhaps not too surprisingly, take action which may indeed be political action but also improved personal driving, which is also an action.

      I would also assert that a general statistic such as "all drivers" is not going to have the power that a more specific statistic such as "people who eat cheeseburgers while driving" will have if you, indeed, are a person who eats cheeseburgers while driving. People tend to respond more strongly to details they can relate to personally. It becomes more real to them. "All drivers" is too vague; almost everyone who's legally allowed to drive, drives. At least in the U.S.
      Indeed, and all drivers who eat cheesburgers while driving do so because they find the risk to be worthwhile. As I said, if a general statistic about drivers has little or no power, a more specific stat will have equally little power. A stat about cheesburger eating drivers reaches a smaller group of people, but cheesburer eating drivers aren't any worse at risk assessment. So you find out that they have __% chance of being in an accident because of the cheeseburger eating. They'll likely respond "isn't that interesting" and go on eating cheeseburgers.

      On the other hand, it's not so clear if you want to break it down into individual factors. We don't know how much driving people do in some sort of impaired or distracted condition, but with no incident.
      No, we don't. So what? You're on a different track here. Such a statistic wouldn't have anything to do with accidents. If you succeeded in generating the statistic, you'd know absolutely nothing about the probability those factors cause accidents. Only how much of the population possesses which potentially accident-causing factors. And then you'd need to determine how often those people suffer the deleterious effects of those factors. After all that, you'd know something about the population, not accidents. Of all the statistics we've brought up thus far, this one is the best suited for "thats interesting" treatment.

      Even if the general statistic is the best indicator we can realistically get, where I get off the bus is the place where people present it as anything that deserves attention beyond the aforementioned "yes, that's interesting" reaction. Even if the reality is that we're not likely to get anything more accurate, I say we shouldn't make this into something it's not.
      Sooo.. Is it your contention that, even if the general stat is the most efficient approximation, we should ignore it in our decision making process? That would seem foolhardy. Discard the data we have because we don't have the data we want. And in its place, we'll use data with even less confirmation?
      --
      I don't expect morality, equality, consistency, or justice from the law. I expect only legality.
    27. Re:Wait by SumoRoach · · Score: 1

      Now who's the one applying meaningless generalizations? I do things that have never affected me personally, because, statistically, they actually do affect me. I would avoid smoking because, personally, it hasn't caused a problem for me, but, statistically, the outlook isn't good. And I may actively tell people that they shouldn't. Or, even in a really trivial example, all those yellow "Live Strong" bracelets. Or, did you mean, I'm not 'most people', statistically speaking?

      It's a game of chance, and, if we can, we choose the one with a statistically lower chance of death. And, there are factors in both driving and flying that we can avoid. Driving is a mix - I'm on the road with hundreds or thousands of other drivers of mixed skill and care. Fair probability that, even if I'm a excellent driver, I can die. Flying - it's a mix too. But, private flights fly a different air pattern and so you're sharing the air with pilots who have a pretty rigourous standard, and a maintenance crew under (relatively) strict regulation. So, it's safer, which statistics have shown with body counts.

    28. Re:Wait by Moridin42 · · Score: 1

      Sumo, are you replying to my post from the 30th? or SecretAgent's post from the 31st?

      I ask because I wasn't notified of a reply, but your post isn't threaded with any of SecretAgent's post..
      You've got my reviewing my posts for logical fallacies that I hope aren't there. ;)

      --
      I don't expect morality, equality, consistency, or justice from the law. I expect only legality.
    29. Re:Wait by Secret+Agent+X23 · · Score: 1
      A stat about cheesburger eating drivers reaches a smaller group of people, but cheesburer eating drivers aren't any worse at risk assessment.
      I'd suggest that the mere fact of eating while driving could be viewed as evidence that they have at least a slight deficiency in that area.

      On the other hand, it's not so clear if you want to break it down into individual factors. We don't know how much driving people do in some sort of impaired or distracted condition, but with no incident.
      No, we don't. So what? You're on a different track here. Such a statistic wouldn't have anything to do with accidents. If you succeeded in generating the statistic, you'd know absolutely nothing about the probability those factors cause accidents.
      No, I'm on the same track, and the statistic would have something to do with accidents. I guess I just failed to make it apparent because I didn't feel like writing a longer post.

      If you want to know how risky a given factor is, one of the things you have to know is how prevalent that factor is. For example, let's define "driver who eats cheeseburgers while driving on a regular basis" as someone who does it at least once a week, just as an arbitrary standard for the sake of illustration.

      If "drivers who eat cheeseburgers while driving on a regular basis" are known to cause 1,000 accidents a year, that would give you an indication of how likely it is that you'd be involved in an accident caused by such a driver. But so what? That's not worth worrying about because you don't have any control over how other drivers behave.

      But how risky is it for the "drivers who eat cheeseburgers while driving on a regular basis" themselves? Well, if there are only 1,100 such drivers, it's clearly one hell of a risky behavior. If we find that 90 percent of all drivers are "drivers who eat cheeseburgers while driving on a regular basis," then maybe it's not so risky. Knowing that would mean something in the real world.

      Sooo.. Is it your contention that, even if the general stat is the most efficient approximation, we should ignore it in our decision making process? That would seem foolhardy. Discard the data we have because we don't have the data we want. And in its place, we'll use data with even less confirmation?
      Well, someone -- I think it was you -- said something to the effect that you don't need statistics to tell you that driving while blindfolded is a bad idea.
    30. Re:Wait by Moridin42 · · Score: 1
      I'd suggest that the mere fact of eating while driving could be viewed as evidence that they have at least a slight deficiency in that area.
      You might suggest it. But I have no reason to believe that eating cheeseburgers while driving is generally viewed as an intrinsically Good Thing. People who eat cheeseburgers while driving do so because they need to eat. But the time they might spend eating at a static location is better spent eating on the move. The benefits they gain from eating on the go outweighs the percieved increase in risk. This is not evidence of poor risk assessement. If you want to hold to your idea that eating cheeseburgers while driving is poor risk assessement, then I might ask you if you drive for any reason that isn't life and death. If you do, then you also have poor risk assessment, as you risk your life for something frivolous. Such as the $0.70 of onion you forgot to grab at the store but need for that wonderful french onion soup. Since this isn't a position I would take, however, I'm back to my position that drivers aren't generally poor at risk assessment and neither are cheesburger eating drivers.

      If you want to know how risky a given factor is, one of the things you have to know is how prevalent that factor is. For example, let's define "driver who eats cheeseburgers while driving on a regular basis" as someone who does it at least once a week, just as an arbitrary standard for the sake of illustration.
      Ah. Thank you for the explaination. I hadn't followed the line of thought completely.

      Well, someone -- I think it was you -- said something to the effect that you don't need statistics to tell you that driving while blindfolded is a bad idea.
      And what of it? I did say I don't need statistics to tell me driving blindfolded is a bad idea. Nowhere in that statement do I advocate discarding better information for worse because I don't have the 'best' information. In the abscence of statistics rooted in evidence about the risks of driving blindfolded, my most efficient approximation is my mind's ability to logically conclude that not being able to see would be bad for an activity heavily dependant on the sense of sight. For this deduction, my expenditures is perhapse a few calories of energy, employing my education in various fields (although I would have acquired this, even if I were blind), and some relevant experience at walking with eyes closed (although this I did for curiousity about how blind people cope). For me to acquire data, I would have to fund induce people to drive blindfolded (or do so myself) which could cost me thousands of dollars, plus a probable significant time investment. So, my logical deduction which cost me a mere few calories, at most, since the experience and the education were paid for before I was required to make this deduction, versus a cost of thousands of dollars on an experiment with an expected benefit of nearly zero, leads me to rationally decide not to conduct the experiment. It may provider better information but yields a less efficient outcome. You, however, seemed to advocate discarding a statistic that is the either the best available or most efficient data we have about accident risk and discard it, though it cost you only the time it took to read it. Instead, you would rely on your individual estimation or instinct, at a similar cost to reading the statistic and with the attendant greater margin for error, simply because you don't have the statistic you want. Not a rational decision, as far as I can see.
      --
      I don't expect morality, equality, consistency, or justice from the law. I expect only legality.
    31. Re:Wait by Secret+Agent+X23 · · Score: 1
      People who eat cheeseburgers while driving do so because they need to eat. But the time they might spend eating at a static location is better spent eating on the move. The benefits they gain from eating on the go outweighs the percieved increase in risk.
      Well, the thing is, "better spent" is his own perception, and it's one that you or I might not agree with. Also, the benefits he gains are not my concern. The risk he's taking is my concern, though, if I'm on the road with him.

      And I'm not unsympathetic to the idea that occasionally, you might find yourself in some sort of screwed-up situation where you'd really and truly see the need to eat a cheeseburger while driving. I'll confess I've done it. But if you find yourself doing it regularly, you might want to re-evaluate the way you organize your time.

      If you want to hold to your idea that eating cheeseburgers while driving is poor risk assessement, then I might ask you if you drive for any reason that isn't life and death.
      I'm not trying to eliminate risk altogether. I'm saying, why introduce further risk factors?

      You, however, seemed to advocate discarding a statistic that is the either the best available or most efficient data we have about accident risk and discard it, though it cost you only the time it took to read it.
      I don't advocate discarding it. I advocate not presenting it as something more meaningful than it really is.
    32. Re:Wait by Moridin42 · · Score: 1
      Well, the thing is, "better spent" is his own perception, and it's one that you or I might not agree with. Also, the benefits he gains are not my concern. The risk he's taking is my concern, though, if I'm on the road with him.
      Everything drivers do is because they percieve it to be not very risky. Whether you or I agree with that assessment is meaningless. Your choices as a driver are to drive or not drive, acknowledging the fact that you can't control what the other drivers do. You already know that other drivers eat while driving. If it concerns you, it already concerns you, yet you drive anyway. And, as I said before and you have offered no reasoning to refute, drivers that eat while they drive aren't going to be any better or worse at risk assessment.

      But if you find yourself doing it regularly, you might want to re-evaluate the way you organize your time.
      I'm glad you understand everybody's life well enough to judge it. It couldn't possibly be that drivers who regularly eat on the road generally place more value on their time than you do. Or who knows why else they would do it. It just doesn't really matter. Only that they do, and you have no control over it.

      I'm not trying to eliminate risk altogether. I'm saying, why introduce further risk factors?
      And as I've told you, they introduce further risk factors because they gain more than they risk. The same, exact, reason you drive at all. Unless you are absolutely the most cautious driver on the road (odds are, you aren't. there's only one.), I'm sure you do things on the road that other people would not. And those people probably wonder why you're adding to your risk, too. The same answer applies.

      I don't advocate discarding it. I advocate not presenting it as something more meaningful than it really is.
      I'm not presenting it as more meaningful than it really is. I'm presenting it as the best available or most efficient data we have about accident risk. Which means using it in such a fashion. Not simply relegating it to internet forums and saying "that's interesting" as you have suggested.
      --
      I don't expect morality, equality, consistency, or justice from the law. I expect only legality.
  109. Re:I think you're all missing something very bad.. by Infernal+Device · · Score: 1

    At the risk of godwinning myself, what's that famous quote about the holocause that goes along the line of "there will always be number-crunchers behind the scenes eager to see if they can make the count even higher next time?"

    What's the point of playing if you don't keep score?

    --
    "My God...it's full of trolls!"
  110. Complaining about abuse of power? by tanveer1979 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It has always been there. And not just in the US, in many other democracy's At many places traffic policemen get a higher raise if they give more traffic tickets. So what do you have. Some poor schmuck who was crossing the signal and light went yellow get the boot. Its easier to ticket him, though the risk posed by some jerk weaving through lanes is much more. The most balatant misuse of this is in India. Set the speed limit to 80kmph. Everybody who hits 80+ be it 81kmph get a 400rs ticket. If somebody is doing 150, that chap also gets 400rs fine. But vehicles with no tail lights which actually pose a threat at night, are let go, because the fine is very very low in the books. At the end of the month, a percentage of fines collected is given to the cops. So rather than catch jerks who jump red lights, which would involve giving a chase and at the most give you a 100rs fine, its great to hide on an empty road with stupid speed limit(50kmph) knowing that someone doing 51 will definately come.

    --
    My Aurora : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o91ZsGwJYyg
    FB : https://www.facebook.com/TanveersPhotography
    1. Re:Complaining about abuse of power? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So *you're* the idiot who's been racing down the streets at 30mph (50km/hr) scaring all the cows eh ? But seriously, 50 km/hr is going too fast on most indian streets. Do you actually live in India ?

  111. Re:I think you're all missing something very bad.. by sacrilicious · · Score: 1
    If true, these people have just admitted they weren't subjecting innocent people to punishment because they'd lose their job otherwise and be unable to support their family -- an understandable, if still morally weak position. No, they did it because they wanted more money. Or a dental plan. Or a longer vacation. That's what's known as being stunning and embarassingly selfish.

    So it's stunningly selfish to want a dental plan to keep your teeth from rotting out of your mouth? To want your salary to have a chance to keep up with inflation? To want a better lot in life than what you happen to have at the moment? Then book me Dano.

    --
    - First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
  112. Re:WTF by buswolley · · Score: 1

    Excuse me. I'm the son of an Okie. And I live in California.

    --

    A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.

  113. It's easy to know if you are on the list.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously...if you are observant and a relatively frequent traveler you can tell by your ticket(s). You will see a distinct patter in your coding as well as another "out of place" mark that varies depending on the region and your level of "alert".

    This is not the same as the row of "S's" or "X's" on your ticket if you are going to get a "special" search. Those come up based on how and when you buy your ticket. They can also be triggered by certain changes made to your ticket.

    This level of "watch" is seriously low and actually "falls off" your record in a few months (length of time depends on the level of watch". The "quota" does exists but it is not as serious as you might think. The whole purpose is to ensure the air marshalls are really "looking" instead of just (literally) going along for the ride.

    One of the main reasons this has been instituted is to artificially inflate the demand for air marshalls. The number of air marshalls has been dwindling requiring those that still remain to take more hops with less rest in-between. By inflating the number of suspicious people "detected" by air marshalls, the more usefull the air marshall program looks.

    I am sure this article will bring up all kinds of "tin foil hat" and "this administration sucks" posts. Like them or not, this administration has done more to protect its citizens than any other before it. Was every decision right? No. Were their side benefits to some of the decisions? Sure. Still, at least they did "something" besides sit around and wait for the useless UN to "act".

    Signed,

    AC (for obvious "I don't want to get audited next year" reasons), and "FAM" (former air marshall)

  114. Re:I think you're all missing something very bad.. by Tlosk · · Score: 1

    Well there are lots of ways to accomplish the things you mention (pay for dental care, keep up with inflation, improve your standard of living). And lots of those ways are illegal or involve harming other people. I'd say that it's a pretty tough argument to say that you are justified in harming other people in order to get bonuses. The primary responsibility lies with the agents that choose to embellish or report people that didn't do anything wrong. They should simply refuse to do so out of a sense of morality, and try to change the policy through the proper channels (as well as set an example for other agents that you don't have to give in and make stuff up). Unchallenged corruption is corrosive and spreads like wildfire.

    Of course that doesn't absolve the bone headed managers that are measuring performance on what are ultimately random occurences. And for little more reason than the ease of counting the number of reports per month and using that as a performance metric. The truely unfortunate thing I suppose is that there's no way this will get changed without abuse occurring (now that the public has reason to fear being unjustly added to their Watch List). We probably just wouldn't care that much if the only thing happening was some dutiful agents missing out on some bonuses or special assignments through no fault of their own.

  115. Re:I think you're all missing something very bad.. by voice_of_all_reason · · Score: 1

    "I vas only following orders...", eh? I thought we already established that was not a valid defense of any action.

  116. Baaah, just be a good sport by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1
    The air marshall union could setup a list of volunteers who would be willing to help the marshalls meet their quota; they would then arrange to have a distinctive sign at a given date, and would be handled by the air marshalls, in return for a few brews later.

    Then, no one would be the wiser.

  117. Re:Justice League, in America? by networkBoy · · Score: 1

    Public flogging.
    seriously.

    The other messed up part is that if the theif hurts himself on something that was either a trap and/or obviously unsafe he can then sue the homeowner!

    I know of one person who, having been robbed several times, simply had his friend take his car, then with the lights out he sat in his appartment by the fire escape and waited, when the perp came in for thirds this guy blew him apart with a 10 guage and slug ammo. Can't say I blame him in a way.
    -nB

    --
    whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
  118. Re:I'm sure they are doing exactly what they are t by bobamu · · Score: 1

    and that's the whole point isn't it, I don't know anything about german law circa early thirties, but it wouldn't be suprising if there was some kind of checks and balances for the way the country would work.

    Ah well, we don't need the german constitution anyway, lets just get rid of the parliament, lets get rid of anyone or anything that doesn't think the obviously correct way, lets get rid of those who have become innapropriate or in some other way inconvenient to the national "need" who needs those old rules any more, look how prosperous germany becomes now that the "undesirables" who dragged the nation down are out of the way, look how wonderful the nation has become, look how great things are now we are getting the land that "belongs" to us back, look at the shiny new roads - ignore the blood that has been concreted over to make them, they were enemies of germany anyway.

    Never mind that this journey into righteousness leads into straight into hell, and everyone gets to play in world war 2.

    As ever, the consequences of this nonsense only applies to those powerless to avoid them, in the short term. But, you know, freedom, way of life, it's for everyone's good, why don't they understand, why do they hate freedom?

    And suddenly I think of this:

    "When they came for the Jews, I said nothing because I wasn't one;
      when they came for the gypsies, I said nothing because I wasn't one;
      when they came for the homosexuals, I said nothing because I wasn't one;
      when they came for me, there was nobody left to say anything..."

    So where are we now, what are we on the brink of, will those who own the game temper the potential of their greed and hubris? Or will they continue to enjoy their god given right to do whatever the hell they want?

    Tinfoil hat? I hope so, otherwise the last thing that folk remember will be the quote above.

  119. Re:WTF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They get ignored. But no one really cares.

  120. MS Constitution by jefu · · Score: 1

    I'm sure Microsoft and Diebold would be glad to provide the new operating system.

  121. Selfishness and unselfishness by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1

    7News has a link from that article to another article about air marshals protesting a different set of regulations, one which directly endangers passengers. One air marshal quoted in the article has already lost his job for working within the system to get things fixed. Congress investigated and issued a report that also criticized TSA management. TSA management continues to ignore both Congress and their employees.

    Basically, the TSA is preventing air marhals from being anonymous.

    I respect the air marshals who are risking unemployment because they see a safety problem.

  122. Don't worry! by x2A · · Score: 1

    I've added this secret government list to my secret list of secret government lists. I have got a few non-secret government lists on my secret secret government list list, but hey, I have quotas too ya know.

    I also have a few secret non-government lists on it, and a few secret government non-lists... and a couple of internets.

    --
    The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
  123. You need to change your name by wsanders · · Score: 1

    You might have a pretty common name. To avoid any appearance of (God Forbid!) racial profiling the List is based on name only and no other physical characteristics, so if you are named "Joe Brown" and some dipshit named "Joe Brown" made a stink about taking his Leatherman on a flight siz months ago in some other city, you're going to be on the list too.

    --
    Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
  124. I hereby... by jd · · Score: 1
    ...denounce all red-level troubleshooters as traitors to the Computer, on the grounds that there is not a single one of them who has handed in traitors to the Computer, which is highly suspicious.


    Well done, friend citizen. You have been promoted to ultra-violet. Please report to the nearest termination center immediately.


    Ooops, wrong universe.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  125. Those who do not .... by jefu · · Score: 1
    Those who do not read Systemantics are doomed to make every mistake in the book.

    The sad part is that those who do read Systemantics are also doomed to make every mistake in the book.

    Worse yet, the US Government is one of the biggest examples of every mistake in the book.

  126. control, power politics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The federal government IS "the terrorist". The US is under the rule of murderous despots, who got in power by hijacking the vote, bribing and blackmailing high level officials, co-opting the few people necessary to control the bulk of the mass media(propoganda), and brainwashing the gun toters under their control that their *only* duty is to follow the orders of the coup plotters.

      The purpose of terrorism is to terrorize. It does not matter if the people being terrorized are "guilty" of anything or not, what matters is that all the citizens OBEY ORDERS WITHOUT QUESTION. You WILL meekly submit to random checkpoints, searches at the airport, having your property seized-whatever they say. You will not "protest" except in designated "zones". And etc, the whole nine yards. check, this is accomplished now, for 99% of the population-all good little herd critters. They have the gun toters terrorized into following all orders, they have the citizenry terrorized into following orders, they have about all it takes it appears.

        The second part is, once they get into the mass culling-which all police state dictatorships eventually do, ALL of them, history has shown no exceptions, it's handy to have a list to work off of for the steroid pumped up mouth breathers they send out for the pick ups. If it is 10% or 20% of the population-they don't care, less "useless eaters" for them to manage. More terrorism for the remainder, keeps them even more cowed.

    Think I am joking about this? Not in the least...it's going to happen, too. These demons kill people daily to get their way, 24/7/365, what makes people think they will stop or slow down?

    It's OVER, the coup plotters won. Whether or not they will hang in for a long time is the only remaining variable now. There is no 'voting" these creatures away, and at the tippy top levels, both Ds and Rs are involved, those little dramas on TV are to keep the plebes amused and thinking that there is somehow a 'government' they have some say in.

  127. Re:Justice League, in America? by Petrushka · · Score: 1

    Public flogging.
    seriously.

    I find it impressively short-sighted that you're proposing this in a discussion of an article called "Air Marshals Place Innocents on Secret Watch List". Unless you really believe it's fine for anyone to be flogged at the whim of the secret police. I guess I could see it if you just like being flogged, sure.

  128. Re:I think you're all missing something very bad.. by Damvan · · Score: 1

    At the rist of godwinning myself as well, I am sure the guards in the concentration camps used a similar argument to justify their actions to themselves and others. You are agreeing to their persecution of their fellow citizens for MONEY? What kind of morally bankrupt POS are you?

  129. Re:I can't wait - fetch the comfy chair! by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1
    Until you get the possessions of the people you denounce. I've got my eye on spiffy leather couch.

    I believe the phrase is comfy chair. :-)

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  130. Re:WTF by Rocinante · · Score: 1

    Maybe the policy is to prevent these guys from just sleeping all day on their assigned flights.

    No, that can't be it.

    --
    Just trying to open someone's head! I mean "mind!" Open someone's mind, um, to the possibilities! With explosives!
  131. Paranoid? by planckscale · · Score: 1
    Call me paranoid, but I swear twice when I flew out of the US (LAX), I am monitored by people with walkie-talkies. I get to the terminal, and after driving in the car, then the shuttle, I have to take a wiz and I'm followed into the pisser. Then, although I can check in as normal, I am put through secondary inspection at security. Maybe it's just coincidence, but just walking into the terminal makes me feel like I've done something wrong and don't want to look or act suspicious so I'm walking on egg shells.

    I think next time I'm going to arrive 3 hours early, and get wasted in the airport bar to get the edge off...

    --
    Namaste
  132. That's murder, plain and simple by PurpleFloyd · · Score: 1

    So, this person committed premeditated murder? I'm all for self-defense, but blowing somebody away simply because they're stealing your property is a bit extreme. I'm pretty sure only Texas follows the "castle doctrine" ("a man's home is his castle"), and even there I doubt the cops would look fondly on a plan to kill someone, rather than responding with more reasonable force. Detaining the burglar until the police arrive is one thing; killing someone is taking things far out of hand.

    Sure, theft is an asshole thing to do, but you can't kill someone just because they're an asshole. It's people like this who give honest gun owners a bad name. Deadly force should only be used when there is an obvious danger to someone's life, that can't be averted any other way. The burglar might have been an asshole, but the shooter is a murderer.

    --

    That's it. I'm no longer part of Team Sanity.
    1. Re:That's murder, plain and simple by Eivind · · Score: 1
      This is true -- *assuming* you could safely stop the burglar by use of less force.

      Thing is, you generally can't. You don't know if the burglar is sane or not, if he has a weapon or not, or how he'll react to you pointing a gun at him and demanding surrender.

      In certain situations, shooting the burglar is (for you and your family) the safest choice. Yes, it's possible he'd surrender and all would be well if you throw on the ligth, point a gun at him, and demand surrender. But you don't know that.

      How large of a chance are you required to take in order to save the life of someone who just broke into your house ?

  133. Re:Bigger than the Las Vegas Air Marshll office by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1
    (2) Once you start making the criteria more inclusive, other groups such as people with mental illness or such may be included.
    In the 1970's, when aircraft hijacking became in vogue, a panicked airline hired two psychiatrists, dressed them in security guard uniform, and told them to arrest anybody who was "crazy", the reasoning being that "only crazy people hijack airplanes".

    The experiment ended 20 minutes later, when one of the psychiatrists arrested the other one.

  134. But isn't that rather the point by Cybertect · · Score: 1

    With an indeterminate end point, the government can keep people on a war footing indefinitely and do whatever they like.

  135. Um, I dunno... by rickb928 · · Score: 1

    Like the Maine State trooper told my mom, many years ago;

    "No, Ma'am, I don't have a quota. They let me write all the tickets I want."

    Sure, TFA lines up nicely with our well-considered mistrust of gummint, agencies, police in general, and the DHS in particular. But quotas?

    BAHAHAHAHAHA!

    It's just dumb from every angle. Even for the Feds, it's dumb. Not to mention I'm wondering how most people get on the list. Suspicious travel patterns? Destinations? Known associates?

    And the marshals have to submit ONE name a month? Sheesh, I could give them two or three a day, and not even read the newspaper. Here's a freebie: Pat Buchanan. :-)

    This is trolling of the highest order. I'm laughing. Conspiracy theories are high humor!

    Really, this is too funny!

    rick

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  136. That is how it starts. by Stoutlimb · · Score: 0

    First quotas for suspects. Pretty soon quotas for arrests. Then quotas for convictions. Finally, like the Soviet Snion, there will be quotas for executions. The system worked to keep citizens in line for generations. With technology tightening the noose of surveillance tighter than Stalin's wet dreams, the next opressive empire should last for a milennia.

    You have been warned. Now go back to eating cheetos and watching survivor.

    1. Re:That is how it starts. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the Nazis had lists that had Innocents on them

      Saddam had them too

      Next the us will star sending people to camp Guantanamo Bay just like the japs

  137. A better idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not just redirect a randomly selected flight to Cuba and shove all on board into Gitmo?

    Then they could look good for meeting their terrorist quota each month.

  138. What "agency"? by piotru · · Score: 1

    The article mentions an "agency", "federal agency". What "agency" please?
    Did I miss something?

  139. Re:Justice League, in America? by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 1
    I know of one person who, having been robbed several times, simply had his friend take his car, then with the lights out he sat in his appartment by the fire escape and waited, when the perp came in for thirds this guy blew him apart with a 10 guage and slug ammo. Can't say I blame him in a way.

    Then he should be charged with first degree murder. Premeditated much?

  140. Now then Anybody here actually on a nofly list? by cubase_dag · · Score: 1

    Okay, i'm gonna add my little experience with no-fly lists.
    A little over a year ago, I was in england about ready to head home, heading to the gate after checking in, when I reach the gate, I am told that i will not be allowed to board the plane, I am not told why except that some officials need to talk to me, I end up in an interrogation room, where i am told that someone with my name was on a "no Fly" list. After about four hours of phone calls home trying to get my identity confirmed, they are finally convinced that I am who I say I am and not the person whose name is on the list. Meanwhile I've missed my flight and will not be able to make the connections that i need to get home. I end up flying back to NYC, and waiting for about 12 hours until the next available flight to my hometown is.

    So when I get home, first thing I start to do is figure out how i get a letter of identity, which states that I am actually this person and am totally unrelated to this person. I call the TSA, and ask them how I get this Paper, i find out it'll take a few weeks, I don't have a problem with that. I supply every possible form of ID, including my parents ID's and my expired passports and such. and all seems well. I then get a call saying that during the bvackground check there was a problem and it will take another few weeks. This ruins the trip I was supposed to take to look at Grad school. so i'm a little pissed. Mind you My father has "secret" level clearance with the FBI, and I have a LEUP( low explosives User Permit) from the BATF. eventually all of the problems are sorted out, and I have my paper, 6 months later, ruining many trips and possible jobs.

    Beware those whose names are anything close to a terrorist whose name you hear on TV.

    1. Re:Now then Anybody here actually on a nofly list? by solitas · · Score: 1

      Just out of curiosity, what information does your 'letter of identity' contain (name, address, SSN, DOB, driver's license, height, weight, fingerprints(?), blood type(?), images (front/side?)) that make you _so_ absolutely identifiable to affirmative-action-education-equivalent screeners with it?

      Is it just a piece of paper? barcoded? magnetic-strip? any of these: http://www.adams1.com/pub/russadam/stack.html ?

      --
      "It's time to take life by the cans." ~ Bender ("Bendin' in the Wind", ep. 3-13)
    2. Re:Now then Anybody here actually on a nofly list? by Stoutlimb · · Score: 1

      Can you imagine if the administration actually didn't like you for some reason or other. People are being opressed now, and I don't just mean brown guys who carry a Koran. We're talking your average joes who either know too much about something, or ticked someone powerful off. This is already a police state, and the net is just slowly closing over more and more average people, until there won't be any freedom left except the freedom to obey.

  141. Re:WTF by iminplaya · · Score: 1

    Heh, You've never been to "Reagan Country".

    --
    What?
  142. A Coverup for Poorly-maintained DHS Databases by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    DHS databases are replete with incorrect data from Checkpoint and other third-party hackercorps selling trashed info to DHS for megabucks. Here they're trying to pass the blame for bad info to the DHS agents.

  143. Innocents? They're citizens aren't they? by craXORjack · · Score: 1
    The feds are just practicing for the day when the general population realizes that this isn't their grandpappy's democracy anymore and decide to do something about it.

    'The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.' -Thomas Jefferson

    --
    Liberals call everyone Nazis yet they are the closest thing to it.
  144. News for nerds? by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 1

    I cannot understand in the slightest why this has any relevance at all on a "news for nerds" website, except for the possible purpose of pushing a political agenda. This kind of stuff belongs on DailyKos or some other site aimed at agitating the masses, not a site where the prime focus ought to be technical.

    --
    In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
  145. Re:WTF by andrewman327 · · Score: 1

    RTFA! The article clearly says that thieir quota is one per month.

    --
    Information wants a fueled airplane waiting at the hangar and no one gets hurt.
  146. Re:WTF by andrewman327 · · Score: 1

    I am not saying that, but I would like to see some verification outside of one news source.

    --
    Information wants a fueled airplane waiting at the hangar and no one gets hurt.
  147. Re:WTF by andrewman327 · · Score: 1

    I know that it looks that way, but I did not mean to say that only eastern news sources are acceptable. I spent 15 of the best years of my life in Michigan, and the Chicago Tribune and LA Times are just as valid of a source as the papers I listed.

    --
    Information wants a fueled airplane waiting at the hangar and no one gets hurt.
  148. Welcome to the prison state by einhverfr · · Score: 1

    You are no longer free to move about the country....

    --

    LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
  149. Re:WTF by andrewman327 · · Score: 1

    I honestly believe that every plane that lands safely is a good thing. Are Air Marshalls supposed to be spotting future threats, or are they supposed to ensure the safety of the passengers on the flight?

    --
    Information wants a fueled airplane waiting at the hangar and no one gets hurt.
  150. Re:WTF by andrewman327 · · Score: 1

    I stand corrected. I was only saying that I would like to see something that verifies this story. I am a viewer of NBC10 in Philadelphia and I am used to their overblown investigative reporting. I also should not have used the NYT as an example of a valid news source, as I am not a fan.

    --
    Information wants a fueled airplane waiting at the hangar and no one gets hurt.
  151. Gradma terrorists with their hobbies.... by einhverfr · · Score: 1

    Darned Afghans!!!

    --

    LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
  152. Rest assured that ... by chris_sawtell · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ... with this sort on thing happening I won't be travelling via the US next time I go to Europe.
    I think I'd prefer to go via Japan and Russia now-a-days. Seriously, US citizens, it really _is_ time for a regime change in the White House. The Republicans seem to have taken too many pages out of the Nazi rule books for my liking.

  153. Conspiracy theory by einhverfr · · Score: 1

    I suspect that there are those in the government (probably career military or intelligence) that really wants to see an Executive dictatorship arise in this country. The goal here is not to win the war on terror but actually to create a system where we cannot win it. The terrorists (absent nuclear weapons) aren't any more dangerous than the automobile (and actually less so), so the damage caused in a prolonged conflict is acceptable. The real target is the system of government which has sustained our great republic for a little over two hundred years.

    I think that now is the time to make references to Julius Caesar...

    --

    LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    1. Re:Conspiracy theory by Peter+Eckersley · · Score: 1

      I suspect that there are those in the government (probably career military or intelligence) that really wants to see an Executive dictatorship arise in this country.

      If you believe the investigative reporting in the New Yorker, it's civilians in the administration who are driving the campaign. Lots of them cut their teeth in the Nixon administration and are still pissed off about the restraints that Congress imposed on the Executive back then. It sounds surreal to me, but that's what the New Yorker has been printing. The military and intelligence people are freaked out by their extremism. The dispute over bunker-busting nukes was a nice illustration.

  154. I got put on the watchlist last week by ajv · · Score: 2, Interesting

    All I did was try to enter the US on my existing E3 visa. Because I apparently can't enter on that visa unless I'm working for the employer during that trip, you can't enter on the E3. You need to be on the visa waiver program, not the E3. WTF? It's a visa! It's far, far harder to get than the VWP.

    So I was made to fill out the visa waiver form, and by the time I got back, I found myself on the watchlist. Do the USA really want me to come live in the US and work towards their GDP? Or not?

    I'll find out in the next three weeks what it exactly means to be on the watchlist. I'm flying all over the country, so if it does take more time, I will be REALLY pissed. If it means I get stopped in Australia, then I'm going to be REALLY REALLY pissed, as it's completely bogus. I had committed no crime :( Not in the USA, not in Australia.

    Andrew

    ps. My day job is security. This is security theatre. The folks who run the TSA should be ashamed of themselves. They are no friends of the security industry.

    --
    Andrew van der Stock
    1. Re:I got put on the watchlist last week by Stoutlimb · · Score: 1

      Wow that's real dumb. You just got put on the doubleplusgood security watchlist for criticising the government. Signed your name too. Watch your visa disappear.

      You're probably safer not living in the USA anyways. Once Bush is in his third term of office, leaving the USA will be a real bitch.

      Bork!

  155. For short trips I don't have to jack with it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Makes me glad I just got my pilot's license.

  156. Cavity search truism by xixax · · Score: 1

    So it's truer than ever, "Never poke fun at someone who can authorise a cavity search"

    --
    "Everything is adjustable, provided you have the right tools"
  157. corruption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, we have air marshals fileing false and exagerated reports.
    Other air marshals know this and accept it.
    Air marshals claim a quota system, the agency denies one. Air marshals can prove quota system.

    We have a corrupt police force, and no one is treating it as such?

  158. The logic behind the quota by TCQuad · · Score: 1

    How do you meet a quota when you're looking out for suspicious people?

    The logic goes thusly:

    -We want to keep tabs on the most suspicious 1% of passengers.
    -There are 100 people on this plane
    -There must be 1 person we want to keep tabs on.

    Now, in fact, there is actually a 36.6% (.99^100) chance that none of the 100 people are part of the 1% that need to be monitored. But explaining that is hard. Simply picking 1 person per 100 is easy.

  159. No Surprises Today by Wes+Janson · · Score: 1

    Problem: there is a very small but nonzero risk of a future hijacking attempt on a domestic airliner, a la 9/11.

    Correct solution: Improve existing cockpit doors, allow licensed pilots to fly armed. Nothing more is necessary based upon the severity of the threat.

    Government response: Create entire agencies devoted to providing the illusion of improved security, while wasting billions of dollars on programs that have an infinitesimally small chance of preventing a major terrorist attack. Divert these funds from critical programs such as education, or by incurring debt. Gain political points by appearing to be solving a problem. Get re-elected, and continue the process in some other venue. Thus passes the glory of America.

  160. Re:Justice League, in America? by mortonda · · Score: 1
    Then he should be charged with first degree murder. Premeditated much?


    By that reasoning, I suppose the idea of getting a handgun for self defense is pre-meditated murder? I mean, if I get a gun for self defense, and the need arises, I do plan on killing the perp. I think that's pretty obvious.

    Nothing was said whether or not the thief had a weapon when he came through the fire escape. Maybe the original plan was to simply apprehend the thief... but I'd sure as heck be ready to take the shot if he had a weapon or came at me.
  161. Look at the USSR by Stoutlimb · · Score: 1

    "Why force false-positives like this by having quotas?"

    The soviets LOVED false quotas. It instituted a system where anyone could be arbitrarily punished for anything. With that power came complete and utter control over the lives of it's people.

    "It's like giving soldiers a quota of people they need to kill or something stupid like that."

    Stalin loved those. The police had execution quotas too. Wait till Texas gets them.

  162. all relative by elmurado · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'm glad I live in China...

  163. Sounds Like Flagged - Not Listed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Airlines "randomly" flag passengers prior to a flight. Males traveling alone are targeted more often. If you dad has been able to curbside/online check-in since, he's not listed.

    What terminal allows *any* unticketed passengers past security?

    1. Re:Sounds Like Flagged - Not Listed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      An unticketed person is allowed past security when they are at the airport to pick up a minor that has been flying as a "protected minor" (or some such terminology). Such minors are checked in by an adult at their point of origin, followed around by designated airline personnel for their entire flight and handed over to a designated adult at the destination. The designated adults are printed a special pass (not a real ticket since it won't let them on any flight) to let them past security to the gate to meet the airline personnel, fill out some paperwork and pick up the minor. I would assume the "younger brother" mentioned by the parent qualifies as such a minor.

    2. Re:Sounds Like Flagged - Not Listed by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      What terminal allows *any* unticketed passengers past security?
      Trick question along the lines of "where do you bury the survivors?". Passengers of course, all have tickets. However, people picking up/dropping off minors just have a pass issued at the ticket counter. People in security, maintenance, and employed in the restaurants and retail establishments all have no ticket.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  164. Re:Justice League, in America? by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 1

    If you use your gun in self defense, then you are reacting to the situation. In this situation, according to story, at least, he actively set himself in position, lay in ambush with the stated intention of killing said person. He had no idea whether this person would be the person that had either previously burgled him, or indeed whether it was a burglar at all. He "sat there with the lights out and when the "perp" (judge, jury and executioner, apparently, quite literally) came in ... this guy blew him apart". That isn't 'reactionary defense of property', that is pretty much the textbook definition of premeditated homicide.

  165. You must love the terrorists by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 2, Funny

    Anyone who opposes these watch list quotas hates freedom and productivity!

    --
    It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
  166. Arbeit Macht Frei by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Work Shall Set You Free (Auschwitz)

  167. George 'WTF?' Bush by TiggertheMad · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    George W. Bush's brain doesn't work. The man is an emotionally stunted monkey-tard. Osama might have been a threat to our security at one time, but through the efforts of a lot of people working together in countries all over the world, al-queda has been dealt a severe check. This has been done, despite King Jr's bumbling efforts. Now the biggest threat to American security is president fucktard, and his blundering policies that provoke international anger and apathy toward us. His dad was a one term wonder, and he was twice the president that Jr. will ever be.

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
    1. Re:George 'WTF?' Bush by x2A · · Score: 1

      "Now the biggest threat to American security is president fucktard"

      s/American/World/

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    2. Re:George 'WTF?' Bush by h4rm0ny · · Score: 1


      George Bush's brain doesn't work, eh? Let's examine this. Who is the US population more likely to vote for? The spoilt Yale graduate son of a millionaire or the heart-in-the-right-place, "one of us." Oh, I'm not saying that he's a genius, but I think his image is carefully chosen and stage-managed. You and I might consider it a positive trait if someone is smarter than us, but "market research" suggests the US public vote for the guy that reminds them of themselves. Be afraid.

      Supporting evidence for all this? Well it really doesn't matter if Bush is an idiot as he is surrounded by people who are anything but. We have to consider his actions and policies to be largely the result of influence by his advisors and corporate backers. So we should examine his actions carefully to see if they really are stupid or if we've missed the point. And it looks like it is the latter. Yes, the US is in greater danger than before he took power, and yes, I'd say economically it is also in greater danger. But why do you think his actions are governed by your interests? Defense spending is up, Haliburton has been handed a country for Christmas, and a lot more less publicised profiteering has gone on. If the american public saw him as a calculating and shrewd sort of guy, these activities would recieve more consideration. As a regular guy who cares about them, they are much less likely to think of Bush diverting their taxes into private wars.

      Laughing at George Bush might feel good. But he's getting exactly what he wants, isn't he?

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
  168. what are the chances of 'catching' a terrorist? by majid_aldo · · Score: 1

    I agree with the parent.

    AT MOST, and I'm exaggerating, terrorists are 1/100,000? With (what?) hundreds of air marshalls in the sky, you can see where this will end up. There is no way a marshall will identify a "real" "POTENTIAL" "terrorist".

    --
    --- widget evolution: enhanced, plus, super, ultra, extreme, exxxtreme, ultra-extreme, ..etc.
  169. Convict Lease by Atario · · Score: 2, Informative

    What you are suggesting is called "Convict Lease", and is a legally fig-leafed form of slavery, and, it should go without saying, an egregious violation of human rights besides. Not only is it wrong on the face of it, it encourages the state to arrest and convict more people, to inflate the legal-slave supply.

    To quote a current internet meme: Perhaps you've not thought your cunning plan all the way through.

    --
    "A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
    1. Re:Convict Lease by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      an egregious violation of human rights

      Generally speaking, criminals are understood to lose some of their rights. Common "inalienable" rights include the right to liberty, which is clearly lost by a good number of convicted criminals.

      The only question is whether or not this temporary indentured servitude is taking the concept too far. On the face of it, I don't think it is, but I've not had a great deal of time to spend thinking about it.

    2. Re:Convict Lease by DahGhostfacedFiddlah · · Score: 1

      The problem, as always, is corruption and incompetance. If a region actually gains something (cheap labour) by having more convicts, then you can be sure that that's going to be abused somwhere down the line. And prisoners are already regarded as sub-human by a lot of guards anyway - can you imagine the situation if they also had a quota to meet?

      Now, you could probably overcome these problems, but I guarantee the Law of Unintended Consequences would haunt this system for decades and more.

  170. Bin Laden? by PinkyDead · · Score: 1

    Scene from the White House:-

    GWB: Holy schmolians! $40 billion for hunting down bin laden. Who is this bin laden guy?!
    Shadowy Advisor: Head of the Al-Qaeda international terrorist network.
    GWB: Never heard of him.
    Shadowy Advisor: Masterminded the attacks on New York in 2001.
    GWB: Still not ringin' any bells...
    Shadowy Advisor: The boogey-man we're using to scare the American people into letting us away with anything we want.
    GWB: Oh! That bin laden - why didn't you say?

    ***

    They've already thought of your idea - and dismissed it. Bin Laden is never going to be found - and your taxes are never going to go down.

    --
    Genesis 1:32 And God typed :wq!
    1. Re:Bin Laden? by jo42 · · Score: 1

      GW already knew who Bin Laden was. Bin Laden's family financed GW's first oil company fer feck sakes.

    2. Re:Bin Laden? by kchrist · · Score: 1

      Bin Laden? Is that guy still around?

      Actually yes, he is. Guess we'll have to keep turning these rocks over...

    3. Re:Bin Laden? by Mark_MF-WN · · Score: 1

      Of course. Your fearless leader decided it was more important to invade the only arab nation without a terrorist presence (creating a vast new terrorist movement in the process), and let Bin Laden off the hook. That's glossing over the fact that Pakistan is sheltering Al Quaida now, and the US doesn't have the resources necessary to deal with Pakistan's nuclear arsenal and impressive military power. Not that any of the other involved Afghanistan-involved nations have had the balls to call Pakistan on their two-faced-ness, but isn't the US supposed to lead the world in Arab-squashing?

      Actually, doesn't Pakistan have the world's most expensive military after adjusting for GNP? I remember reading that Israel, Pakistan, and North Korea actually have far more costly militaries (GNP adjusted) than the US, whose military is comparatively cheap when you factor in the enormous population of the US and it's ridiculously high GNP.

    4. Re:Bin Laden? by PinkyDead · · Score: 1

      I don't know - I bust my heart and soul, day in, day out over a hot irony (sic) - and it's totally wasted on you.

      It doesn't grow on trees you know! ;-)

      --
      Genesis 1:32 And God typed :wq!
    5. Re:Bin Laden? by mink · · Score: 1

      Thats the thing thats like goldy and bronzy but made of iron right?

      --
      Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
  171. not so fast, grasshopper by misanthrope101 · · Score: 1
    Got a car? Love America and hate terrorists?

    McVeigh used a truck, so you might just want to stay at home and hide under the bed. Not to mention all the vehicle-carried suicide bombs being used in liberated Iraq. Not to mention that the petroleum you're using to drive around directly funds the Saudis and other people who only pretend to like us because we pay them, and then they turn around and directly fund terrorists. I'm not blaming you, but I do love to muddy the water and get everyone depressed.

  172. Mod parent up! by cdn-programmer · · Score: 1

    This is actually a very good comment.

    Unfortunately the moderator seems to be somewhat challenged and clearly didn't double check the button he was pressing.

  173. Re:Justice League, in America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Punishment != rehabilitation.

    And the deterrence effect typically tends to only polarize the issue - innocent people will be more afraid, but no criminal thinks they're going to get caught. That's why they're criminals.

  174. No more Pinko Commie(TM) luggage for me... by Thecarpe · · Score: 1

    It's funny - I thought that the McCarthy era was just a rediculous caricature of uneducated fear that didn't have the privledge of historical perspective to see the overarching problems that happen when you supplant fear with objectivity. We've come so far...

    I would love to see a Vegas air marshall on a plane with the bolero men from the Thomas Crown Affair...

  175. Re:I think you're all missing something very bad.. by sacrilicious · · Score: 1
    At the rist of godwinning myself as well, I am sure the guards in the concentration camps used a similar argument to justify their actions to themselves and others. You are agreeing to their persecution of their fellow citizens for MONEY? What kind of morally bankrupt POS are you?

    Your argument hinges on there being an equality between (a) meeting a quota for number of people marked for hassle at an airport, and (b) gassing people to death. While there are vague abstract similarities, I think the practical difference is too big to make the argument a good one.

    --
    - First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
  176. Re:I think you're all missing something very bad.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    being stunning and embarassingly selfish
    In the USA? Say it aint so!
  177. Snakes On a Plane ? by UberHoser · · Score: 0

    'Insert whitty comment here'

    --
    Guns are for wimps... Use a crossbow.. this way you can pin them to their chair when you go postal.
  178. News for Nerds.. how? by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

    I couldn't find anything even remotely nerdy in this story...

    Slashdot is turning into yet another K5...

  179. Re:This is pretty standard for all laws / regulati by PhxBlue · · Score: 1

    But all you people who support laws like these, and then complain when then turn out badly, shut the hell up!

    In all fairness, there are probably about four people on Slashdot who hold that viewpoint.

    --
    !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
  180. Alternative Energy Source by kalirion · · Score: 1

    If differences in electric potential, heat, pressure, and so on can be used to generate energy, why not calm/fear? I think you've stumbled onto the president's plan to stop relying on foreign oil.

  181. Quotas by DeanFox · · Score: 1


    I don't know the specific law or if it really exists but I have heard that police quotas for things like tickets are illegal.

    I worked with a guy who was an ex-cop. I asked him about it one day. I think he confirmed that quotas were illegal. He then went on to say when he was hired his Sergeant told him,

    "You make 27K a year... Just to let you know, that comes to about two tickets a day. All I'm here to say is to let you know that I'm not going to loose money on you."

    It sounded like it was one of those "do the math" conversations.

  182. Could've been worse by kalirion · · Score: 1

    Could've been worse if your dad had been in a London metro station. They fulfill their quotas in a different way.

  183. Republiclown by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Boy, do you look STUPID and PATHETIC making this comment. Rather than making any kind of rhetorical defense for this program, which you couldn't do because it's so baldly indefensible under the cherished "conservative" principles we've all been taught are so important to "murican values," you instead fall all over yourself BITCHING and WHINING that revealing this intrusive, ineffective, destructive program is BIASED. PA-FUCKING-THETIC!

    Some responding to your comment have been much kinder but I feel it's highly necessary to reveal the miserable depths to which conservative apologists have sunk. The war on terror, as evidenced by this program among many others, isn't just a failure of implementation, it is a failure as conceived, and it is a depressing, disgusting, pathetic failure of IDEOLOGY. It is very likely the last such war that Americans will permit their political leaders to declare -- a war on an idea. It's become very clear that wars on ideas involve destroying our civil rights and run wholly counter to values that Americans have been taught to cherish.

  184. Re:WTF by Le+Marteau · · Score: 1

    +5 Insightful? Unbelievable. A perfect example of what is broken with the moderation system.

    That was a fine piece of investigatave journalism Denver's 7 did. I'd trust THEM before the Times or the Post whose reporters have a history of falsification.

    --
    Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs
  185. Re:Justice League, in America? by networkBoy · · Score: 1

    "that is pretty much the textbook definition of premeditated homicide."

    Except it occoured durring a B&E.
    there is no way the guy confessed that he lay in wait.
    -nB

    --
    whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
  186. Re:WTF by andrewman327 · · Score: 1

    Again, I was really looking for verification from some other source. The way that these things usually become known is through some news agency breaking the story and others fact checking and re-running their own versions. As it turns out this was a local issue apparently limited to one city.

    --
    Information wants a fueled airplane waiting at the hangar and no one gets hurt.
  187. They won't do the same thing again by Nurgled · · Score: 1

    The thing that always gets me about these reactions to "terrorism" is that they seem to assume that the attackers only have one available attack vector. Why would they fly planes into buildings again if they could detonate bombs in a metro railway system? Why would they detonate bombs in the metro railway system again if they could... well, I don't know, but I'm sure they could think of something.

    The reason these suicide attacks have worked so well is because no-one was expecting them. They aren't going to do the same thing again. There are plenty of ways to cause distruption and terror if you've got a bomb and someone who doesn't care for their life. Instead of focusing on what they've already done, worry about what they might do next.

  188. It also completely distorts the labour market [nt] by blorg · · Score: 1

    It also completely distorts the labour market...

  189. Re:WTF by iminplaya · · Score: 1

    Well, you still seem to equate credibility with size. I thought size didn't matter, but not everyone agrees, apparently. I would like to think that sometimes the "small timers" work a little harder at getting the facts straight. The big boys have business matters to consider. The facts could be, let's saaay...a little inconvenient for those interests.

    --
    What?
  190. Re:WTF by DavidTC · · Score: 1

    Ahem. Hicks are from the mountains, not 'the South', which also comprises rednecks.

    Rule of thumb: You live where there are hills and tiny rundown houses at the end of dirt road four miles deep in the woods, you're a hick. You live on a forty arce run down farm and grow peanuts, you're a redneck.

    There are many overlaps, but they should not be confused.

    --
    If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  191. Re:I think you're all missing something very bad.. by Damvan · · Score: 1

    You are making the assumption that the ramifications of being put on this list is only some hassle at the airport. But these people are being put on more than just a "no-fly" list or "inspect more" list, they are being put on a "suspected terrorist" list. For now, that means more hassle at the airport. Five, ten years from now it could mean much much more.

  192. Re:WTF by andrewman327 · · Score: 1

    The facts get pushed around no matter what size news organization you are dealing with. I moonlight for a small independent newspaper in Washington DC and I trust our articles as much as the larger papers, but not always more.

    --
    Information wants a fueled airplane waiting at the hangar and no one gets hurt.
  193. Re:It's not so bad... "Koresh"? by davidsyes · · Score: 1

    heheh V funny... Actually I was at LEAST 30 yo by then, and alive and well in SF.

    The FBI nicked him and his tribe/harem/cloister in the botched crawling on the compound building. I understand they fired gas grenades or something and lit the frick'n place ablaze, and in the melee/chaos several of their own and other agents were shot and killed.

    Yep, this is nuts.

    But, I saw in SF on a club wall after that event:

    "COPE OR DIE"

    THAT resurfaced in my memory when you asked if I were David Koresh...

    Ahh, a trip down memory lane....

    "Cope or die...."

    heheh.. slash image word: "erasable"... well, hmmm, I guess most of us are in that category...

    ----

    Oh, that reminds me of Rev Jim Jones... For a few months (before I went to the fleet) I was a student in a Navy program in 1984 in San Diego. We had some coasties, Marines and the rest of us were swabbies. One Marine (nutty and crazy, they are) came up with or passed down to us a Jodie call we used during PT (physical training), and we sang it up and down the jogging trails, the streets, the grinder (parade/marching field)...

    It is to the tune of "Downtown" (from the pre-60's I think)

    "WHEN your're DOWN and OUT
    AND you're READY to SHOUT
    WON'T you COME and SING with JIM-JONES!

    WHEN you're GOOD and BROKE
    ANND your reLIGION's a JOKE
    WON'T you COME AND SING WITH JIM-JONES!

    WATCH-the-REV'REND-AS-HE-STIRS-A-POSHUN-THAT'S-SO- LETHAL
    LISten-to-the-ANGry-CRIES-of-ALL-the-DYing-PEOple
    EV'RY-ONE-DIES!
    NO-ONE SURVIVES!
    CUZ-WE'RE at JOOONES-TOWN!
    PEE-POHL-R-dropping-LIKE-FLIES!

    CONgressman Rye was on a MISSION to SPY
    But he WOULDN'T DRINK with JIM-Jones!
    For SUCH a PUBLIC DISGRACE
    They HADDA BLOW-OFF HIS FACE!
    Cause he WOULDN'T DRINK with JIM-Jones!

    WATCH-the-REV'REND-AS-HE-STIRS-A-POSHUN-THAT'S-SO- LETHAL
    LISten-to-the-ANGry-CRIES-of-ALL-the-DYing-PEOple
    EV'RY-ONE-DIES!
    NO-ONE SURVIVES!
    CUZ-WE'RE at JOOONES-TOWN!
    PEE-POHL-R-dropping-LIKE-FLIES!

    JONEZ-town... JONES-town... Jonestown..."

    There was a 3rd verse/stanza, but it's been so many years that I cannot remember.

    Interesting thing is is that we (some 40 of us in our platoon) did this near the SSC/NTC commander headquarters and on the way to MCRD. Several staff and other base officers paused, but didn't look aghast, too shaken, surprised, or even stunned. Just mildly curious. Probably they noticed the Marines by their physice and bellowing voice with us swabbies in tow, keeping pace.

    This is ONLY funny in the grand scheme of human brutality and bizarre conduct, well, if one can consider life a big-ass joke.

    (I didn't author the jody, and I never could find it on the Net over the years. But in the style as I have written it I reserve all rights to use it in any of my other writings...) Otherwise, I have no ability to nor any interst in preventing its further dissemination.)

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  194. Re:It's not so bad... "Koresh"? by davidsyes · · Score: 1

    Ooopps... I mentioned "FBI", but it might have been the Texas BATF...

    BTW... per some US postal employees of the time... What does "WACO" mean?

    WE AIN'T COMIN' OUT!

    ---

    What's the difference between a recesion and a depression?

    A REcession is when your FRIENDS are out of work.

    A DEpression is when YOU are out of work..

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  195. Keep Your Lighters, Knitting Needle Threat Emerges by armchair99 · · Score: 1

    What this really means is that there will be more little old Anglo ladies pulled over for body cavity searches during security screening. It stands to reason that statistically the largest "group" of special customers before should see the largest increase under the quota system.

  196. And then people ask me.... by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    ... why I am boycotting the US as a flying destination (I don't go ther even as an stop over destination).

    It is a real shame, I have seen only bits of it, not the most necessary (NY, LA, Grand Canyon), but frankly I don't want to be treated like a criminal just for being me.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  197. Victimless crimes? by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    I will tell that to the children of a policeman I knew that died trying to stop a criminal gang in Guadalajara, Mexico.

    And also to all the victims of crime commited by drug addicts trying to finance their adiction.

    In other words, victimless crime my ass.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  198. Re:WTF by monoqlith · · Score: 1

    They're supposed to be doing both, I would imagine That's probably the whole point behind the quota. But if they identify false threats because they've been asked to meet a quota, then they're overloading the counter-terrorism effort with bad information, and that's just going to slow us down and decrease effectiveness overall by forcing us to analyze non-threats.

  199. Londonners by Mark_MF-WN · · Score: 1

    The response to the transit bombings was pretty inspiring. The English have some sort of strange ability to rise above things that you just don't see in many other cultures. I guess any people that can survive half a decade of Nazi terror bombing will be rather inured to any kind of atrocity you can dream up. But yeah, the Brits have the right idea -- the best response to terror attacks is to get out there and flaunt your freedom, keep laughing, and marginalize the aims of the terrorists by completely ignoring them (at least until the opportunity to go in and ruin their shit comes along).

    More Americans are killed by slippery bathtubs in any given year than have been killed by all terrorist attacks ever committed against America in all of history. Americans suffer from hundreds of times as many pirate attacks than they do terrorist attacks. Pirates, for gods sake. Keep these kinds of things in mind, and nothing Al Qaeda can ever do will be worth more than a footnote in the actuary tables regarding structural damage to office towers. Terror attacks only matter to cowards. Keep your cool, fuck the fear, live free or die.

  200. Re:WTF by butterwise · · Score: 0

    I disagree. hicks dwell in rural areas, and while the mountains certainly qualify as rural, much of the south is about as rural as it gets.

    Now, I suppose I have shot myself in the foot with this argument, as there are plenty of rural areas inthe north as well. However, the case can be made that you could also find rednecks in the north.

    --
    If a baby duck is a "duckling," why would anyone want to eat "dumplings?"
  201. What you're suggesting.... by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    .... is typical of an authoritarian dictatorial state.

    I know you guys in the US voted for Bush, not only once but twice, but if you want democracy and the rule of law you should know by now that men are born free and you should not force them to work against their will.

    You can seel the assets of the thief, or enact a systme by which money is deducted at source whenever he decides to work, but what you are suggesting only happens in states like Stalinist Russia.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  202. You must be kidding us. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    Public humilliation and executions.

    That is what you call justice.

    For bunnies sakes, drop the computer and find a book about history, and perhaps one about the convention of human rights.

    Very clever people (much clever than you) have come with explanations about why what you are proposing is complete nonsense.

    And as for your sentence about many countries still practicing public hangings, you just show your imperivious, stereorypical US ignorance about the rest of the world.

    The immense majority of modern countries have abolished public executions decades ago. And for you r diepleasure most modern democracies (EUrope, Latinamerica) have abolished the death penalty outright.

    You guys are one of the biggest executioners, you are in the fine company of those shinny examples of judicial impecabilitiy like the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the People's Republic of China or the Dear Leader's North Korea.

    You guys should have a reality check in regards o your position of the death penalty as a justified punishment. Most of enlighted humanity does not agree with you.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  203. Re:Someone will hang for this by nasch · · Score: 1

    Sure they'll blame someone. But I'm curious how you expect them to find out who these marshals are.

  204. Far too Complicated by turgid · · Score: 1

    Why bother? Why not just burn them and use the heat to generate electricity?