Slashdot Mirror


Cartoon Network CEO Resigns Over Aqua Teen Scare

DesertBlade writes "Jim Samples, CEO of Cartoon Network, has resigned over the bomb scare prompted by the Aqua Teen marketing campaign. Turner (CN's parent company) ended up paying over 2 million in restitution to the city of Boston, and a man with a thirteen year record at the company has lost his job. Though many people have been citing this as 'the ultimate successful advertising campaign', there have obviously been real consequences from the incident." By virtue of the consequences of the campaign, was this now officially a bad idea? Or is your opinion that this is all far too much knee-jerking? Have your say in the comments.

710 comments

  1. Buck Stops At The Top by gbulmash · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It's highly likely that if this had happened on September 10, 2001, there wouldn't have been this kind of uproar. But in a post-9/11 U.S.A., the authorities have to assume things like this could be terrorist in nature and respond as if they were. Just because it's cartoony doesn't mean it should be taken less seriously. If we took that attitude, next thing you know, you'd be getting shredded by a Hello Kitty full of C4 and nails.

    I think it's cool that he is taking responsibility instead of cleaning house. He can afford to go without a salary for a good while, and the rest of his accomplishments as CEO will probably earn him a nice position once the smoke clears. The marketing guys who would have been sacrificed if he cleaned house instead, are probably just living to the edge of their means on 5-figure salaries. And if his replacement cleans house, at least he's earned them some time to prepare for the axe.

    - Greg

    1. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by agent+dero · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Sorry, but your post mentioned the buck at the top of the list and September 11th, and I can't help but draw any subtle lines between the head of the corp and the head of the state...

      Anyways, I'm glad he took the fall for it, as he most likely has savings as opposed to the young guys who actually put up signs. Another sacrifice is made to the new State of paranoia.

      --
      Error 407 - No creative sig found
    2. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by c_wraith · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's highly likely that if this had happened on September 10, 2001, there wouldn't have been this kind of uproar. But in a post-9/11 U.S.A., the authorities have to assume things like this could be terrorist in nature and respond as if they were No, they don't.

      Just because it's cartoony doesn't mean it should be taken less seriously. If we took that attitude, next thing you know, you'd be getting shredded by a Hello Kitty full of C4 and nails. I'd rather take that chance than be forced to watch continual idiocy perpetrated by those who claim to be protecting us.
    3. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by Wordplay · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They don't -have- to assume anything. It's not like 9/11 was the kick-off party, and now all the terrorism is going to stream in.

      We're spewing hippopotamus repellent and then claiming victory because there are no hippos. All 9/11 opened the door for was paranoia and jingoism.

    4. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by pcgamez · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You make the assumption that a full-scale response is needed in this kind of situation. Anyone with half a brain (which apparently does not include the Boston PD) would have immediately known that those objects were not bombs. The problem with it all is that if the government keeps responding in this manner, the common citizen will ignore warnings when the real thing happens.

    5. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by Mr.+Flibble · · Score: 5, Insightful

      To me, the fact that he took the fall for it is an ironic sign of good leadership. Not many at the top would allow themselves to be taken out over an incident like this. It probably means that he is a good leader, and understands responsiblity, and stepped up to take the heat.

      The irony is that this is just the sort of person you actually want at the top, and now he is gone.

      --
      Try to hack my 31337 firewall!
    6. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by pizpot · · Score: 1

      ... don't worry about him. He will get to choose his package!

    7. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      On the plus side, terrorists now have an easy way to shut down a city, just for the price of a few batteries and wires.

      Praise Allah, the batteries were not even connected and the infidels shrieked as if they were set afire with fuel.

    8. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by tverbeek · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The biggest idiocy perpetrated in this incident was by the people who didn't think far enough ahead to anticipate that this was going to happen, and to take any steps at all to prevent it. Maybe the squares in Boston's emergency response agencies over-reacted, and without doubt the so-called "news" media over-reacted... but you'd have to have kept your sphincter around your neck for the past 5.5 years to not realize that this was probably going to happen. Glad to know that someone at CN is willing to admit that they are responsible for the easily-anticipated consequences of their actions. Apparently he understands that "adult" doesn't just mean naughty words; it also means owning up to your actions.

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    9. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by SirSlud · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If we took that attitude, next thing you know, you'd be getting shredded by a Hello Kitty full of C4 and nails.

      I was never suspicious of a Hello Kitty doll, but now that I've chosen to be suspicious of it, I'm doing my part! In fact, cars explode on the streets of Iraq every day, so now I call 911 everytime I see a parked car. Yet, for some reason, I'm being blamed with clogging the system full of rhetoric and empty false alarms. I just don't get it. Cars explode way more often than Hello Kitty dolls, but my vigilent attitude is not being appreciated!

      I love Americans, truely, but this is one particular case wher I am absolutely thrilled that I live in a country in which you can't score political points for making a mountain out of a mole hill. Its getting to the point where you can make yourself look good by selling creative, tangential, and obtuse terrorist threats rather than workmanlike every day global occurances that kill and maim dozens to hundreds of people at a time.

      You really have to give the 9/11 atrocity commiters some credit. Crash a few planes, and inspire scenarios of exploding C4-laden Hello Kitty dolls. I mean what the fuck, even domestic bombers know that letters, pipes, and cars is really all you need to be successful. If you want to kill lots of people, creativity is the domain of comic books, not reality.

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    10. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      But in a post-9/11 U.S.A., the authorities have to assume things like this could be terrorist in nature and respond as if they were.

      Security isn't free. Just look at this case - it cost at least $2M, and it did absolutely nothing to increase anyone's security. Do you really think that it is wise to spending our limited resources on ridiculously easy to verify non-threats? Does wasting money like that really increase security or just increase the control of the state?

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    11. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by Kaenneth · · Score: 1

      Agree, for the last few years, there seem to have been daily 'Emergency Broadcast System' tests. I used to listen to them, since they were rare, but now I basically ignore them.

      The Government crying wolf too often will eventually lead to public apathy and annoyance.

    12. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by Romancer · · Score: 1

      That's like saying:

      The people that didn't forsee that the war in Iraq could possibly lead to civil war are responsible for not taking any steps at all to prevent it.

      and that:

      The president and his office should be willing to admit that they are responsible for the easily-anticipated consequences of their actions. But because they don't, apparently he does not understand that "adult" doesn't just mean naughty words; it also means owning up to your actions.

      Just watch Fox and you'll see that those arguments are ridiculous. :)

      --


      ) Human Kind Vs Human Creation
      ) It'd be interesting to see how many humans would survive to serve us.
    13. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [cowards]

    14. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by RobertF · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Really, I'm completely and utterly tired of this attitude. First off, can we please dispense with "in this post 9/11 world". If I here that phrase one more time I'm going to stab someone in the eye with a ballpoint pen. September 11, 2001 was probably the scariest day of my life, thinking "How much of the city are they going to take out?" "Are my friends okay?" It was a tragedy.

      The only difference between September 10, 2001 and September 11 is our paranoia level. Terrorism was not invented on that day, thousands of extremists didn't suddenly say "Oh, you know this terrorism thing might just work!" it wasn't even the first time Extremist Islamic Terrorists attacked the US. An LED sign of a cartoon character is just as harmless today as it was over five years ago. Just because everyone has this irrational fear of terrorism doesn't change that fact. I've seen the signs. They were LED boards. The only place you really could of packed explosives was... the battery pack? Which was used to light the damn thing! No, this is nothing more than officials trying to pass the buck. So instead of officials fessing up for a mistake, they are blaming the advertisers, cartoon network. For what? The most you could slap them with is unwanted advertising. Since when has a CEO resigned because someone plastered a sign on a private wall? This is paranoia, plain and simple

      Another phrase I hate. "[If you think/do/say such-and-such]... the terrorists have already won." I'm going to be a hypocrite here and use it. On September 11, 2001, the US was defeated by terrorism. Using the definition of terrorism as that of an act of violence intended to cause fear for political goals, then it was entirely successful. People have become to horribly terrified it's ridiculous. I don't have to beat a dead horse by listing the results of America's fears. At the risk of ending this on too political a note; giving up everything out of fear has historically not gone over very well. Feudalism, Fascism, Police States - all created because people would rather give up everything in the name of safety.

      --
      And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be bannana-shaped.
    15. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by maxume · · Score: 1

      If you got that from somewhere, where? If it's yours, nicely done.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    16. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by FireFlie · · Score: 1

      The chances that you'd rather take are irrelevant. Sure you are more skeptical, but can you imagine the shit-storm that would hit everyone involved had this not been a marketing stunt and had one or more been explosive? I'm not saying that there wasn't overreaction involved, but if there is any reason to believe that a bridge or building in a major city may be blown up there is cause for some precaution.

    17. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by Tomfrh · · Score: 1

      Anyone with half a brain (which apparently does not include the Boston PD) would have immediately known that those objects were not bombs.

      How can you immediately tell that the objects aren't bombs? No ticking red timer?

    18. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Bullshit. He was probably forced to resign because someone else at the top was pissed about a $2 million tab from the city of Boston. "Allowed" to be taken out -- my ass.

    19. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by MayorDefacto · · Score: 1

      ...But in a post-9/11 U.S.A...

      Jon Katz, is that you?

    20. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by anagama · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The biggest idiocy perpetrated in this incident was by the people who didn't think far enough ahead to anticipate that this was going to happen
      That's just paranoid raving BS -- see a neurologist about that reflexive knee jerk. People should not be expected to forsee ridiculous over-reaction. Fact is, those in charge in Boston are the sole idiots here (though some at the Cartoon Network people who appologized, paid money or quit are also idiots for caving in so easily). See for example: Cartoon Network publicity stunt sparks panic in Boston -- but not here

      From the Seattle PI article:

      "To us, they're so obviously not suspicious," said King County sheriff's spokesman John Urquhart. "They're not suspicious devices or packages. We don't consider them dangerous."

      The Associated Press reported that road workers in Woodinville found the figures, which are an advertising gimmick for a late-night TV show on the Cartoon Network. Urquhart could not confirm where the obscene-gestured whatsits were found.

      "I haven't actually seen them; I don't know how many there are or where they were found," Urquhart said. "I just know they're lighted cartoon figures. This is a joke. I really don't know the promotional point."
      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    21. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by RedWizzard · · Score: 1

      But in a post-9/11 U.S.A., the authorities have to assume things like this could be terrorist in nature and respond as if they were. You think the authorities should assume every little item that Joe Public doesn't recognise is a bomb? That is ridiculous.

      The authorities should exercise some common sense and stop assuming that the terrorists are complete morons. Bombs in movies may have flashing lights, bombs in reality do not. No terrorist is going to put up a bomb with flashing lights in plain view.

    22. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by kfg · · Score: 1

      But in a post-9/11 U.S.A.

      Well, at least you said post-9/11 U.S.A. and not post 9/11 World, so I'll give you half a Brownie point for that, but I'm still getting awfully sick of the idiotic phrase.

      Just because it's cartoony doesn't mean it should be taken less seriously.

      Taking it seriously does not mean acting like a school girl who has just had an ant crawl up her skirt.

      Bomb threats have been happening all the time and they have always been taken seriously, they just don't mean the lock down of an entire city and hours of live national TV coverage, because they are taken seriously and professionally. i.e., investigated and dealt with in a manner to not cause a public panic, which might turn out to be pointless anyway.

      Watch a frickin' suspense movie or something and see how it's supposed to be done.

      The Boston authroities themselves during the incident stated that what they were doing was for public display, it was theater, not proper bomb threat response. It isn't Turner's fault that Boston authorities decided to stage a bit psycho-drama. They have take that responsibility themselves; not that they ever will.

      If we took that attitude, next thing you know, you'd be getting shredded by a Hello Kitty full of C4 and nails.

      Every automobile is a high explosive device. You have no security. Get used to the idea.

      My ancestors helped found Boston and though I know it isn't my fault I would just like to say to everyone:

      I'm sorry.

      KFG

    23. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by alshithead · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I have to agree wholeheartedly that if he was not forced to resign that he indeed took responsibility. My problem is that he took responsibility for the morons who thought that an LED cartoon character giving the finger could be a bomb. This ad campaign took place in other cities and Boston was the only one react...overreact in this way.

      Having previously worked in DC at 1700 Pennsylvania Avenue I've seen firsthand how the "authorities" love to play with their toys. "Look, there's a small duffel bag sitting on that newspaper box...it might be a bomb. Let's blow it up because we have the means and it's fun. Crap, it was just someone's work out clothes. Well, at least we got to close down the street, run our lights and sirens, blow something up, and get on TV".

      --
      I reserve the right to think for myself. Others' opinions are optional. Puppy on lap = typos...not illiteracy.
    24. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by evwah · · Score: 1

      homer: well I don't see any bears around here... the bear patrol must be doing its job! lisa: thats specious reasoning dad... by your logic i could claim that this rock keeps away tigers. homer: well... how does it work? lisa: it doesn't! its just a stupid rock. but I don't see any tigers around.... homer: lisa, I want to BUY your rock!

    25. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by All+Names+Have+Been · · Score: 1

      Just because it's cartoony doesn't mean it should be taken less seriously.

      So let me get this straight - you're afraid of what amounts to a fucking Lite Brite stuck on a wall. You're a damned terrorist's wet dream.

    26. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Simpsons

    27. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by MrNaz · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That's a rather benign interpretation. Add a dash of cynicism, a sprinkling of conspiracy theroism and a few tinfoil hats as a garnish and you could easily conclude that the excessive terrorism threats are a way to scare populations into submitting to government control. I think High Chancellor Suttler said it best in the movie V for Vendetta:

      "What we need right now is a clear message to the people of this country. This message must be read in every newspaper, heard on every radio, seen on every television. This message must resound throughout the entire Interlink. I want this country to realize that we stand on the edge of oblivion. I want every man woman and child to understand how close we are to chaos! I want everyone to remember why they need us!"

      Everyone should see that movie, and then take a good, hard look around them.

      --
      I hate printers.
    28. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by Reverberant · · Score: 1

      But in a post-9/11 U.S.A., the authorities have to assume things like this could be terrorist in nature and respond as if they were.

      This has nothing to do with a " post-9/11 U.S.A." Even before 9/11, if you stuck a random electrical device to a public infrastruture support without informing the authorities, there was a 100% chance the bomb squad would be called, and a 95+% chance the device would get blown up. I've seen it happen, and have lots of colleagues that have had it happen to them - just ask any engineer that does public noise, air quality, water testing, or structural measurements.

    29. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by HexRei · · Score: 1

      It's highly likely that if this had happened on September 10, 2001, there wouldn't have been this kind of uproar. But in a post-9/11 U.S.A., the authorities have to assume things like this could be terrorist in nature and respond as if they were. Just because it's cartoony doesn't mean it should be taken less seriously. If we took that attitude, next thing you know, you'd be getting shredded by a Hello Kitty full of C4 and nails.

      That is ridiculous. The real fact is that there was nothing that indicated weapons, terrorism, or anything else suspicious about them. I mean, the new default now is that anytime you see anything odd, you assume its a bomb and call in the bomb squad? Please. All that means is that terrorists will disguise their bombs in REASONABLE objects, like a USPS package, or a U-haul truck, or a shoe (any of those sound familiar?). Or to use some fictional but quite feasible ideas, a potted plant, a trash can, or a "yard clippings" bag.
      He would NOT disguise a bomb in a box adorned with an image created from (expensive) blue LED's, that's fucking stupid, and just proves that the assumption that anything that is "different" is more likely to be a bomb than an ordinary everyday object is equally stupid.
      Boston overreacted, the Boston PD Chief or Comissioner or even Mayor should take some responsibility for this overreaction. Creativity should not be stifled out of blind, ignorant fear.

    30. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by insignificant_wrangl · · Score: 1

      As a former Bostonian I would only say that you might see why Boston is a bit touchy after 9/11, since Logan airport, well, you know...

    31. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If people think terrorists are going to start dressing up bombs like cartoon characters, maybe they've been watching too many Batman reruns.

    32. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      His tumble to the ground was cushioned by a platinum Parachute and softened by pillows of gold.

      The guy made more in his resignation than any of you here will make in your LIFETIME.

      poor guy, I wonder how he will survive?

    33. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by ResidntGeek · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why does anyone have to take a fall for it? It was idiocy by government officials that was the problem.

      --
      ResidntGeek
    34. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by alshithead · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "That's a rather benign interpretation. Add a dash of cynicism, a sprinkling of conspiracy theroism and a few tinfoil hats as a garnish and you could easily conclude that the excessive terrorism threats are a way to scare populations into submitting to government control."

      Well, I saw a benign interpretation for benign event. It's not like it was an unknown, bomb looking device, that had a countdown running. While I might expect a bomb to be disguised, I certainly wouldn't expect it be disguised as a cartoon figure that will DRAW attention. I also think any terrorists will choose a less attention drawing method. I certainly would. Hell, I'd stuff a bicycle frame with explosives and shrapnel and then park and lock it up in the most densely populated pedestrian traffic area I could find. Having said that, I certainly can't argue that the powers that be in the US state and federal governments might want extreme paranoia as a means for further control of the populace...ouch, I think you might have made my tinfoil hat a little tighter.

      --
      I reserve the right to think for myself. Others' opinions are optional. Puppy on lap = typos...not illiteracy.
    35. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by zakezuke · · Score: 1

      Just because it's cartoony doesn't mean it should be taken less seriously. If we took that attitude, next thing you know, you'd be getting shredded by a Hello Kitty full of C4 and nails.

      They were up for how many days? 10 days to two weeks?

      These things were basicly circuit boards with a load of D-cells, apparently with a photocell to help save battery life. We can safely assume that the power was comming from, at least in part, from the what looked like a set of d-cells. Others have pointed out that this "could have been a pipe bomb" (the ones I saw they were clearly d cells, not wraped in tape)... but given the volume required for battery power for the lights for 10 days to two weeks, plus power required to trigger a primmer, we can safely assume if there were any any incendiaries what so ever, that the volume would be pretty dang small.

      So we can assume two things

      a) This was just reader board
      b) This was an evil terrorist plot

      Now if you WANT to believe every hello kitty is packed full of high explosive and nails... you can feel free to do so. Or you can employ some reasoning skills.

      Boston was the only city it seems who decided to over react dispite being told this was a stunt brought to you by the cartoon network, a perfectly normal with the exception they used LEDs rather than plain paper. They continued to get media attention even after they disposed of a few so called bombs. They over-reacted... because it justified an extreme responce.

      --
      There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
    36. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by UserGoogol · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The occasionally Hello Kitty full of C4 and nails is an acceptable price to pay for living in a free and funny society.

      What exactly are cops supposed to look for when looking for bombs? The nature of bombs is that they are fairly easy to hide. Put them inside a computer, a cardboard box, a large melon, hello kitty dolls, inside a car, under your clothes, whatever. To try to find bombs based on what they look like is therefore largely futile and a waste of everyone's time. But on the other side, the benefits of allowing people to put crazy shit in random places is huge. In order for society to be able to grow and flourish, people (and yes, soulless entertainment corporations) need to be free to be as weird as they want as long as they aren't being explicitly harmful. Perhaps Cartoon Network could have known better, but in that this was a campaign that went across many cities and Boston only reacted the way they did after a few weeks of the ads being out, I think it's reasonable to say that the risk of this happening was fairly low, and thus that Cartoon Network can't be held too responsible for bad luck.

      Him taking the fall is understandable and probably a good PR move, but it should be pointed out that his position at the top is debatable. Cartoon Network is wholly owned by Turner Broadcasting, which in turn is wholly owned by Time Warner. He has plenty of bosses.

      --
      "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." -- Hanlon's Razor
    37. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by nuzak · · Score: 1

      > Fact is, those in charge in Boston are the sole idiots here

      Okay, the city freaked out over Lite-Brite. This can happen. The stupidity is that they continue to thrash and screech and blame and prosecute.

      Really though, you gotta wonder what kind of discount crack an advertising agency is smoking when they come up with "hey, lets scatter random and anonymous electronic devices around an airport." Shit, luggage has been blown up for less.

      --
      Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
    38. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Exactly. The story is wrong too, he isn't CEO, and he is not at the top either. Nowhere near. He is a cog in the massive Time Warner monstrosity. Talk of the buck stopping at the top is laughable.

    39. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by bladesjester · · Score: 1

      I am reminded of a quote from Bash:
      "I think Hello Kitty would be an appropriate name for a cruise missle" =]

      --
      Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
    40. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by MrNaz · · Score: 1

      US state and federal governments might want extreme paranoia as a means for further control of the populace

      That was my point, and is the whole setting for the movie I referred to earlier. It is set in a possible future UK where the government has used contrived events to spread fear and paranoia among the population to ensure obedience. After all, a population won't revolt against a government when they think that it is the government that is the only thing standing between them and total unmitigated chaos.

      --
      I hate printers.
    41. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "the authorities have to assume things like this could be terrorist in nature and respond as if they were."

      Authorities who cannot tell a joke from a real threat are the problem here. Incompetent authorities. Authorities who first shoot and then ask.

      No, no, no. Plus the post 9/11 stuff is of course complete nonsense. There is no difference before or after.

    42. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by theLOUDroom · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The irony is that this is just the sort of person you actually want at the top, and now he is gone.

      Exactly, the point is not to "take one for the team", the point is to stand up and fight until the end.

      Patton said it best:
      "The object of war is not to die for ones country, its to make the other poor bastard die for his"

      This isn't just applicable to war. It's also a lesson about life. What's better than taking the heat for someone else? Fixing the broken system and making the world a better place.

      Quitting isn't always the best solution.

      --
      Life is too short to proofread.
    43. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by psykocrime · · Score: 1

      Yeah, if anybody should be "stepping down" it's the numbnuts in the City of Boston government, FBI, DHS and whoever else overreacted to this non-event.

      --
      // TODO: Insert Cool Sig
    44. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by alshithead · · Score: 1

      " US state and federal governments might want extreme paranoia as a means for further control of the populace

      That was my point, and is the whole setting for the movie I referred to earlier. It is set in a possible future UK where the government has used contrived events to spread fear and paranoia among the population to ensure obedience. After all, a population won't revolt against a government when they think that it is the government that is the only thing standing between them and total unmitigated chaos."

      I knew that was your point...and I can't argue that point except to say that I think that most of our leaders aren't smart enough to fool those of us (in the minority) who are smarter than they are and see their possible machinations. Hell, the internet may be our savior in this case. We can debunk their shit as long as we can reach the masses. Is your scenario COMPLETELY unrealistic? I don't think so. But, and this to me is a big but, there are enough of us out there with the vision, understanding, and knowledge to help dispel that kind of extreme warping of our society. Because I see your (or the movie's) vision as a possibility is why I said my tinfoil hat was getting a little tight...and damn if it isn't pinching now.

      --
      I reserve the right to think for myself. Others' opinions are optional. Puppy on lap = typos...not illiteracy.
    45. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      That and the lack of any explosive charges. Or maybe I'm just buying into the land of hollywood fantasy where bombs are capable of exploding.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    46. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by zoltamatron · · Score: 1

      No, they don't.

      And why not? I will say that I have a problem with my civil liberties being infringed on in the name of "national security". I have a problem with the government thinking it can play big brother and invade my privacy because it is essential to "fighting terrorism". But I really don't see where the police were at fault in this situation. Nobody's rights were taken away by this action. All they did was remove and destroy some suspicious looking things that were illegally hung from bridges and overpasses. I think the lesson to be learned is that companies shouldn't do illegal things for their silly little renegade advertising.

      --
      Tolerance does not tolerate intolerance, or hypocrisy.
    47. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by Taevin · · Score: 5, Interesting

      That's the part about this that pisses me off the most. Okay, sure, the Lite-Brights are out of the ordinary (at least for being hung up about the city). I can even see how such a device could be seen as a threat to some self important official with a stick up his ass, and would not entirely blame them for doing something about it. The fact that they went completely over the top with this and started trying to prosecute people is not understandable. Why is it so hard for them to admit they were wrong? If they had just said "Oops, yeah, these things are pretty harmless. We apologize for the scare." there would be no problems and no media circus.

      I don't quite remember where they were all placed but even if they were placed around an airport, I still personally think it's an overreaction simply on technical grounds. Given the size of the devices, they would have to be attached to a plane or be within several dozen feet to cause any noteworthy damage, even if they were pure C4. Since none of them were placed on airport grounds, they posed absolutely no threat to aircraft.

    48. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by Illserve · · Score: 1

      It's also possible he was thinking of leaving anyway and Boston handed him a wonderful excuse to go out with glory... sort of.

    49. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by k2enemy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The biggest idiocy perpetrated in this incident was by the people who didn't think far enough ahead to anticipate that this was going to happen

      i think the fact that numerous signs posted in other cities caused no disruption or panic is a sure sign that boston's reaction was NOT the correct ex-ante expectation of what would happen.

    50. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're absolutely right: No one should be expected to think about what they're doing. If I take a boiling cup of coffee and pour it on myself, it's the restaurant's fault. "Jerk" yourself.

    51. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by tverbeek · · Score: 1

      Just because not everyone was alarmed by them doesn't mean it was safe to assume that no one would be. That's just short-sighted.

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    52. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by FranklinDelanoBluth · · Score: 1

      Anyone with half a brain (which apparently does not include the Boston PD) would have immediately known that those objects were not bombs.

      I don't think you listened to Ignignokt the first time: We are the Mooninites and our culture is advanced beyond all that you can possibly comprehend with 100% of your brain.

    53. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by anagama · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Q. Is it forseeable that pouring boiling water on a person will cause burns.
      A. Yes
      Q. Is it forseeable that pouring boiling water on a person will cause an earthquake in Uganda.
      A. No.
      Q. Is it forseeable that a lite-brite advertisement placed w/o permission will get taken down and a fine sent to the party who put it up w/o permission?
      A. Yes
      Q. Is it forseeable that a lite-brite advertisement placed w/o permission will cause an entire city to "duck and cover".
      A. No

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    54. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I seem to recall Cartoon Network was forced to pay damages for someone else's overreaction. Their rights weren't taken away, per se. They just were threatened with a criminal trial over someone else's overreaction, someone who, by his job description, is part of the system that prosecutes them. Now, I see that the prosecuters would rather sue someone then admit they are wrong. How long before they sue you to protect "national security" or in the interest of "fighting terrorism"? No time at ALL! They are abusing the implicit trust they receive as part of their job description, that they will not put their personal interest over the performance of their duties. If they had just removed the devices, and told Cartoon Network not to do this shit again, there wouldn't be much of a story. However, CN risked getting sued... for failing to differentiate themselves enough from terrorist activities, despite the fact, that a successful terrorist imitates legitimate activities in order to succeed as a terrorist.
      And only the legal system's lack of perception allowed the confusion to stand.

    55. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I am much more suspicious of those Hello Kitty dolls than I am of a cartoon character flicking me off. At least I know the intention of the LED character. You can't trust those damn jap toys, though.

    56. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by F452 · · Score: 1

      I love that bit.

    57. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by utopianfiat · · Score: 0

      "The object of war is not to die for ones country, its to make the other poor bastard die for his"
      "The object of war is not to die for one's country, it's to make the other poor bastard die for his"

      Life is too short to proofread indeed.

      --
      +5, Truth
    58. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by MrNaz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      there are enough of us out there with the vision, understanding, and knowledge to help dispel that kind of extreme warping of our society

      I wish I shared your faith. I have traveled extensively, and have worked in many different fields, and my experience with The Population of Earth is that unfortunately they are either too myopic, too uneducated or too busy to worry about governments' machinations. That too, is a tinfoil hat cry; That people are too myopic to see reality is a situation engineered by the masters of the mass media. That people are ignorant of politics is an engineered situation by those in charge of education. That people are too busy just making their mortgage payments is a situation engineered by the financial sector. All corporates have a similar goal: To sell stuff. A compliant, constantly consuming, politically disenfranchised public is the kind of public most willing to allow wealth to flow uphill without resisting. The corporate sector is deliberately engineering a system that people are unable to fight without catastrophic loss to themselves in the form of mortgage defaults, bankruptcy or outright criminalization under ever broadening crime and terrorism legislation. Time to invade another country, this time over tin, because I just used up the national inventory!

      --
      I hate printers.
    59. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      When I read your post during lunch today, I confused your user name and ID with my user name and ID, and, because I use the same password for my bank, I immediately canceled all my credit cards and reported it, which managed to screw up me closing on my new home at three today because I couldn't make the down payment.

      So I'm suing you for forty thousand dollars. You will be served with papers on Monday.

      Honestly, I can't believe you'd behave so recklessly, even on the internet.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    60. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by eudaemon · · Score: 1


      This is why I'm not a CEO; I would have hired actors to dress up as
      Err and Ignignot flip off Boston for the next few weeks.

    61. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by WCD_Thor · · Score: 0

      I would never have paid Boston shit. Yes, maybe he is a good leader, but he should have fought all the way to the Supreme Court if Boston sued. It was Boston's own damned fault, there is nothing wrong with a lightboard depicting a fake alien flipping you off! The city of Boston should be very ashamed of its self.

    62. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suggest reading the book. it's deeper.

    63. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by Jekler · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "...the morons who thought that an LED cartoon character giving the finger could be a bomb."

      It only looks like an LED cartoon character if you're actually familiar with the character. Otherwise it just looks like a panel of randomly placed LEDs. I believe the people who mistakenly thought it could be a bomb did so with the most earnest of intentions. It would be like throwing round red capsules that explode in a puff of smoke into subway tunnels, then being surprised that no one understands it's a pokemon marketing ploy.

    64. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How is it idiocy to raise alarms over a bunch of mysterious symbol-coded boxes appearing without warning throughout major population areas? If you leave a bulging paper sack on the floor in the middle of a crowded mall, people will get concerned. The advertisers should have known better.

      If the boxes really were part of an organized campaign of planted explosives, the government would be cheered for its foresight and training. When it's nothing, people like you shrug it off because it didn't turn out tragic this time. That's the price the authorities pay for protecting the people as the people demand.

      --
      "Sufferin' succotash."
    65. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by John+Nowak · · Score: 1

      But in a post-9/11 U.S.A., the authorities have to assume things like this could be terrorist in nature and respond as if they were.

      No they fucking don't. It's lights and four D batteries. Look at the damn with with binoculars. What happens was absurd and there's no excuse for the response by the idiots in Boston. We have the same shit in New York and no one goes fucking crazy.

    66. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by freeweed · · Score: 1

      I bet if you pour the water on a butterfly in Japan you might be able to cause that earthquake. ...

      What?

      --
      Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
    67. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by freeweed · · Score: 1

      Why is this modded Funny? It's just about the most insightful comment on this thread.

      Remember, the entire POINT of terrorism is stuff like this.

      --
      Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
    68. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by ArcherB · · Score: 0, Redundant

      I want every man woman and child to understand how close we are to chaos! I want everyone to remember why they need us!"

      Says the guy who pushes them into chaos. Isn't that kind of like causing a volcano to erupt just toprove that global warming is real? Maybe it's like knocking a building down to prove that it's not earthquake proof. How about removing a smoker's lungs to show him that smoking is dangerous.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    69. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by anagama · · Score: 2, Funny

      Perhaps if you pour boiling water on a butterfly resting on Godzilla's big toe ...

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    70. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      New York also had these devices, and and managed not to flip out like a pack of morons. And you might see why they're even more touchy about 9/11 since, you know...

    71. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by smenor · · Score: 1

      ...in a post-9/11 U.S.A. ...

      Oh come on. Are you high?

      And this got modded insightful?

    72. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by Tomfrh · · Score: 1

      What characteristics of the device precluded it containing explosives?

      Show me a tubular bundle wrapped in black plastic with wires and electronics and I'd start thinking bomb, regardless of whether there's a picture of a cartoon character attached.

    73. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

      Yes, because the NINE other cities in which the exact same campaign was run certainly went apeshit over it. This is simply the case of a company forcing a scapegoat on the issue.

    74. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      I'd rather take that chance than be forced to watch continual idiocy perpetrated by those who claim to be protecting us.

      I'm sure you were saying that on 9-10-01 also, which is why we had the problem to begin with. It's real easy to sit around say that you'll risk a terrorist attack when you know that the odds are heavily in your favor. Yes, odds are pretty low that you'll die in a terrorist attack. The idiots that "claim to be protecting us" have been busting their ass to do so. On one side, they really do have people who are trying their damnedest to kill you and they could not care less about your rules or anyone elses. On the other side are bunch a hippies screaming, "The man is listening to my phone calls (Like the NSA has nothing better to do). The Constitution is dead. George Bush is the biggest terrorist on the world. 9-11 was an inside job, man..." The rest of people who just want to feed their families, pay their mortgage and see their kids grow up. Those people are usually the victims.

      But you do have a point... those people in Boston were idiots. I notice that none of the other cities had any problems.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    75. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by imemyself · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The people who reported them - and even more so the police - should be held "responsible". I'm not saying they should be punished, but if anyone is responsible it is them for overreacting without any real evidence of a threat. OMG, there's some lights - it must be a bomb. Lets evacuate the entire city just in case!!! Things like this remind me of how stupid people are. It's kind of depressing in a way. I can understand people reporting something if there was any remote reason to think that it was a bomb. And perhaps I guess it isn't surprising that one or two people reported them. But the police should have been able to quickly determine that they weren't threats in any way shape or form. Granted, maybe that did happen, but the media just blew it out of proportion.

      --
      Every time you post an article on Slashdot, I kill a server. Think of the servers!
    76. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by pseudosero · · Score: 1

      You need to clean your house. Got clean house on your clean house. Clean house. house clean.

      --
      sometimes, nothing.
    77. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      The people that didn't forsee that the war in Iraq could possibly lead to civil war are responsible for not taking any steps at all to prevent it.


      Invading Iraq won't cause a civil war... abandoning it will. Just look at what happened in Afghanistan after we abandoned them when the Soviets pulled out. The debate for going into Iraq is over. The time to place blame is over. And it is never the right time to mix politics with war (read my sig for a prime example). When you find yourself halfway through hell, keep going. (don't remember who said it)

      Just because Fox News presents more than one side doesn't mean they are "ridiculous". I thought the idea was to get the story from multiple angles, hear all the sides, do your own research and THEN make up your own mind. I thought that blindly and thoughtlessly following what you hear was a bad thing? When did all this change?

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    78. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by Hamfist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      /me pusts on an asbestos suit and grabs a flamethrower

      Time to burn some Karma......

      I am sorry, but if you dumbfucks in the USA think that giving up all of the freedoms you held dear because 2,000 people died when thousands die yearly from more foolish causes in your country, then your brilliant marketers and others that actually show intelligence, will be jailed as enemies of the state or have their lives ruined in some other way. Any individual that ever thinks independently is going to end up jailed in your 'post 9/11' world. The only thing that truly died on 9/11 was your freedom.

      Post 9/11.... What's different? More state control? Less Freedom for Amercians in their own countries? The terrorist attacks of 9/11 were what Ronald Reagan dreamed of, yet Georgie let it happen. The great country of 'America' is dead and lost to the fascists. (yes, I'll say it). Autocratic Conservatives controlled by Corporations. Short Form.. Fascists. I used to look up to you in the US, now I pity you.

      I'm sorry for the swearing and all this, but damn this is absolutely ridiculous. An incredible marketing campaign gets several million dollars worth of fines and the guy at the top fired??? Hello!!!

      Post 9/11 world. If I hear that phrase again I'm gonna puke. Post 9/11 world .

      If any American on this forum actually thinks that a situation like this should just be chalked up to a 'Post 9/11 world', read your fucking constitution, feel half of the outrage that I'm feeling right now, and do something other than put new programs in your Tivos. Your 'Post 9/11 world' is as much a fiction as the Simpsons. /me puts away the flamethrower and takes a deep breath

      Peace out to those that are outraged about this. Not from an ATHF point of view, but a what is wrong with the US point of view. This is not a slag to the parent, which is actually a thoughtful post, but a absolutely gut-wrenching reaction to 'Post 9-11 world'. The World did not change on 9-11, you did.

    79. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by amRadioHed · · Score: 2, Informative

      What you call a "tubular bundle" most people call a battery. And contrary to what you may think, it is not uncommon to find wires and even electronics attached to such an object.

      Ok, so it was wrapped in plastic so they couldn't see the Duracell logos maybe, but what did they think was powering the lights then? High explosives don't power lights, batteries do. Think.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    80. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by FLEB · · Score: 1

      Fine for littering?

      --
      Information wants to be free.
      Entertainment wants to be paid.
      You just want to be cheap.
    81. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      Because bearing a hidden message is one thing. These things were emblazoned with obvious glowing elements. Without resorting to excessive second guessing, there's no situtation where this would represent something any terrorist would do. Your second statement can have a few noun substitutions to demonstrate how ridiculous it sounds. example: If the car parked by a minority really were part of an organized campaign of planted explosives, the government would be cheered for its foresight and training. When it's nothing, people like you shrug it off because it didn't turn out tragic this time. That's the price the authorities pay for protecting the people as the people demand. Just because something is different by no means makes it suspicious. What you're talking about is the very definition of hating freedom. When the only thing you're free to be is what people expect in their day to day lives, you're not free at all.

    82. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by pluther · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but on the bright side, think of all the terrorists who are kicking themselves now for all the time they've spent and damage to themselves they've caused messing about with bombs, now that they realize they could have brought a major metropolitan city to a grinding halt with a few lite-brites.

      Even if it does take a few weeks before anyone notices them.

      --
      If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
    83. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The guy made more in his resignation than any of you here will make in your LIFETIME.


      Hahaha LOL.

      Speak for yourself, not any of us.
    84. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by FLEB · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Obvious counter-argument: Bombs can be disguised as all manner of things. Should the bomb squad be detonating that car that's parked at an expired meter? How about the lunch bag someone threw away in the public trashcan? Is that an empty twelve-pack box someone threw out their window or... a bomb! Think of the shitstorms!

      Obvious counter-counter-argument: The examples you describe are all rather ordinary events. The lightboards were anything but, being crude electrically-powered devices of no apparent use or reason for being there. Barring other logical explanation, the authorities were right to treat the devices with suspicion.

      My Conclusion: Everyone involved should be ashamed of their lack of forethought and moderation. The bomb squad really needs to learn to chill out and better analyze the situation before saturating it with a bomb-proof material apparently consisting partially of shredded reprocessed post-consumer cash. The marketing company really needs to learn to think through the possible consequences of their actions, take reactionary idiots into account, and to provide reassuring factors in advance... say, a label saying who placed the device (hell, even a front-company name and an 800 number leading to a concerned-sounding recorded message and a voice-mailbox routed to /dev/null would suffice).

      My bonus, director's cut, generalized offtopic rant: Personally, as both a marketer and a citizen, I'm annoyed by all these "guerrilla advertising" tactics of marketers who knowingly and willingly paste, post, and plaster their advertisements all over public property-- it's like the corporate version of uninspired felt-marker taggers, adding nothing worthwhile, just pissing on hydrants for their own pleasure.

      --
      Information wants to be free.
      Entertainment wants to be paid.
      You just want to be cheap.
    85. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by Grym · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Please, don't provide any encouragement or validation to this flawed line of reasoning. As a free and open society with limited resources, we have to be prepared to accept a certain amount of risk. "Erring on the side of caution," (i.e. maximum panic-mode) for such an obviously low-risk situation is irresponsible, expensive, and counterproductive.

      Rather than live in a fantasy world where Bostonians are applauded as heroes because they disarm lite brites filled with imaginary explosives, we need to rationally think about this. Otherwise, there's no end to this madness.

      Anything could be a bomb. Can you ever rule out the possibility of "the terrorists" surgically implanting bombs within their abdominal cavities? Or what if evil terrorist surgeons implanted bombs into unknowing patients? In which case... maybe YOU could be a bomb! Maybe I'm a bomb! What if they've been at work since we were all born. Maybe... we're all bombs! So, in light of this, what should we do now? Surgically operate on everyone--just to be sure? My God! We'd be heroes, the saviors of a very thankful nation if we were right!

      So, the question is then: why should we discard my obviously silly possibility but still consider the similarly ridiculous killer lite-brite scenario?

      -Grym

    86. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by illegalcortex · · Score: 1

      New York also had these devices, and and managed not to flip out like a pack of morons. And you might see why they're even more touchy about 9/11 since, you know...
      Glad I wasn't the only one thinking that. Just thought I'd quote you for visibility since you posted AC.
    87. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by omeomi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Comedy Central should have taken it to court. Aside from small fines from littering laws, is it really even illegal to leave random stuff around a city? Just because it has a little LED guy on it shouldn't make it illegal. And seriously, why in the world would a terrorist mark their bombs with light-up cartoon characters? What sense does that even make? Not everything is a potential terrorist action. Just because the police over-reacted instead of having a bomb squad guy take a look at it and say, "no, this is more like a Lite Bright than a bomb", doesn't make it Comedy Central's responsibility to pay for everything.

    88. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by illegalcortex · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Otherwise it just looks like a panel of randomly placed LEDs
      You have got to be joking. No? Wow.
    89. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by timmarhy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      agreed this terrorist bullshit has got to stop right now. this isn't iraq with IED's randomly around the place. this is an excuse to take our freedoms.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    90. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by Wordplay · · Score: 1

      Variation on an old joke. It's usually alligator repellent, but, well, the US has alligators. :)

    91. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by Jekler · · Score: 1

      No, I'm not joking. I can see what it is, and it's obvious to me, but I'm already familiar with the show and character, so my perception is skewed. But I can understand how to anyone not familiar it just appears to be an amorphous configuration of LEDs.

    92. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by stinerman · · Score: 1

      When you find yourself halfway through hell, keep going. (don't remember who said it)
      It was Churchill if I'm not mistaken.
    93. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by FuzzyFox · · Score: 4, Informative

      It was Cartoon Network, not Comedy Central.

      --
      splunge (n) -- A good idea.. but it could be lousy... and I'm not being indecisive!
    94. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by Like2Byte · · Score: 1

      I was watching CNN (or some such news show) and they were interviewing Bostonians. One girl said, "We're still reeling from Sept 11. Boston was the launching pad for the attacks on New York City."

      I think the Joker from Batman said it all, "This town needs a enima!"

    95. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the boxes really were part of an organized campaign of planted explosives, the government would be cheered for its foresight and training.

      Foresight? Are you kidding? They were up for 2 weeks in Boston (and 10 other cities) before the government did anything.

      If doing something 2 weeks after the fact is "foresight", I've got a great stock tip for you -- this company is going to do phenomenal on the stock market, last week.

    96. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by Triv · · Score: 1

      If you leave a bulging paper sack on the floor in the middle of a crowded mall, people will get concerned.

      No. If you leave a bulging paper sack on the floor in the middle of a crowded mall, people will complain that the cleaning crews aren't doing there jobs as they step over, around and past it. And that's the way if fucking should be. Guess what? Anything, absolutely anything, could be a bomb. Anything could be dangerous. With those kinds of odds, you're way better off just living your life and trying not to hurt anyone, because you know what the alternative is? being terrorized.

      Triv

    97. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by WCD_Thor · · Score: 0

      Yes, the fine for littering is 2 million dollars, right. At least we know that they will make all that money back in a week or two from all the publicity this caused, but still, I hate the local Boston government right now for being such idiots. We don't need anymore examples of how stupid Americans are, not ever, but especially right now.

    98. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1700 Pennsylvania Ave? Is that like the McDonalds next to the White House that Bill used to stop at? ;)

    99. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      Excuse me? Iraq is already in a state of civil war. Thousands of civilians being slaughtered every year, armed rebellion in the streets, the official military can't even step outside of their controlled zones safely. I don't know what you think a civil war is, but this certainly counts.

      For those of you who haven't watched Fox News, they don't present both sides. They present their side, and then they bring in some poor caricature of an expert from a different group to mock and make fun of and never let them finish a sentence, and always cut them off when they start citing facts. It's embarassing to watch.

    100. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by MortimerV · · Score: 1

      Those images fail to show the box at the bottom I can see how someone could mistake the crudely taped-up battery pack on one of those.

    101. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      No, I believe the people who mistakenly thought it could be a bomb watched too many campy television shows where evil computers had lots of blinking lights. Really!! Tell me how many bomb experts have seen even one bomb covered in blinking LEDs drawing attention to itself... yeah, thought so.

    102. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by vux984 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It only looks like an LED cartoon character if you're actually familiar with the character.

      I'd say it would be pretty familiar to anyone who'd ever played "space invaders" too. (ie pretty much anyone under 40.)

      Otherwise it just looks like a panel of randomly placed LEDs.

      If by "random" you mean "a clear image of something giving you the finger" I suppose so. ;)

      I believe the people who mistakenly thought it could be a bomb did so with the most earnest of intentions.

      True but we don't really have much use for people who report things that aren't bombs. How many innocent cardboard boxes, guitar cases, gymbags, abandoned Dells, old speakers, and other nondescript "potentially suspicious looking" debris is lying around Boston? They could shut the city down for an entire decade with earnest intentions.

      People should know better. When I see a plane flying low I still assume its landing, not attacking the city...

      I can understand how this got out of hand but it'll happen again. Around here Telus is putting up pink flamingos all around the city as part of its latest campaign... they're hollow and in public places and they weren't there yesterday... could be a bomb in there.

      Seriously if the 'terrorists' were planting bombs everyone they'd make them look like run of the mill every day items like transformer boxes... hmm... wait... i saw a transformer box on one of the support columns in my parkade... i don't remember that being there before... excuse me...

    103. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by Jekler · · Score: 1

      Why would the public (the ones reporting sightings) be bomb experts?

    104. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by anagama · · Score: 1

      Wow. I hope you don't emigrate to America -- we don't need any more subversives than we already have.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    105. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I'd say it would be pretty familiar to anyone who'd ever played "space invaders" too.
      > (ie pretty much anyone under 40.)

      Don't you mean anyone *over* 40?

      HTH

    106. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I have to agree wholeheartedly that if he was not forced to resign that he indeed took responsibility.

      Which is far more than you can say for others. It's become a commonplace for all the idiots at the top to hang their penitent face on and say, "I accept full responsibility for [whatever].", when they suffer not the least consequence.

      Look at the asshole Bush, who accepts full responsibility for Iraq. But having said it, he got re-elected -- no consequences at all.

      Look at the word -- responsibility implies response -- it means someone will be answerable. When was the last time any of these bastards was really held to answer?

      Even the Japanese have lost the meaning of the word. In the 50s, when a company failed horribly or was found to have done a great evil, the CEO would commit suicide. Now even they just say the words and feel no repercussions.

      Accepting responsibility has become nothing more than a cheap-ass word game.

    107. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by euxneks · · Score: 1

      So, the question is then: why should we discard my obviously silly possibility but still consider the similarly ridiculous killer lite-brite scenario?

      Haven't you seen the movies? All the bombs in TV/the movies have blinking lights! It means they're armed!

      Why, if the media are lying to us, what else have we got?

      --
      in girum imus nocte et consumimur igni
    108. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by c6gunner · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Right. And then next year when some maniac makes the same device, only this time attaches a block of C4 to it, who will you hold responsible when it blows up a few dozen of your fellow citizens?

      Tell ya what, give me your address and I'll personally drop off a package at your front door. Then you can try and figure out whether it's got explosives in it or not. For added fun, you can also try and figure out whether it's wired to a pressure or mercury switch that'll set it off if you try to move it. Maybe one of your kids will see it first, before you even get home. Then you'll have the pleasure of explaining to the media how happy you are that your kid was the one who detonated it, instead of those silly cops over-reacting and sending in the bomb-squad.

      This kind of action is only considered an "over-reaction" when it turns out to be a false alarm.

    109. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Because we always deal with the easy solutions first. What are you, a child? This is like saying that most fires will burn out of control too quickly for any individual to fight 'em, therefore we shouldn't bother having fire-extinguishers. It's just stupid.

    110. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by vux984 · · Score: 1

      Don't you mean anyone *over* 40?

      Actually no. I figure anyone who was 5-20 in the 80s would have them indelibly imprinted into their brains. And that the generation that came after, while they won't have played it, should be generally aware of it through pop-culture not to mention flash games, cellphone games, ipod games... which is where all the classics are being recycled right now.

      cheers

    111. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You really have to give the 9/11 atrocity commiters some credit. Crash a few planes, and inspire scenarios of exploding C4-laden Hello Kitty dolls.

      I can guarantee all the high-powered financiers who died in the towers would each have killed their own mothers to attain the ROI the terrorists got (and still are getting) from their meager investment on 9/11.

    112. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by trentblase · · Score: 1

      Tell ya what, give me your address and I'll personally drop off a package at your front door. Then you can try and figure out whether it's got explosives in it or not.

      For added fun, he'll be waiting at his door with a shotgun. Then you can try and figure out whether it's loaded or not.

    113. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not in the slightest bit familiar with Aqua Teen Force. Never seen it. I don't even live in the USA.

      Even still, this is obviously a character of some sort. Now, I wouldn't know if it was a cartoon, comic or video game character, but I can tell that it is definitely stylised character from something like that. He looks like some sort of grumpy fellow.

      It is not a random collection of LEDs.

    114. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... top ... right.

      Ya know, when I think of New England, NE USA, etc, I think: congenitally stupid. And, Boston has proven the fatuality of my bias.

      Is there any chance of giving the NE USA to someone else? It'd sound better speaking french. The f*ckups would fit in well in Quebec or France, or where ever f*ckups seek headlines.

      Just think, they'd also be getting the Bush family!

      Just give the entire region away to any sinister government that can truly appreciate it, I say.

      Wait!

      Give it away to any sinister government that'll take it -- seeing how a bunch of f*ckups can be a hassle, and all that.

    115. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by totally+bogus+dude · · Score: 1

      It would be like saying that, if most fires did actually burn out of control too quickly for any individual to fight them. That sort of thing happens a lot, but the media doesn't report it because it's not newsworthy. Unless of course, the individual in question is a child or pet dog, in which case it makes a great feel-good story. ;)

    116. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm probably not going to be much noticed in this discussion being AC and all, but I have to ask an important question.

      You, me and everyone else with an opinion has debated whether this device could or should be interpreted as a possible threat. You say it is understandable that it would be seen as a threat, other's say the opposite, but I haven't really seen anyone answer, or even ask, the most important question. This event is over, so we're looking at it with hindsight, but the more important question is how do we determine what is acceptable in the future?

      When I hear people say that it "had wires and lights" and that it had a box attached that "could have been full of explosives," I picture an amazingly high number of devices that fit those descriptions. When I hear that the police "couldn't take any chances," I picture each of those devices being confiscated and deactivated. When I hear "the company should have know better" than to place something that could "obviously" be considered a threat in public, I picture all the things that me or my friends do and I have no choice but to wonder what exactly we need to be more careful about to avoid this kind of reaction?

      It's an important question. People use words like "obvious," but it is not so obvious to me what is right and what is wrong here.

      If we decide based on actual threat significance, all of our cars are going to be confiscated. Not only are they capable of holding a very large amount of explosives, but they've been on the short list of terrorist-preferred bomb delivery methods for quite some time. Since they have the capability plus an actual history of danger, we should be very worried about them, right?

      I think most people would see this argument as absurd. We need our cars, and cars are common. We can't just go around labeling every car as suspicious. It's just common sense. At least that's what I hear everyone saying in my head, but that gets me to my second potential criteria for deciding whether something could be considered a threat. Is it unusual, does it have a compartment big enough to house a bomb, and does it have some electronic gear attached. That seems to be what many of these people are labeling "suspicious."

      I routinely carry around a cell phone and I often have a portable game console with me. Sometimes I have a laptop. Most people would recognize these as common, and they would not cause suspicion. They're also arguably too small to house a bomb. Like many people, I have a couple of game consoles at home as well, but I don't commonly carry them with me and they're never turned on with a batter pack and slung under my arm. If I did this, for example to play a game on a small LCD in public, would it be unusual enough to get attention? Should I take some precautions to let people know the device is ok? In the groups of people I tend to associate with, this would be slightly unusual, but immediately recognized as innocuous. To an elderly woman, such a box might go unrecognized and cause alarm.

      But what if I wasn't carrying a PS2(full sized old one), but an unusual computer of about the same size. It's a mini-itx in a clear case with two hard drives, a battery pack and plenty of lights. It's basically a fancy DVR that I jazzed up a little to make it look "cool" including hiding the drives and batter behind a metal shelf for a clean appearance. It's only recognizable as a computer by someone fairly knowledgeable about such things, and even then only if they take a moment to look a little closer. Basically, until further inspection, it's just a box with a bunch of lights and electronics with a boxed off area plenty big enough to house a bomb. It is very unusual compared to what people are used to seeing on a daily basis, but it's really just a common computer on the inside. Should it be "obvious" to me that people might become alarmed and should I take special precautions to warn them that it's not dangerous? If I accidentally leave it at the bus stop, should I expect th

    117. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by hey! · · Score: 1

      My guess is that there are other things going on, possibly between him and the board.

      2M is a lot of money, but in the grand scheme of things the publicity they got could have been priceless, and offset at least some of the cost. A CEO who had a solid relationship with the board and who was happy where he was wouldn't take the fall for something like this. If asked to, he'd fight.

      Putting the blame on Boston is a way of avoiding an ugly confrontation. If, instead of going down in a fight, he honorably takes the bullet for the company, his reputation is not only preserved, it's enahced.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    118. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When was the last time an idiot put LEDs on a bomb, I mean geez, a dodgy looking alarm clock, a battery and a tub of what looks like cooking fat... that's a bomb.

    119. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by hey! · · Score: 1
      You are absolutely right.

      The problem with terrorism is that it adapts to find the weak spot. This makes it very difficult to practice terrorism response because you don't know the form it will take. This creates a challenge: finding a point at which you can set the paranoia meter so that you have an "acceptable" level of false positives and an "acceptable" level of false negatives.

      There may not even be such a point.

      The upshot is that you can't plan out a perfect terror response plan. You have to learn by experience, and over time we'll get better at it. Keeping this in mind, we should be prepared to accept false positives and learn from them, doing better next time. Better to learn from false positives than to learn from false negatives, which will set the response mode back to maximum paranoia.

      Public officials should own up to this. The impact of terror is to shatter our false sense of security with devastating effects. It is costly to live with a moderate feeling of insecurity, but preferable than changing course abruptly on the premise "everything has changed." Saying that 9/11 changed everything is to evade responsibility. The fact is 9/11 showed how our perceptions of our security were wrong, and we overreacted. In the grand scheme of things, the overreaction in Boston was not so great as our overreaction to 9/11, nor as costly in lives and treasure.

      Given the size of the devices, they would have to be attached to a plane or be within several dozen feet to cause any noteworthy damage, even if they were pure C4.


      I agree there was no chance that the devices could have harmed the structures they were attached to. The problem comes down to this: you have to assume when faced with a potential terror situation that the potential terrorists are going after something you hadn't thought of yet. On 9/11, instead of hijacking the plane, they used the fuel laden planes as bombs. Likewise, maybe they aren't tying to blow up the bridge, but do something else.

      Think like a terrorist. Here's an example. What did you see in NYC on 9/11? Masses of people trying to get out of the city.

      So -- what if you placed devices to kill or injure people fleeing the city. Small, innocuous looking devices loaded with BBs and nails, placed in subway stations and point of concentration for pedestrian traffic.

      We've just had a dress rehearsal for just that scenario. The question is, what have we learned?
      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    120. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was a rouge device magnetically attached to public bridges and subways. Upmost caution was certainly warranted.

      The guys responsible for security didn't know what this stuff was - it was daytime, and the LEDs were not glowing. Ever notice that it's practically impossible to see a pattern of LEDs when they're all OFF? Everyone knows that - those who claim that this device was obvious never saw one in daylight.

      The guys responsible for marketing (even gorilla marketing firms), know that they have to get permission before attaching their equipment or markings to public or private infrastructure. These guys simply did not know how to do their job. Amateur.

      Oh, and gluing electronic advertising to things around a city does not make you an artist. It makes you a guy who puts up advertising. Nothing more.

    121. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by Jekler · · Score: 1

      How would I know whether or not people put LEDs on a bomb? The only thing I know about bombs is from Hollywood, I imagine the same is true for the majority of the population. If things had turned out differently I could imagine exactly the opposite thing being said to someone:

      "Why the hell didn't the idiot call the cops? With all those LEDs it was obviously a bomb."

    122. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by westlake · · Score: 1
      /me pusts on an asbestos suit and grabs a flamethrower

      just who do you think you're kidding? no asbestos suit required. you got the predictable +5 mod and are wholly in sync with the group think here.

    123. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by q-the-impaler · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I concur. These boxes didn't have Arabic on them only flashing lights. While I still think that a terror attack is a real threat, the terrorism is obviously working as planned. Al-Qaeda has disrupted our lives and Boston just propagated that fear. It's good that Boston was paying attention, but then again they wasted 2 million dollars on a false alarm. Nice detective work, boys.

      --
      Sierra Tango Foxtrot Uniform
    124. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, the question is then: why should we discard my obviously silly possibility but still consider the similarly ridiculous killer lite-brite scenario? Insightful? Not really, as your words suggest that the media, the public, and officials could instantly determine that these rouge devices, magnetically attached to public infrastructure without permission, were lite-brite based marketing devices.

      You do know that the devices were NOT glowing when they were found, due to the fact that they have a light sensor that only switched on the LEDs in the dark, right?
    125. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      t's highly likely that if this had happened on September 10, 2001, there wouldn't have been this kind of uproar. But in a post-9/11 U.S.A., the authorities have to assume things like this could be terrorist in nature and respond as if they were

      A "post-9/11 USA" is now being used to justify all manner of bureaucratic idiocy. As citizens, we depend on our governments to make reasoned, ration policy decisions based in reality and rationality. When some guy shuts down a city over a battery powered lamp without even determining what it is, I absolutely agree that the buck stops at the top. Mayor Menino should step down

    126. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, the price of eternal safety is freedom... and you think that's the way it should be?

      If the Patriots who created our country in the first place had thought the way you do, we'd still be colonists. They cared more for freedom than for safety - that's why they lost their own lives, and caused many others to lose their lives, fighting for that freedom. If they'd wanted safety, they could just have kissed King George's feet and paid their unfair taxes instead, and had the British Empire to protect them from the nasty scary tewwowists.

      I'm ashamed to share a nationality with people like you.

    127. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      To me, the fact that he took the fall for it is an ironic sign of good leadership. Not many at the top would allow themselves to be taken out over an incident like this. It probably means that he is a good leader, and understands responsiblity, and stepped up to take the heat.

      You are correct, despite the idiotic AC (but I'm redundant) follow-ups. He sounds like the type who actually made decisions and took the heat for them; which results in loyalty and a willingness on the part of subordinates to be creative and take chances because they know they won't be sacrificed for an honest failure. For a network that means they'll be more likely to have hits and be viewed as cutting edge; which brings in viewers and ad revenue.

      The irony is that this is just the sort of person you actually want at the top, and now he is gone.

      I suspect he will quickly show up elsewhere (assuming he wants to); I doubt a network will hold this against him. They'll probably see it as a chance to grab a star. The entertainment industry is very forgiving *if* you deliver hits. I'd bet that failure at the box office or TV is the only unforgivable sin an executive can commit.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    128. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      This kind of action is only considered an "over-reaction" when it turns out to be a false alarm.

      Thus, the logical way to do things would be to assume that any thing not proven to be harmless is indeed a bomb and specialists need to come and defuse/safely detonate it.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    129. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by Jesus_666 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Storm. Butterflies cause storms. I don't know what's responsible for earthquakes - moles, perhaps.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    130. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      I've always heard it as elephant repellent; something along the lines of...

      "What're you spraying?"
      "Elephant repellent."
      "But there aren't any elephants around here!"
      "I know - it works pretty well, doesn't it?!"

    131. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by osgeek · · Score: 1

      I had never seen the show before. I didn't find the outline of the character to be confusing. It was a misunderstanding, lesson learned. Move on without prosecution, please.

    132. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by illegalcortex · · Score: 1

      Thank you SO much for those pictures, especially that first one. Remember, the post I was replying to claimed if you didn't know who the characters were "it just looks like a panel of randomly placed LEDs". Unbelievable.

    133. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by SCHecklerX · · Score: 1

      It's highly likely that if this had happened on September 10, 2001, there wouldn't have been this kind of uproar. But in a post-9/11 U.S.A., the authorities have to assume things like this could be terrorist in nature and respond as if they were. Just because it's cartoony doesn't mean it should be taken less seriously. If we took that attitude, next thing you know, you'd be getting shredded by a Hello Kitty full of C4 and nails.


      That's ludicrous. This is what Bruce Schneier coined as a "Movie Plot Threat". If these really were bombs, then the city's response was abysmal. They were up for at least 2 weeks, in plain public view!

      You cannot constantly be looking for a specific avenue of attack. This does nothing but, uh, incite terror. So who are the real terrorists here? Living in fear is not an answer. Proper security policy in general is. Stop with all the knee-jerk reactions, and useless 'security' programs, and focus on what will actually protect us.

      The last similar thing to hit us was the "liquids on airplanes" crap. That threat was mitigated not by nonsense at airports, but by good investigation work. Do you really think that a terrorist organization will use airplanes again? No, like anything, they will go the path of least resistance. Don't get me started on the removal of shoes (even flip flops) nonsense at the gates. It's a good thing that guy wasn't the 'underwear bomber'.
    134. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by FireFlie · · Score: 1

      The lightboards were anything but, being crude electrically-powered devices of no apparent use or reason for being there. Barring other logical explanation, the authorities were right to treat the devices with suspicion. My point exactly. BTW, I am not a marketer however I couldn't agree more about this style of marketing.
    135. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by illegalcortex · · Score: 3, Informative

      Even better, as posted in the other reply: the sign in broad daylight in context of where it was hung

      Please, for the love of all that is sane and logical, admit that this looks nothing like a random collection of LEDs, no matter who you are.

    136. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by notnAP · · Score: 2, Informative
      why should we discard my obviously silly possibility but still consider the similarly ridiculous killer lite-brite scenario?

      Your completely logical argument only applies here if you make the assumption this situation was "similarly ridiculous [sic]"

      The only debate here is whether or not these devices could or should have been mistaken for bombs. The first device reported to the police was found on a support beam for a major highway bridge in a spot practically no one would ever see it - perfect spot for a bomb, not so perfect spot for an advertisement.

      However, while I can understand treating that discovery a little more cautiously, that was at 8:18AM. The city government (along with the feds) disrupted the city for another 12 hours after. I don't think the city overreacted on that first one. I'm not so sure I want to take the side that the city didn't overreact for the rest of the day.

      And I certainly don't want to take the side that "you can distribute crudely constructed electrical devices throughout a city and be free of responsibility for it." You can't yell fire in a theatre when it's not, no matter how much you believe in the first amendment. By the same argument, you can't haphazardly make it look like the theatre is on fire when it's not, either.

    137. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by Aptgetupdate · · Score: 1

      And then next year when some maniac makes the same device, only this time attaches a block of C4 to it, who will you hold responsible when it blows up a few dozen of your fellow citizens

      Umm...the maniac...?

      Let's put it back to you: And then next year when some maniac makes (billboards, mailboxes, bicycles, a backpack he's wearing, his own briefcase in his hand) with a block of C4 attached, who will you hold responsible when it kills, because the PD doesn't randomly search everyone/thing you see on the street, in a constant bombhunt?

      Tell ya what, give me your address and I'll personally drop off a package at your front door.

      Fine. I'm not in the habit of indulging such extreme self-importance that I believe there's a terrorist group coming after me, personally. Or that if they were, they wouldn't just shoot me, that they'd need to make a grand production out of my death. I'm a nobody. So are you.

      I just don't see what any of this has to do with the scare. Not everything's a polar extreme...you can do something in between "nothing at all" and "treat the entire city like its under attack."

    138. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by nwbvt · · Score: 1

      "It's highly likely that if this had happened on September 10, 2001, there wouldn't have been this kind of uproar. "

      Of course there would be. I'm really sick of this whole "this only happened because of 9/11" attitude. Do people really have such a short memory that you cannot remember back what pre-9/11 life was like? We were not completely ignorant of terrorism, skipping around in a field of flowers, singing about how great life is. In fact, we thought we had been through a lot with the unabomber, Oklahoma City, and the Atlanta Olympics bombing. We got more of our collective fear of suspicious packages from those incidents than 9/11 when they used planes, not bombs. And we heard plenty of stories from overseas, from suicide bombings in Israel to the IRA bombings in the UK. Even Al Queda wasn't exactly unfamiliar to us, with the Cole bombing. And of course Hollywood fed plenty of bombing nightmares to us, from The Siege to Die Hard 3. There were bomb scares before 9/11, and there will be bomb scare far into the future.

      --
      Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
    139. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by Aptgetupdate · · Score: 1

      I agree there was no chance that the devices could have harmed the structures they were attached to. The problem comes down to this

      The post was responding to someone's mention that they were "in an airport" and that is why the city freaked out -- "airline security" and all that. It was refuting that, saying they weren't in an airport, or even within damage-range of an airport.

      We already know a bomb can hurt us. Your scenario doesn't contribute anything to the inquiry, "is assuming EVERYthing is about to hurt us, a reasonable way to exist?"

      Think like a terrorist. Here's an example. What did you see in NYC on 9/11? Masses of people trying to get out of the city. So -- what if you placed devices to kill or injure people fleeing the city.

      That's completely silly. You're saying someone believed they made these highly visible devices on bridges and tunnels, in hopes that it would scare people into fleeing into those bridges and tunnels?

      That's even beside the point that you suggested a massive, complicated attack; getting an entire city to flee in panic just to have a few dozen people killed by nailbombs.

    140. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only debate here is whether or not these devices could or should have been mistaken for bombs.

      Anything can be mistaken for a bomb. Among the goals of a good terrorist is to disguise his bomb so the authorities don't worry about it. The correct debate to have is whether the appropriate response to a "suspicious" package is to spend millions of dollars shutting down a city and inciting general panic or to investigate these packages and determine what they are, in order to make a rational, measured response.

      The Boston response is a failure of leadership, plain and simple.

    141. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by zzsmirkzz · · Score: 1

      You know what, that is the most completely baseless opinion I have ever heard. With out the "New England" there would never have been this United States. And yes, there are stupid people living here, but they are everywhere else as well. However, this region still has many true patriots (myself one of them), who despise any impediments to their freedom. I mean look at Maine, the first state with the balls to tell the feds to screw with their National ID cards. They are also one of only two states that do not use a Winner-take-all system for the distribution of electoral votes, which by the way is one the greatest problems in this country when it comes to removing the encumbents (and their parties) from power and getting some real people with good ideas and intentions in who migth actually give a fuck about your or me, and do something to help us, rather than whatever lines their pockets with gold.

    142. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by holistah · · Score: 1

      Didn't you ever see the toy robot in Kentucky Fried Movie?!?! guy 1: What is it? guy 2: A toy robot! guy 1: A toy robot? *laughs* *machine gun fire*

    143. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by DrLang21 · · Score: 1

      "only looks like an LED cartoon character if you're actually familiar with the character." LEDs... C4.... Yeah I usually can't tell the difference either.

      --
      I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
    144. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't yell fire in a theatre when it's not, no matter how much you believe in the first amendment.

      Unless you're having a fire practice. Which, of course, is just as dangerous as any other time that you shout fire when there isn't one. Seriously, can we drop this ludicrously outdated 'fire' analogy? If you think that screaming fire at your local theatre will get people trampled to death then report the problem NOW. This isn't the nineteenth century any more.
    145. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by notnAP · · Score: 1
      As I said in my message, I don't want to make the argument the city didn't overreact at all. Even if you grant my argument that the response to the initial device on the bridge support column was not an overreaction, at some point during the day they should have figured out there was no real threat. Any disruption after that point was an overreaction.

      But you (anonymously) argue that the goal of successful terrorists is to disguise their bombs, ergo the city should assume anything that looks like it could be a bomb is safe. Thank God you're not the police chief in my town.

      Line up the facts about the first one the police saw:
      1) positioned on a bridge column - a structural support to a major artery (not exactly prime ad space)
      2) obvious electrical components, including a circuit board and sensors
      3) a seemingly anti-societal "message" - a character chucking the finger. Not exactly "yankee go home" or "Death to the USA," but easily conceivable as a message (part of many terrorists' SOP).
      4) no obvious explosive substance, but the device is large enough to cover an area large enough behind it to hide adequate explosives for some damage.

      I have no problem with police shutting down the bridge while checking it out. If you don't for this, what would you do it for? This? Oh, wait. I forgot. Police should only react if it doesn't look like a bomb. Come to think of it, as a GP stated in his "ridiculous [sic]" scenario, you don't look like a bomb. Would you mind waiting over here while we check you out?
      Had this been found on the side of a bar, the reaction would have been less. Had this been found in a dumpster, it would have been ignored. But planted on a highway support column where few people would see it?

      OK, so fast forward to a few hours later, the city still acting like planes are en route to the Hancock Tower and Prudential building... I'm not sure when I would say the city crossed over from cautious to stupid, but I don't know anyone outside of city hall who thinks they didn't make the cross over at some point, myself included.

    146. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by Mikey-San · · Score: 1

      How is it idiocy to raise alarms over a bunch of mysterious symbol-coded boxes appearing without warning throughout major population areas? If you leave a bulging paper sack on the floor in the middle of a crowded mall, people will get concerned. The advertisers should have known better.

      If the boxes really were part of an organized campaign of planted explosives, the government would be cheered for its foresight and training. When it's nothing, people like you shrug it off because it didn't turn out tragic this time. That's the price the authorities pay for protecting the people as the people demand.


      So tell me, have you actually seen any of the "boxes"? They weren't boxes at all; they were flat boards with lights. Batteries were attached to the bottom. That's right: the fattest part was the clearly visible power source.

      http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/dayart/20070131/226S uspicious_Devices_NY204_612959731012007.jpg

      Note that this is lying flat on a table. WHERE DO YOU PUT THE BOMB?

      --
      Mikey-San
      Karma: +Eleventy billion (mostly affected by watching Celebrity Jeopardy)
    147. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by eeyoredragon · · Score: 1

      You're so right! It makes so much sense! I'm going to start making bombs that look like... lightbulbs, a vacuum cleaner, forks.... muffins! Then you can go around with a police escort whenever you leave your little 10x10 padded cell yay! Your logic has shown me the way. (Thank god you brought kids into it, because I had almost misse the point. You probably shouldn't let them leave the cell until their adults. It only sounds like an over-reaction until one of them explodes!)

    148. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by alshithead · · Score: 1

      "1700 Pennsylvania Ave? Is that like the McDonalds next to the White House that Bill used to stop at? ;)" :) No the McDonalds address is 17th St. 1700 Penn is on the corner of 17th and Penn directly across from the Old Executive Building with G Street running down the side of the building parallel to Penn. Maybe you would be familiar with the Starbucks there, or perhaps, The Exchange sports bar at 1730 Penn? ;)

      --
      I reserve the right to think for myself. Others' opinions are optional. Puppy on lap = typos...not illiteracy.
    149. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by wondafucka · · Score: 1
      Right. And then next year when some maniac makes the same device, only this time attaches a block of C4 to it, who will you hold responsible when it blows up a few dozen of your fellow citizens?

      Tell ya what, give me your address and I'll personally drop off a package at your front door. Then you can try and figure out whether it's got explosives in it or not. For added fun, you can also try and figure out whether it's wired to a pressure or mercury switch that'll set it off if you try to move it. Maybe one of your kids will see it first, before you even get home. Then you'll have the pleasure of explaining to the media how happy you are that your kid was the one who detonated it, instead of those silly cops over-reacting and sending in the bomb-squad.

      This kind of action is only considered an "over-reaction" when it turns out to be a false alarm.

      Living in a country where people like you overpopulate and elect our current batch of public officials makes me want to plant bombs. Unfortunately, the worst side effect of terrorism (and this is where they truly win) is that their actions empower and embolden the right wing hardasses. It's like chinese finger cuffs. The only way to get out of them is to relax. So: (petting the back of your head) there there, nothing bad is going to happen to you honey. It'll be okay. There there.

    150. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by northstarlarry · · Score: 1
      . . . in his "ridiculous [sic]" scenario. . .

      That's the second time you've used that [sic] when quoting "ridiculous", implying that you think it's spelled wrong, and of course from there making the secondary implication that the person who wrote it is a mouth-breathing bag of boogers who should not, under any circumstances, be listened to.

      But it's not spelled wrong; ridiculous is correct.

    151. Re: Buck Stops At The Top by Wrangler · · Score: 1

      This post completely missed the point. The Aqua Teen marketing tools (and I have a picture of myself next to one - they are completely non-threatening, even if you have no idea who the Moonenites are) were placed in several cities. Only one city's authorities went ape-shit, and only one city has public officials and "authorities" who should be ashamed and who deserve to be fired from their appointed posts. Cartoon Network, and it's CEO - regardless of his noble gesture - are both blameless victims of the idiocy and paranoia.

      Personally I think that it's incredibly cool and noble of CN's CEO to take the step of accepting responsibility to save his company from long and expensive litigation. Other companies should be clamoring to hire this man as the head of their enterprise. I don't think that he had to or should have, but it's cool and noble and self-sacrificing and you can't fault someone for that.

      Sad results of this public embarrassment - going forward, marketing companies' lawyers are going to make them put labels on all their public displays saying something idiotic like "This is a marketing tool, this is not an IED. For identification and confirmation please call 555-1334" or something equally banal.

      The mass hysteria in Boston was caused by the overreaction of some uneducated plebe on a bus who saw something that they didn't recognize and reported it as a terrorist bomb. That person should be arrested for filing a false police report and should be held responsible for the payment of all expenses incurred.

      Truly, US foreign policy decisions and a failed education system (which lines the pockets of the upper echelon at the expense of the children) have wrought this paranoia. The US population is ill-equipped intellectually to deal with the modern world.

      Grow a spine, you lazy Americans! Read books. Learn. Inquire. Experience. This country used to be populated with great thinkers. Something happened - something called Television. We got lazy and lost our spines. This media circus - and all like it - are the result. Turn off your TV and start reading today, otherwise "pride" soon may no longer be a word to be used in the same sentence as "America".

      AFA the part about "...in a post-9/11 U.S.A., the authorities have to assume things like this could be terrorist in nature and respond ..." it must be pointed out that American taxpayer money pays to train these so-called "authorities" to identify potential threats. Boston's authorities all need to be replaced as they are idiots and cannot identify a harmless marketing tool as non-threatening.

      Citizens of Boston, in the true spirit of your Colonial forefathers, I urge you to run those moronic "authorities" out of town on a rail or toss them into the harbor.

      Yes, for now "Boston" has become synonymous with "idiocy" and paranoia. We reserve our pity for you pending your response to this embarrassment.

      =;^)

    152. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Under 40? Try under 50-55. Anyway the point shouldn't have to depend on recognition. They can say all they want in Boston, but there's simply no excuse for their reaction if they're going to treat things that are obviously not bombs like bombs.

      Just being cautious? No, just being stupid... in front of the world.

    153. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True but we don't really have much use for people who report things that aren't bombs. How many innocent cardboard boxes, guitar cases, gym bags, abandoned Dells, old speakers, and other nondescript "potentially suspicious looking" debris is lying around Boston? They could shut the city down for an entire decade with earnest intentions.

      That kind of behavior could be attributed to an emotionally scarred paranoid who suffers from an enhanced fight-or-flight reflex.

      Sounds like we have a case of societal Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome. What's the prescribed treatment for this?

    154. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 1

      Ever notice that it's practically impossible to see a pattern of LEDs when they're all OFF? Everyone knows that - those who claim that this device was obvious never saw one in daylight.
      I've never seen the show. Some of the pictures people have linked to on this article show the devices in daylight. I recognized it easily for what it is.

      Maybe instead of being such a paranoid asshat, you should actually look at the world around you. Everything you don't recognize isn't automatically a bomb.

      Open the hood of your car. Do you understand all the components of your engine and what they do? No? Call the bomb squad! It's gonna blow!!

      Go into a research lab at a local university. Every piece of equipment that you don't personally understand what it does is worth calling the police over?


      The real point isn't even what the police/bomb squad did over this. The way I see it is, there's so much crap laying around that could potentially be a bomb, and obviously none of them have ever gone off. It would be trivial for any terrorist to plant a bomb in anything, in any city in America, or Canada, but it hasn't happened.

      I've been saying that 9/11 was nothing more than a big, splashy fluke for years, and this just gives me more evidence. If terrorists really wanted to blow anything else up, they could have done it on September 12, 2001. Then again on the 13th, and again on every day since. And there's jack all we could do about it, because they're always one step ahead of us thinking of new places to plant bombs.

      Maybe the fact that they haven't, regardless of how easy it is, means there aren't all the terrorist baddies that the authorities say there are.
      --
      "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
    155. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      they bring in some poor caricature of an expert from a different group to mock and make fun of and never let them finish a sentence, and always cut them off when they start citing facts.

      Funny how I see those same experts on all the other networks as well. Some of these "experts" even work for left-wing outlets. Juan Williams and Maria Liason are big names on both Fox News and NPR. They are respected, integral parts of the shows they host or act as "the panel". I have never seen either one of these two ridiculed or not allowed to make their point. They are on Fox's payroll to make those points.

      Maybe you should watch sometime.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    156. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by MobyDisk · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem with that reasoning is that you conclude that the police should detonate everything, because anything could be a bomb. There is a the potential risk that this piece of mail I just received has anthrax. It's possible my ThinkGeek order has a bomb in it. By your reasoning, I should call the police and have them detonate it just to be sure. Life is about risks - and blowing up every random LED sign is playing it too safe.

    157. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by __aapbzv4610 · · Score: 1

      but they weren't boxes! it was a circuit board with LEDs and batteries attached. Until we have paper-thin sheets of high explosives, it's really not that threatening.

    158. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by siriuskase · · Score: 1

      That joke is much older than the Simpsons, it was in the Parent Trap, you know the old movie starring Haley Mills. Only they were hitting sticks to repell bears, which might actually work, if there were bears in the area. Actually, they managed to ironically turn the joke around on the jokers since they eventually did manage to accidentally attract bears with honey when they thought there were no bears. An extra level of complexity there, ah, the good old days of kids movies.

      --
      If you must moderate, please moderate as irrelevent, not something bad, because I'm sure someone will find this interest
    159. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by HumanEmulator · · Score: 1

      The city of Boston can't admit they made a mistake because if they said they screwed up and let the whole thing go then the MARKETERS WILL HAVE WON.

    160. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by Deliveranc3 · · Score: 1

      If I got the police to shoot you it would only be an over-reaction if you weren't thinking of doing as you said.

      The real equation goes probability of bad thing x consequences vs cost of reaction.

      In this case probability -> 0

      QED.

    161. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by KanSer · · Score: 1

      Oh come on. Really? Al Qaeda?

      Hey, have I got a conspiracy theory for you: Apparently, 19 men spent a few years crawling through Afghani fox-holes and learning the latest box-cutter kung fu. They then all made their way to America, eluding several major civil and Federal authorities tasked with preventing their entry. They then coordinated an attack on airliners, once again evading the FAA, the CIA, the FBI, the NSA, the police, and the TSA. They then took over these fully loaded planes with extremely rudimentary and un-threatening weapons.

      Pretty crazy, huh?

      They then took their modicum of flight training (flight training allegedly done by recent Arab visitors/immigrants) and used it to fly some very complex planes on very precise trajectories exactly into their targets of intention (most of their alleged targets, anyway).

      Anyways, we were obviously busy with other things. http://english.aljazeera.net/news/archive/archive? ArchiveId=18646

      --
      • MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward Wednesday April 20, @4:20
    162. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by notnAP · · Score: 1

      oops.
      /egg on face

    163. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Uh because it's obviously a stupid way to deploy explosives in a city. I haven't even seen the show (nor intend to ever see it), but its definitely over reaction. Sure they should be fined for littering or whatever it takes to clean up. But all that because stupid people thought it was a bomb? What next? What if some stupid paranoid nut claims your Xbox/Modded PC/flashlight/whatever you left on the library table (while getting a book) or put in the trash/car/etc is a bomb? You willing to get in _big_ trouble for that, just because it's now AOK to overreact to stuff "just to be on the safe side"?

      Yeah right like that makes you safer.

      A sack or bag can contain a bigger threat than those silly things. Cars, vans, trucks = even better. Fill with explosives. Drive to location. Leave the area. BOOM.

      All this overreaction doesn't make you more secure AND they have lots of costs.

      This was just as bad as those people kicking up a big fuss over some sikhs wearing turbans.

      If anything, widespread ignorance is what makes you guys less safe. If there were fewer ignorant people, the US wouldn't be spending billions and lives in Iraq encouraging more and more people to hate the USA.

      --
    164. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Let's put it back to you: And then next year when some maniac makes (billboards, mailboxes, bicycles, a backpack he's wearing, his own briefcase in his hand) with a block of C4 attached, who will you hold responsible when it kills, because the PD doesn't randomly search everyone/thing you see on the street, in a constant bombhunt?
      There is a MASSIVE difference between failing to defuse a bomb because you had no way to know about it, and failing to defuse a bomb that people called in and told you about, but you just decided not to take it seriously. How would you propose handling these situations, exactly.
    165. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by pclminion · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The evil genius of Osama bin Laden was to realize that there is a "critical switch" in American psychology that he could flip. He doesn't have to take us down himself, just set the process in motion and watch as the government and society slowly destroy themselves.

    166. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by c6gunner · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Eh, no Mr Bomb expert, we shouldn't "detonate" everything, but when the police get a possible bomb called in, they have to take it seriously. If they treat it like a real bomb and it turns out to be a hoax, the worst that happens is that they waste some time, people get excited, and clueless idiots on slashdot get a new topic to rant and rave about. On the other hand, if they treat it like a joke and it turns out to be a real bomb, the bomb squad suddenly gets reduced in size, some women and kids get to cry over flag-draped coffins, and assholes everywhere get to mutter and laugh about "dumb cops".

      Since you're such an explosives expert, why don't you outline what changes should be made to bomb-squad policy in order to avoid these incidents in the future? Hell, I've got an idea! Next time they have a bomb threat, they can just call up you and the other slashdot nerds! Your linux experience will come in real handy while you're on your hands and knees, with your face inches away from what could be a live explosive. Then you can show all those dumb comps what a joke their job really is!

    167. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by causality · · Score: 1

      Glad I wasn't the only one thinking that. Just thought I'd quote you for visibility since you posted AC.

      Well aren't you just a charitable *cough*karma-whoring*cough* kind of motherfucker!

      Signed, Some Other AC.
      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    168. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      "And seriously, why in the world would a terrorist mark their bombs with light-up cartoon characters? "

      To be fair, the Gov't keeps telling us the terrorists want to kill us. The media has picked this message up and sensationalized the heck out of it. The great fear is that somebody WILL try something like that, succeed, then have this horrible question asked: "When this was found, why didn't anybody report it?" Back in the days shortly after Columbine, a child (6 years old, I think) picked up a piece of chicken at lunch, pointed it at his teacher, and went "bang bang". The teacher reported it, and the letters WTF appeared over people's heads all over the country. It was silly of the teacher to do that, but I'm sure she was spooked by the idea if that kid eventually DID do something, that little incident would have been brought down on her like a ton of bricks.

      In other words, I agree with you that it should have gone to court. In this environment, though, I can see why people reported it. It sucks. We have a tendency to punish people when hindsight is 20/20.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    169. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by DogDude · · Score: 1

      You could say the same thing about any object on the planet. ANYTHING could be a bomb. Trash cans, cars, streetlights, fire hydrants, hell, even a potted plant. You can run around being afraid that everything you see is a bomb. Fine. I think that most rational people understand that it's impossible to live when you're worried that every object that you don't know hat it is is a bomb. It's called common sense.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    170. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by boobavon · · Score: 1

      It's an over-reaction because no one stopped to ask the question what the hell is it. A large portion of the younger generation in Boston is bound to know what they're looking at and perfectly able to say its not a frickin bomb.

      It's an overreaction not because it turned out to be a false alarm, but because so many of us who look at it know exactly what we're looking at-a funny lite bright.

    171. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by TheFlamingoKing · · Score: 1

      : )

      This only looks like a face if you're actually familiar with turning your head slightly to the left... Otherwise it looks like a randomly placed colon and a close parenthesis.

      I think that's a cop out - this "panel of randomly placed LEDs" has distinguishable eyes and eyebrows, a mouth, feet and hands. I don't give a damn if you don't know what it is, it's obviously a characture of some sort.

      Also, your understanding of the concept of random is very weak, as there were several of these panels identified and they all had the exact same patterns on the panels. That is the opposite of random: the same exact result every time.

      My question is: If it would have been Spongebob, would there have been the same chaos? Most people know that characture.

    172. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by LMariachi · · Score: 1
      when the police get a possible bomb called in, they have to take it seriously

      Absolutely. And "taking it seriously" means evaluating the possibility that the thing even is a bomb before evacuating the populace. Otherwise the city can be paralyzed by anyone able to make a phone call -- "Hello, 911? There's a suspicious looking beercan in the gutter, I think it's a bomb!"

      why don't you outline what changes should be made to bomb-squad policy in order to avoid these incidents in the future?

      Ooh, I'll take a crack at that one. How about emulating the bomb squad policy of EVERY OTHER CITY these "infernal devices" were placed in?

    173. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by UglyTool · · Score: 1

      New York also had these devices, and and managed not to flip out like a pack of morons. And you might see why they're even more touchy about 9/11 since, you know...

      I feel that Boston *did* over-react, but, in their defense, Boston was the only city (AFAIK) where these sign were placed on bridges, etc. In other cities, they were placed on buildings in the "trendy" parts of town, where Adult Swim's target demographic was likely to be. If these devices were placed in the Short North here (Columbus, OH), then they would be laughed off as a bizarre marketing ploy, but I think there is a difference finding something like this under a bridge.

    174. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by causality · · Score: 1

      And it is never the right time to mix politics with war (read my sig for a prime example).

      If war is not political in nature, then I don't know what is.

      Just because Fox News presents more than one side doesn't mean they are "ridiculous". I thought the idea was to get the story from multiple angles, hear all the sides, do your own research and THEN make up your own mind. I thought that blindly and thoughtlessly following what you hear was a bad thing? When did all this change?


      Fox News always manages to present multiple "sides" that all come from a statist point of view. I have never seen Fox News, nor any other major media outlet, present anything resembling a minimal-government Libertarian point of view. Maybe you can come up with some minor counter-examples, but for the most part all I ever see out of all major media are arguments for why the size and power of the government should be expanded, with the only disagreement being whether it should expand its power by diminishing personal freedoms (Republicans) or economic freedoms (Democrats). Real "fair and balanced" news would give at least some time to why sacrificing freedom (which is a permanent decision) to obtain some temporary security is a very bad idea, one that we were warned about a long time ago by the likes of Benjamin Franklin et al. Pretending like the two competing methods for expanding state control are the only possible avenues to consider is irresponsible and intellectually dishonest at best.
      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    175. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is that ***YOU*** (America - Bush and Company) are the terrorists, bombing and invading everywhere to "FREE" people that never asked you to free them. And, of course, you will be attacked again... It's just a matter of time. That's why you guys have nightmares seeing the toy battery sign and things like that.... RIDICULOUS!!!! Veeeeeeery funny.

    176. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by MortimerV · · Score: 1

      No problem. Out of all of the stories I've only seen these images posted once, the rest of the time people have been posting the harmless looking Lite Brite pictures.

    177. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by c6gunner · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The Bomb Squads of the other cities didn't RECEIVE any calls, or they would have responded in the same manner. And how exactly do you "evaluate the possibility that the thing even is a bomb before evacuating the populace" without being able to physically examine the thing? What, you think the bomb squad has some magical CIA spy satellite that they can use to detect explosives from the comfort of their lay-z-boys? Seriously, give your head a shake and start fresh. Obviously you're totally oblivious about police procedures, but you can't be THIS devoid of common sense.

    178. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by dgbrownnt · · Score: 0

      Everyone there has mud on their face if it was a mistake, therefore it can't be. It's actually really easy to convince yourself someone else it is someone else's fault when it's your butt on the line otherwise. Multiple this effect by every person involved in the overreaction (since it sounds like a lot of people in the chain share in this idiocy) and you've got a lot of people agreeing with each other and validating each other. At this point, even if someone in the mix might have thought overwise, they still have to go with it. In that vein, my disapointment is with Turner and Cartoon Network. With a mass delusion like this one, the other side has to fight it. If they just case, everyone loses.

    179. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by scot4875 · · Score: 1

      Just because it's cartoony doesn't mean it should be taken less seriously. If we took that attitude, next thing you know, you'd be getting shredded by a Hello Kitty full of C4 and nails.

      Or we could just as easily be shredded by some completely innocuous looking thing full of C4 and nails.

      If we shift our reasoning to immediately assume that some random thing that we can't identify is a bomb, then we've already lost to the terrorists. If our default reaction to the unknown is irrational fear and panic, then we deserve to be bombed to escape hell we've accepted for ourselves.

      On the upside, though ... if this does anything to curb advertising (which it won't, but I still try to find the silver lining), then I guess I could live with the ATHF scare.

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    180. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      In a letter to employees, Jim Samples, the general manager and executive vice president of the network, wrote: "I deeply regret the negative publicity and expense caused to our company as a result of this campaign. As general manager of Cartoon Network, I feel compelled to step down, effective immediately, in recognition of the gravity of the situation that occurred under my watch."
      And to the city of Boston:

      "I apologize. I'm... sorry. I'm sorry you had to defend yourselves against an
      advertising campaign. I'm sorry that your city was stupid enough to panic over a
      bunch of Lite-Brite-inspired cartoony signs, expending millions of dollars from
      its budget to `defuse' them, including moneys collected from your own taxpaying
      citizens. And I'm sorry I waited until now to tell you all to go straight to
      hell!

      "As with everything else, it's the thought that counts."
      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    181. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by llefler · · Score: 1

      I can see what it is, and it's obvious to me, but I'm already familiar with the show and character, so my perception is skewed.

      I'm not familiar with the show, and it looks like a cartoon character telling me I'm #1.

      Maybe Cartoon Network should sell them on their website. At $20-30, I'd put one in my office at home. Assuming they get the charges dropped against the guys that hung them. I didn't see any mention of that in the settlement. That would make me less annoyed that they settled in the first place.

      --
      It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit. -- Harry Truman
    182. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by binarybum · · Score: 1

      When I see a plane flying low I still assume its landing, not attacking the city...

          wow, that's so 90's. I duck and cover and call homeland security. You're not watching enough TV!

      --
      ôó
    183. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      They are called Binoculars

      Bomb squad tech #1 - Looks through binoculars: "Gee, looks kinda like a picture of a guy giving us the middle finger"
      Bomb squad tech #2 - Grabs binoculars from guy #1: "Yeah, and it's only about a 1/2 inch thick. How much C4 can be in there?"
      Bomb squad tech #3 - "And people are have been walking right by it for hours without anything happening"
      Bomb squad manager - "OMG IT MUST BE A BOMB! Shut down the city!"

    184. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by PachmanP · · Score: 1

      It's Cartoon Network and they volunteered the $2m to the city as a "good will" payment not as any sort of forced recompense.

      --
      You're thinking small. Why miniaturize the laser, when we could instead enlarge the sharks? -John Searle
    185. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      *sigh*

      I don't know why I bother.

      Listen, when YOU have a job that involves risking your life on a regular basis, THEN you can comment. Until then, stick to your own damn job. You don't see me coming down to the bus station and telling you how to suck dicks, do you?

    186. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you even read the comment you replied to?

    187. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by LMariachi · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I don't know why I bother.

      Yeah, me neither. You're not very good at it.

      Listen, when YOU have a job that involves risking your life on a regular basis, THEN you can comment.

      Ah, the old "you can't complain about the food unless you're a chef" chestnut. Pay attention, idiot: When it's my money paying for the food, or when I have to wait two hours for it while it gets cold because some jerkoff like you thinks it might be a bomb, I have every right to comment.

    188. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Your money aint payin' for my life. This is exactly why we don't set policy through voting - because clueless morons like you can't even be trusted to tie your own shoelaces, let alone dictate strategy for dealing with potentially lethal situations.

      Anyway, if you're so pissed off about the delay and want to volunteer to come on by and handle the bomb yourself, hey, I've got no problem with that. We'll cordon off the area, give you a good 500 meters of space, and let you do your magic. It'll be great, we'll save some expensive equipment, and get rid of a clueless critic at the same time.

    189. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by Lurker2288 · · Score: 1

      Actually, the benefit of living in a free society is that I'm free to comment pretty much on anything I want, including pent-up windbags such as yourself who beat their chests and think that because they've 'seen the elephant' they alone have anything worthwhile to say about it.

      Sure, they have to take reported threats seriously, but after detonating the first one and finding no evidence of explosives or hazardous material, is it really necessary to treat each subsequent one with the same degree of caution?

      Maybe in Karbala you need to treat every single out of place item as a potential IED, but traffic aside, I'm not sure Beantown is such a hostile environment.

    190. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you're free to comment, and I wouldn't dream of taking away that right. On the other hand, I'm free to tell you that you're a clueless gluebag, and that your opinion is about as useful to me as a football bat.

      On the other hand, you did make a decent point this time for a change. Still, when it's your life on the line, it pays to be cautious. I can't blame the boys for treating all of the devices seriously. All it takes is for one of them to turn out to be real. I'm sorry if you think that the extra hour you spent in traffic is more valuable than a bomb-technicians life, but...well, see above for my evaluation of your opinion.

    191. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by lysergic.acid · · Score: 1

      wow, talk about poorly constructed analogies... re-read his post, and then read what you just wrote.

    192. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by matrixhax0r · · Score: 1

      Haha. I wish I had mod points. Excellent post.

      --
      If it's no on fire, it's a hardware problem.
    193. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by j-turkey · · Score: 1

      Listen, when YOU have a job that involves risking your life on a regular basis, THEN you can comment. Until then, stick to your own damn job. You don't see me coming down to the bus station and telling you how to suck dicks, do you?

      Oh man, that's funny! I've gotta give you props for the funny bit. In any case, I don't know what you're so worked up over. The gpp is upset because he doesn't like the way that the situation was handled. He's entitled to his opinion and you are to yours. The fact is that a major transit artery in Boston was closed (the bridge as well as river/harbor traffic). The closures created more than just a minor annoyance commuters. A significant amount of port and mass transit traffic was affected, shutting down part of the city and stopping commerce on a massive level. Something broke in the system, and few people are willing to ask about it. I understand your point that the bomb squad puts their lives on the line for the general populous, but this does not exclude them from any and all criticism. By that standard, any police officer, soldier, EMT, or firefighter should be considered above criticism - and I don't agree with that. One can criticize individual actions without damning the whole. I'm not suggesting that the bomb squad is at fault for this, but they're not beyond questioning.

      Frankly, while I understand the reasoning for the city's actions, I do believe that the city overreacted and continues to overreact. I've lived in many places, including spending nearly a decade in MA, some of that time was spent in Boston. As fond as I am of my years in Massachusetts and the friends I made there, it's a strange place, and this kind of thing seems typical of the region (notice that other municipalities did not make nearly the stink that Boston did). Further, the city and state are continuing with their victim mentality, and trying to reign down on the people responsible for the signs. While I agree that those responsible for the spectacle share some responsibility for the mess, they're not nearly as responsible as the municipality for this. At some point, I'd like for someone to stop with the victim mentality and realize that the reaction may have been a bit overzealous. I've heard all kinds of officials suggest that 'if they actually were bombs...' and 'corporate greed', which is (again, IMO) a bullshit smokescreen designed to keep the officials from looking dumb for a massive disruption and waste of taxpayer resources.

      To get back to the point, I don't know much about bombs. However, I do know that the GPP is silly to think that one couldn't fit enough explosive into one of the devices to do serious damage to a bridge. Surely, if a device of that size is a credible threat, it should be approached with caution. The bomb squad probably isn't the right place to point the finger, but I think that the finger should (at some point) be directed toward public officials for some of this. I think that the GPP's compass is pointing in the right general direction.

      Something in the system broke, and I think that it needs fixing. I don't know how, but it doesn't change the fact that I'm upset that my country has allowed itself to become this way.

      --

      -Turkey

    194. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by 80+85+83+83+89+33 · · Score: 1

      wouldn't exactly call Boston, nor Massachusetts, conservative. there were plenty of other places that didn't freak out. what's different about Boston, that's what you have to ask.

      and as far as the CEO goes, he knows he is golden now and that his "stock has gone up". you can't buy the kind of name recognition that he is getting. he is now associated with brilliant marketing.

      --
      i disable sigs
    195. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      So what you're saying is that the nest time one of these calls comes in, you'd like to see the bomb squad give the caller a collective "FUCK YOU!!!".

      Well. I actually agree with you in principle. Just like in theory communism could be a great political system. Unfortunately, in the real world, communism doesn't work, and having a bomb squad tell civilians to fuck off ends in a LOT of law-suits. While your suggestion is nice in theory, it simply doesn't work in real life.

    196. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by tarpy · · Score: 1

      If these devices were placed in the Short North here (Columbus, OH), then they would be laughed off as a bizarre marketing ploy... <insert snarky Gallery Hop comment here>

      Oh how I miss Roadhouse Annie's...
    197. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by gravis777 · · Score: 1

      I whole-heartedly agree, especially with the low-flying aircraft. I work in a major city on the 32nd floor of a highrise building. There is a huge city airport less than five miles to the north of us. All the planes landing have to come in from the south, litterally meaning that most of these planes come within a hundred or so feet of skimming the tops of these buildings on their landings. It can be quite disconcerting.

      My question was, were these signs up in regular advertising locations? It seems odd that if you are going to advertise something, you would have to have advertising space. Most likely, this space has had ads there before.

      So let me get this straight, a terrorist is going to post the same symbol, in several parts of the city, in an advertising location, then light it up with lights to attract attention to itself? This isn't a matter of overreacting, as its a matter of being stupid. And, as has been said, the sign was up in many other major cities as well, and attracted no attention. Truthfully, I don't think Cartoon Network should pay Boston a dime, rather, I feel that Cartoon Network should couter-sue for defacement of private property, and for slander.

      We have to give one thing to the city of Boston, though - because of their reactions, this has turned into one of the single most successful ad campaigns of all time - people the world over now know who Cartoon Network is, what Adult Swim is, and what Aqua Teen Hunger Force is. A two million dollar fine is peanuts compared to what Cartoon Network is now going to make from their increased ratings on selling advertising time.

    198. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by s0l0m0n · · Score: 1

      Yes. When a LED cartoon character gives you the finger, and you decide it's threatening you with a bomb and call the police, the appropriate response from the police is "Fuck You."

      There are a million better things to attach bombs to. Cars for example. They have a consistent usage, I.E. the car bomb. Has anyone EVER been blown up by an LED Ur?

    199. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by omeomi · · Score: 1

      True, but the city did ask them to pay...it's not like they just offered it up. They should either have just said "no", or paid it, but left it at that. It's ridiculous that somebody lost their job over something so incredibly stupid. And yes, I know he probably has plenty of money, and will get another high-paying job, but still, it's stupid.

    200. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by pryoplasm · · Score: 1

      Sure, that is an overreaction, having the police blow up ANTRHAX. Because if there is one good thing about biological agents, they don't spread fast enough...

      --
      Those who live by the sword, get shot by those who live by the gun...
    201. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by zoltamatron · · Score: 1

      Well, the interesting thing is that you fail to take into account that what they did was illegal. You can't just put up advertising in public places without permission and expect that the law will just say "don't do this shit again". I sure wish that would happen to me if I did something illegal. The law is going to assume that you must've had a reason for not asking permission and that opens up a whole set of concerns that aren't there when you follow the law. That is why the police took action.

      They are abusing the implicit trust they receive as part of their job description, that they will not put their personal interest over the performance of their duties.

      I think it's quite a stretch for you to say that they are fining CN out of "personal interest". If an individual had done this, the fine would probably have been much smaller....something like a misdemeanor vandalism fine. But since this is a large corporation, the large fine says "you should've known better than to do this shit. Here is something to make sure that you and everyone else knows that you can't do this."

      --
      Tolerance does not tolerate intolerance, or hypocrisy.
    202. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, complacency. Perhaps if you stick your head in the sand the rest of your body won't blow up when terrorists plant bombs in your city...

    203. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by elvum · · Score: 1

      the morons who thought that an LED cartoon character giving the finger could be a bomb

      I blame Hollywood. ;-)

    204. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by elvum · · Score: 1

      Tell ya what, give me your address and I'll personally drop off a package at your front door. Then you can try and figure out whether it's got explosives in it or not.

      Postmen do that millions of times each day, and nobody bats an eyelid.

    205. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by Jekler · · Score: 1

      My understanding of random is obviously stronger than your understanding of it. You've claimed that if something happens more than once, it's not random. If you flip a coin twice, and both times it comes up heads, your claim is that it is the opposite of random. That is not so.

      Just because a pattern happens more than once does not mean it is not random, it just means it is not unique.

    206. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GET A FUCKING GRIP. There never were any terrorists to begin with; it was all a simple, age-old ploy to get the public's support behind war and the erosion of many of the freedoms you believe you have.

    207. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by Lurker2288 · · Score: 1

      Of course, keep stressing the potential harm, that way you can hopefully provoke an emotional knee-jerk response, and if you're lucky, you get the added benefit of making the other guy look like a prick who hates cops.

      This was a bit bigger than "an hour spent in traffic": closing roads and bridges, shutting down the harbor all have real economic consequences, in terms of business lost, deals foregone, possible tourism diverted, etc. This costs everybody, including those tax-paying bomb technicians. After all, Turner felt it was a big enough deal to warrant $2 million in hush money, so obviously we're talking about more than a few Bostonians being late to work.

      Secondly, the possible consequences (dead bomb techs, for one) are only part of determining the response. You also consider the rate of error. In Iraq, it makes sense to treat every strange object by the roadside as a possible IED, because many of them probably are. The probability of an IED in Boston is a bit lower. So the BPD does the safe thing, they close a road, retrieve one of the gadgets, and detonate it. They should see pretty quickly there are no explosive traces, and no anthrax or nerve gas. At this point, they should be able to say that the probably of the rest of the signs reported being bombs is even lower, and so warrant a less dramatic response.

      You make it very clear that you support a course of action that minimizes risk to the bomb techs, but why stop there? Why not raise taxes in Boston until there's enough money to encase every single police in a full suit of body armor, and replace all the cars with Bradley fighting vehicles, so as to make policing as safe as is humanly possible?

      Oh wait, because that would be a ridiculous and disproportionate response to the threat, and would have negative spillover effects greatly in excess of the possible benefits. Just like their response in the ATHF case. You can keep beating your chest about saving the lives of those brave police officers, but that doesn't change the fact that a certain amount of precaution is healthy, and a certain amount is excessive.

    208. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Prior to 9/11, how many aircraft had ever been intentionally rammed into buildings?

      There's a first time for everything. Talk to some of the boys coming back from Iraq and they'll tell you - when it comes to improvised explosive devices, the only limit is your imagination. It's not good to be paranoid, no, but it's always a good idea to be careful.

    209. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by foreverdisillusioned · · Score: 1

      Um, no. Even if I had never see ATHF before in my entire life, it would be abundently clear to me that I was looking at a stylized anthropomorphic character of some sort. Feet, eyes, angry-looking eyebrows, hands and the middle finger are all immediately apparent.

    210. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must feel really redicolous now.

    211. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's not a first time for everything.

      Suppose citizens called-in everything they didn't recognize as a bomb. If they bomb squad followed your recommendations, the city woul be shut down forever. Does that really make sense? Fortunately, this doesn't happen very often. But it would only take a single person to shut down the city indefinitely if the bomb squads followed your instructions.

    212. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by SirSlud · · Score: 1

      How would you propose handling these situations, exactly.

      By investigating the bomb threat, of course.

      Are you under the assumption that charging two lackeys for a marketing campaign that failed to alarm anyone else in many other major cities over 3 weeks time constitutes 'taking a bomb threat seriously'?

      Taking it seriously involves checking to see if its a bomb, not turning your correct "Take a bomb threat seriously," mandate into a public lynching. We're talking about ruining two lives potentially because you didn't ignore a bomb threat. Turn it around; should every person who is responsible for the object(s) subject of a bomb threat be put in jail?

      I assume justice will work itself out, but my conclusion of the aftermath is just tourist advertising for the simple minded for Chicago at the cost of dragging two simpletons through the mud. I don't think thats fair.

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    213. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by notnAP · · Score: 1
      You must feel really redicolous now.

      Not as much as you... at least I know it's rediculous.

    214. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by s0l0m0n · · Score: 1

      You may not be an American, but you are acting like one. That is to say, overly paranoid.

      Frank Coder tried to crash a Cessena 150 into the White House in 1994. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Eugene_Corder

      That's at least one plane that some one tried to crash into a building, five years prior to 9/11. It's a good idea that would work, causing massive damage to property and morale.

      A cartoon of Ur, flipping you the bird does minimal damage, even if packed with the maximum amount of explosives. It mostly only kills cartoon viewers, and no one really cares about them.

      9/11 was a successful terrorist attack if it puts the nation in enough fear to paralyze the nation over things like advertisements. Buck up and get over your fear.

    215. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      The only thing I'm afraid of is the continued loss of common sense in western society. At this rate, we won't last more than a couple decades.

    216. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by kellenspapa · · Score: 1

      If our rights were being so easily dissipated, would we be able to sit at our computers and publish so much skepticism, suspicion and second-guessing?

      The people who are really losing are the one's who see a spook around every corner and in every news story. They have already surrendered their freedom by giving into their fear.

    217. Re:Buck Stops At The Top by Romancer · · Score: 1

      Just some comments:

      The quote you have in your sig.

      That was in relation to getting the job done. Once we were in the middle of it.

      We didn't have enough troops in there to do what they were trying, the generals said so at the time. They also didn't have enough armor, weapons, and leadership comming from the field instead of from the government.

      To argue that the time for blame is over when the blame is pointing at your side is childish. The point I made in my first post was trying to draw similarities between owning up for your actions and this governments attempts to avoid doing so.

      To say that the arguement for going to war is over is inane. People have lost their lives for our decision to go to war. It's a valid discussion unless you de-value the lives of our troops. Remember in school when you studied history and they said: "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it."
      That was from a writer named George Santayana, he also said: "Only the dead have seen an end to war."

      I'll leave the topic of Fox news with this:

      Most people have an opinion. Most people try to get others to have that same opinion, as we see on slashdot all the time. The people with an audience usually try to persuade others to have their opinion weather they are conscious of it or not. For an example that's on record, check out the newspaper business. Most newspapers have an editor that tends to skew the articles and topics in a way that they like. In one example in recent admition Rupert Murdoch, said of his News Corp that owns Fox and the New York Post that he tried to shape the agenda in the Iraq war.

      That's fine as long as the news outlet doesn't turn around and try to say that they are fair and balanced.

      To their credit Fox news does try and have others opinions voiced on their show. They just try to still persuade their viewers to believe what they do. And since they do the editing and have the control, it comes out as biased.

      That's the same as other news outlets, they all have an agenda weather they know it or admit to it or not. The only way to avert this from happening would be to have two news teams that are biased in opposite directions cover the same news story and alternate who goes first on each story they cover.

      That would be fair and balanced.

      --


      ) Human Kind Vs Human Creation
      ) It'd be interesting to see how many humans would survive to serve us.
  2. Overreaction of course by uofitorn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Clearly it was an overreaction and someone in Boston should have resigned/been fired instead. See here http://www.dailynews.com/ci_5180780 (via http://www.schneier.com/) for a way to dispose of bombs in a way without shutting down a major metropolitan area.

    --
    "What kind of music do pirates listen to?" -Paul Maud'dib
    "Yeeeaaarrrrr n' Bee!!" -Stilgar, Leader of Sietch Tabr
    1. Re:Overreaction of course by uofitorn · · Score: 2, Informative
      --
      "What kind of music do pirates listen to?" -Paul Maud'dib
      "Yeeeaaarrrrr n' Bee!!" -Stilgar, Leader of Sietch Tabr
    2. Re:Overreaction of course by Aladrin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I say they only slightly overreacted. It was a report of a possible bomb in a very public location. Several very public locations. There was no record of what the devices were, and they should not have been there. Their cartoony look could have been an attempt to get someone to play with them to guarantee a kill. They reacted decisively to neutralize any possible threat.

      Your linked example talks about a few pipe bombs in an aquaduct that had been drained so that they could look for submerged items. There will be no people there. They reacted correctly in that situation as well.

      If you treat cartoony objects as toys and dismiss bomb reports about them, you are guaranteeing that someone will use that disguise for real bombs. You can't simply shrug it off.

      Do I think the CEO should have resigned? No. It was stupid and careless, but nobody was hurt (except that $2mil loss) and there was a ton of publicity.

      --
      "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
    3. Re:Overreaction of course by nomadic · · Score: 1

      I say they only slightly overreacted. It was a report of a possible bomb in a very public location. Several very public locations. There was no record of what the devices were, and they should not have been there. Their cartoony look could have been an attempt to get someone to play with them to guarantee a kill. They reacted decisively to neutralize any possible threat.

      What people seem to be missing is that the displays were put up in several cities, and only Boston freaked out like this. If the NYPD, who collectively have a lot more experience in actual terrorist threats, didn't freak out, then maybe the Boston PD did something wrong?

    4. Re:Overreaction of course by AlHunt · · Score: 0

      Another part of this that bothers me is the claim that it cost Boston $500K to $750K to respond that day. How the hell did they spend that much money in a single day? Or was it operational costs they'd have incurred anyway, plus gas money to drive the emergency vehicles? If it costs $750,000 to pick up 38 packages in Boston, I need to go into the courier business there.

      --
      1 in 4 Maine children in struggle with hunger.
    5. Re:Overreaction of course by faronem · · Score: 1

      The difference is that they weren't just 'very public locations' in Boston, but a few of them were put on critical infrastructure--including *underneath* both the BU and Longfellow bridges (the latter of which turned out to be something coincidentally reported and not related to ATHF) and more seriously at the bus stop at the Sullivan Square T station on the the main pillar supporting the elevated I-93 right above it...an obvious target if you wanted to kill people stuck in traffic and cause major transportation disruption. I'm reasonably sure NYPD would have freaked out if one was on the underside of the (distinctly longer) GW bridge. None in NYC were in subway stations or critical infra--the most concerning was on a highway onramp.

      And, most importantly, LEDs are freaking scary!

    6. Re:Overreaction of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've been modded down as a troll, but I completely agree with you. Judging by the pictures and description of the devices, the ads were crudely manufactured, had a decent amount of exposed wiring, and lacked any of the "gloss" that you come to expect from a professional ad campaign material.

      Hell I'm an EE by trade, but if I saw a partially disassembled LED alarm clock on a subway bench, with all of the wires and PCB wrapped around a strange looking box, I'd be wary of standing next to it. And I'd probably call it in. Now imagine the police getting 30+ calls around such devices all over the city. Calls about dozens of strange devices scattered throughout the city. You can't exactly says it's safe unless you examine each device. Imagine if it WAS a bomb, and they let people mill around the subway and bridges while the bomb squad checked it out. Ouch, liability.

      You say it's an ad, but there's nothing on the ad material itself explaining the promotion. And judging by the show's relative obscurity, you can't expect many people to recognize it. Unless you already recognize the character, for all you know, it's a big plastic box with suspicious looking wiring.

      Better safe than sorry, honestly. Why do I get the feeling that if Oprah launched a viral campaign with strange looking devices squirreled away in public places, all of these Aqua Teen fanboys would be all over her and her abuse of public safety in the interests of publicity and self-promotion.

    7. Re:Overreaction of course by faronem · · Score: 2, Funny

      Clearly, you've never tried to actually drive in Boston.

    8. Re:Overreaction of course by AlHunt · · Score: 1

      Clearly, you've never tried to actually drive in Boston.

      Actually, I once spent an afternoon in downtown Boston, lost, in a large service truck. I might have paid $500K for a map that day ...
      --
      1 in 4 Maine children in struggle with hunger.
    9. Re:Overreaction of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reacted this way, because they have to justify their existence. The government HAS to create things for us to be afraid of, HAS to create things to protect us from, otherwise we might realize we don't need quite so much government.

    10. Re:Overreaction of course by fredrated · · Score: 1

      What freak moderated this guy troll? Is the outrage that the police didn't take this casually so great that you can't even express a well thought out contrary opinion?

    11. Re:Overreaction of course by Breakfast+Pants · · Score: 1

      "an obvious target if you wanted to advertise to people stuck in traffic and (I'll leave this one cause it actually is true, haha) cause major transportation disruption.

      --

      --

      WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
    12. Re:Overreaction of course by siriuskase · · Score: 1

      Wish I had Mod points, left. Sure, I wouldn't recognize the characters of Aqua Teen, but I would have been nervous even if it was Bart Simpson flipping a bird. You don't have to be very smart to make a bomb that looks like some kind of toy. And you would be very naive to ignore a bomb or a gun that looks like a toy. I do think that if the Cartoon Network want to run this sort of promotion, they should have stuck a phone number on the box. They could even make it part of the promotion.

      --
      If you must moderate, please moderate as irrelevent, not something bad, because I'm sure someone will find this interest
    13. Re:Overreaction of course by siriuskase · · Score: 1

      The copys wouldn't seem so rediculous if they hadn't announced such a ridiculous cost for investigating these "bombs" . Surely, they have a bomb squad already costing money just for existing and being ready to deal with such a situation. If this is the case, the actual cost incurred would be extra gas money and wear and tear on the robot or whatever they have. It is possible that other cities were able to deal and therefore didn't become laughingstocks like Boston.

      To clarify my position, although Boston over reacted, some sort of reaction was justified and it shouldn't have cost much more than a normal days work for a competent police department.

      --
      If you must moderate, please moderate as irrelevent, not something bad, because I'm sure someone will find this interest
    14. Re:Overreaction of course by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      "Sure, I wouldn't recognize the characters of Aqua Teen, but I would have been nervous even if it was Bart Simpson flipping a bird. You don't have to be very smart to make a bomb that looks like some kind of toy. And you would be very naive to ignore a bomb or a gun that looks like a toy."

      This is exactly the paranoid reaction that plagued the Boston police, If you are already so scared witless that you assume every toy lying on the street is a bomb, we have bigger problems than guerrilla marketing.

      OF course i agree that there should have been some type of identifying info on the marketing devices.

  3. Or perhaps he's using this as a convenient cover.. by Bamafan77 · · Score: 1

    Maybe the guy was on his way out anyway (unwillingly or willingly) and this provides the perfect cover/excuse to do so. Assuming he was an otherwise successful CEO, it seems strange to have to resign over something like this. Or perhaps the insanity that's infected Boston has now seeped in Cartoon Network.

  4. Very disappointing overreaction by vanyel · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Not only Boston overreacting, but now the network itself? Where are the people willing to stand up for sanity? It's truly a sad day...

    1. Re:Very disappointing overreaction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    2. Re:Very disappointing overreaction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup far too much knee-jerking. Boston needs regime change. The people in charge there are obviously idiots and even worse they seem to lack a sense of humor.

      I am still hopefully since there are other people in the world who can still smile and laugh, vs the living hell that those blackened souls running Boston must endure as what could be described more as existing rather than living... and that's it, we should live and laugh, not merely exist with fear and hate... It's an unfortunate result and hopefully humanity responds better next time...

    3. Re:Very disappointing overreaction by sokoban · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yup far too much knee-jerking. Boston needs regime change. The people in charge there are obviously idiots and even worse they seem to lack a sense of humor. They aren't called "Massholes" for nothing.
      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 is the magic number.
    4. Re:Very disappointing overreaction by anonicon · · Score: 1

      Thank you for adding an extraordinarily appropriate word to my vocabulary. That one's a keeper, especially given the airhead response from the numbnuts in Boston.

    5. Re:Very disappointing overreaction by Ucklak · · Score: 1

      I saw a press conference where the mayor or someone in charge said "shame on you for saying we were overreacting."
      Basically that douchebag head was saying that they were doing their job because of those suspicious packages.

      I say douchebag in charge should resign instead because of lack of common sense. He'd probably shut down the city of a truckload of Panasonic Toughbooks jacknifed and scattered over the freeway because they look like bombs.

      --
      if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
    6. Re:Very disappointing overreaction by sconeu · · Score: 1

      It's not an overreaction by TNT. He left because of a $2Million hit the company took. Yeah, it's not his fault that MA authorities are asshats, but the $2M hits the bottom line.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    7. Re:Very disappointing overreaction by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1

      Where else can you get that much awareness for only $2 million?

      Before this, I couldn't have told you whether "Aqua Teen Hunger Force" was a famine relief agency, an indie band, or a randomly generated passphrase.

    8. Re:Very disappointing overreaction by vanyel · · Score: 1

      Yes, but they got at least $2M worth of advertising out of the publicity --- I'd certainly never heard of the show before all this. In fact, if I were the Cartoon Network, I'd parody the Boston nonsense in the show --- I'll bet ratings, at least for that episode would soar and that they'd see a few stick around too. It doesn't look that interesting to me, so I've not bothered to take a look at it, but if I heard they were doing such a parody, I'd make a point of having my Tivo watch for it.

    9. Re:Very disappointing overreaction by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      That is $2,000,000 You cannot deduct in taxes.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    10. Re:Very disappointing overreaction by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      There is a reason why CEO get paid so much. Because at the end of the day they are responsible for everything that happens in the company. If everything is good they make a lot of money. But if something that happened that cost the company or worse embarrasses it they get fired on the spot, they usually force them to resign because in reality they know it isn't his fault, but someone needs to take the blame in this case it goes up to the top person who approved it. He probably just got an email saying we are going to do this and he responds sounds good go ahead.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    11. Re:Very disappointing overreaction by Skeeve_KAM · · Score: 1

      If they don't take responsibility outright, and start a fuss about the issue, somewhere along the line its possible for someone to get a bite back at them and when all hell breaks out in a legal battle, the will just say "why didn't we just take responsibility in the beginning." By preemptively taking the blame, the can lessen possible future action.

    12. Re:Very disappointing overreaction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $2 Million is inconsequential for a company the size of TBS. The incident did some long term damage to TBS and the Cartoon Network, in a similar way that "OJ's Confession" damaged Fox. It makes them that less credible, willing to push the envelope and risk raising false terror alarms for the sake of TV ratings. Fox demanded the resignation of that publisher chick and Turner sacked this guy, just to assure people they aren't sitting around the boardroom with shit eating grins.

      It was the correct move.

      As for Boston, that has already been covered by numerous other posts. The mayor probably looks at it as $2 million in easy money (minus the $50 grand or so of actual expenses it cost to defuse the "bombs", etc). Of course, it will be frittered away on some worthless new hires in city hall or similar. He should have taken the high road and negotiated a donation from Turner to some injured war veterans fund or something, but that would require a certain amount of class that isn't there.

      Some people said that "everyone won". No, everyone lost, except for those two clowns who are getting their 15 minutes of fame and then some.

    13. Re:Very disappointing overreaction by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      Let's look at it just from a cost/benefit perspective.

      The network effectively spent $2M on that ad campaign and the ratings didn't even blip slightly. That's quite a catastrophe given that every web site concerned with news covered it, and every newspaper, cable news channel, local news channel nationwide had covered it. It was such rediculously wide coverage and it didn't do anything at all where it really counts in a network.

    14. Re:Very disappointing overreaction by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      Just because Boston overreacted does not mean that Cartoon Network weren't idiots in hiring those two clowns for its marketing. They put up their devices on public structures without permission. At night under cover of darkness. They watched on site and DID NOTHING while Boston panicked. When they were caught, they acted like complete assholes. They might not have done anything illegal, but they definitely did something stupid.

      The CEO resigned not because he's overreacting, but because he made a major mistake in hiring those bozos.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    15. Re:Very disappointing overreaction by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      I've got another take on this, a suspicion that has been building every since the incident: the panic was deliberately planned by those two marketing creeps. Consider that these devices were in several other cities as well, and were there for weeks. But then Boston gets a whole slew of reports on them all in one single morning. I say those calls were made by those nimrods. I've heard stories that they were in Boston at the time of the panic, watching the panic, observing the police "dealing with" the devices, acting like "innocent" bystanders. Why didn't the say anything to stop the panic? Because they wanted the panic!

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    16. Re:Very disappointing overreaction by vanyel · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, that sounds all too plausible...I live near Portland, OR, and I hadn't heard a thing about them until Boston went off. Actually, still haven't anything about where they were or much of anything really. So I don't think it was working too well...

  5. Stop Spreading Terror! by Crazy+Man+on+Fire · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think it's cool that he is taking responsibility instead of cleaning house. He can afford to go without a salary for a good while, and the rest of his accomplishments as CEO will probably earn him a nice position once the smoke clears.
    I couldn't agree more. However, I take serious issue witih the first part of your comment...

    But in a post-9/11 U.S.A., the authorities have to assume things like this could be terrorist in nature and respond as if they were.
    This kind of attitude is exactly what is wrong with this country right now. Living in fear of LED signs is exactly what the terrorists want. They're called terrorists. They intend to terrorize us. If we can't walk down the street without freaking out when we see some blinking lights, they have achieved their objective. Should the police have investigated these devices? Well, somebody reported it. Somebody should have probably calmly investigated it before bringing the whole city to a halt. Anybody with any common sense can tell that the thing wasn't a bomb. This marketing campaign hit ten cities. Only Boston freaked out. Even NYC, which has much more reason to be afraid of terrorist attacks than Boston, didn't bat an eyelash. Just because we're in a "Post 9/11 World" doesn't mean that we have to freak out and assume that everything out of the ordinary is a terrorist plot. Keep your wits about you, think critically, and respond accordingly. People running around freaking out is only going to make us less safe.
    1. Re:Stop Spreading Terror! by Original+Replica · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "This marketing campaign hit ten cities. Only Boston freaked out."

      So if Boston leaders are of the same caliber of leader as Jim Samples: They should accept some responsibility, admit they over reacted, and absolve Mr.Samples of this "heat" which has given him reason to step down. The marketing campaign was not at fault, Boston was.

      --
      We are all just people.
    2. Re:Stop Spreading Terror! by JWSmythe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think it's cool that he is taking responsibility instead of cleaning house. He can afford to go without a salary for a good while, and the rest of his accomplishments as CEO will probably earn him a nice position once the smoke clears.


      I couldn't agree more. However, I take serious issue witih the first part of your comment...

      But in a post-9/11 U.S.A., the authorities have to assume things like this could be terrorist in nature and respond as if they were.


      This kind of attitude is exactly what is wrong with this country right now. Living in fear of LED signs is exactly what the terrorists want. They're called terrorists. They intend to terrorize us. If we can't walk down the street without freaking out when we see some blinking lights, they have achieved their objective. ...

      Just because we're in a "Post 9/11 World" doesn't mean that we have to freak out and assume that everything out of the ordinary is a terrorist plot. Keep your wits about you, think critically, and respond accordingly. People running around freaking out is only going to make us less safe. Thank you for saying this.. I've told plenty of people exactly the same thing, but it seems no one listens.

          The government has been playing the game right out of the Cold War Play Book. An enemy attacks us, they obviously have a goal to conquer or destroy.

          Unfortunately, terrorists aren't playing by the same set of rules. Their goal is to destabilize through fear. They launched a single attack almost 6 years ago, and the American response is "Oh my gosh, it's another attack!" We are terrified. We're scared of each other, of the government, and of some vague group on the other side of the world, who don't have the means to stage a traditional war, or even a single battle. ... and I'm sure I'll get some people replying "BUT WE ARE AT WAR! THEY SHOOT AT US ALL THE TIME!" Sorry guys, those aren't the "terrorists". Those are the citizens of two foreign countries that the US Government decided to conqueror, and slaughter a fair percentage of their population (in that order), in the name of stopping a loose knit group of individuals around the world. If another country did that to the US, I'd bet every American able to hold a gun would be shooting back too. Well, maybe not, there's a lot of passive idiots who will take whatever abuse they're given, say "thank you", and ask for more.

          But hey, we're defending ourselves from terrorism, even if it means scaring all of our civilians into believing anything may be the next attack, and reinforcing the idea that the next attack is coming, even though there is no need for a next attack, because the first one is STILL doing it's job.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    3. Re:Stop Spreading Terror! by Wilson_6500 · · Score: 1

      Even NYC, which has much more reason to be afraid of terrorist attacks than Boston, didn't bat an eyelash.

      What would really help to calm this situation would be if someone important from NYC--say, the mayor or police chief--were to come out and publically state that Boston overreacted. Not that it'd ever happen, but it would be nice to see.

    4. Re:Stop Spreading Terror! by westlake · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Anybody with any common sense can tell that the thing wasn't a bomb.

      No, they can't.

      The function of a booby trap is to tempt the greedy and the careless into doing something supremely stupid.

      It is the big red button that screams "Do Not Touch!"

      But the Geek is way too smart to be taken in by anything so utterly ridicuous.

      The Geek ---to paraphrase Asimov --- is logical, but not reasonable. He'll accept conspiracy theories that are wildly implausible so long as they are internally consistent.

      But madness he cannot understand or accept on its own terms. The Joker in the deck. The man who doesn't play by the rules.

    5. Re:Stop Spreading Terror! by faronem · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I posted a similar reply to a different post earlier, but the difference is in Boston a few of the the second round of the litebrites were put on critical infrastructure--including *underneath* both the BU and Longfellow bridges (the latter of which turned out to be something coincidentally reported and not related to ATHF) and more seriously at the bus stop at the Sullivan Square T station 20ft up on the the main pillar supporting the elevated I-93 right above it...an obvious target if you wanted to kill people stuck in traffic and cause major transportation disruption.

      I'm reasonably sure NYPD would have freaked out if one was reported as an unknown electronic device on the (distinctly longer) GW or Brooklyn bridges. None in NYC were in subway stations or critical infra--the most concerning was on a highway onramp.

      And, most importantly, LEDs are freaking scary! Boo!

    6. Re:Stop Spreading Terror! by darkonc · · Score: 2, Insightful
      No. Both were at fault. It's not like Turner doesn't have money to afford renting space on the side of a billboard, etc. The probable intent of this whole setup was to jar people and make them thing that something strange was up. "Oh, my God, it's a bomb" wasn't an entirely unforseen reaction. If the device was attached to a billboard (or some other private property), however, it would have probably worried people a lot less than a strange device bolted to a freaking bridge.
      (not to mention that -- if you bolt enough random things to a bridge (which requires that you dig into the concrete), you're going to start weakening the structure, and affecting it's MTBF. )

      On the other hand, if Boston authorities had taken 30 seconds to look at what these stupid boxes were doing, they would have realized that it was simply some ghit using public structures as an advertising prop, hunted down the company responsible and charged a couple of executives with public mischief. -- rather than shutting down a bunch of major roadways.

      This overreaction shit is stupid. Even with all the bombings in Iraq, drunk drivers are still killing way more people than terrorism, and the tobacco industry is on an entirely different scale.
      The reason why the airways are safer has nothing to do with airport security confiscating my jeweler's screwdriver and everything to do with the fact that the next idiot who pulls a weapon in an airliner is gonna do a faceplant after a 6000 foot free-fall.. . Even a clipfull of bullets isn't gonna do you much good when you have 75 passengers taking responsibility for the safety of their aircraft while it's in the air.

      If you want America perfectly safe from all terrorist attacks, you're going to have to encase the entire country in a 600 foot thick concrete tomb. Good luck.

      --
      Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
    7. Re:Stop Spreading Terror! by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, terrorists aren't playing by the same set of rules. Their goal is to destabilize through fear.

      They aren't terrorists by your definition - their goal is to get us out of the middle east, and their tactics reflect their inferior military potential. What did you expect them to do? Attack the 7th army?

      hey launched a single attack almost 6 years ago, and the American response is "Oh my gosh, it's another attack!" We are terrified.

      That wasn't the terrorists/attackers. Sure, they blew up wtc 1 and 2, but it's your government that likes to keep you scared shitless. Al Queda hasn't done much lately, and why would we? We're wearing ourselves out and building their support - they love this stuff!

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    8. Re:Stop Spreading Terror! by low-k · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Part of the problem is that the marketing company's lite-brite boxes were unprofessionally made. There are wires and batteries hanging out the side; it has that look and feel of "bombs" you see in movies (like the ones with the stupid "I'll let you know when I'm going to blow up" 7-segment LED display countdown)... and if bombs look like that in movies, then they *must* look like that in real life, right? If they had just made their little LED boxes to have the same size, shape, color, etc. of the other normal traffic signs/signals, that is do a professional job, then at worst people would have just thought that someone had hacked an existing sign (it's not like most people can precisely remember the exact number of signs/signals at every bridge, overpass, etc. they drive past on the way to work).

      Those signs totally look like some crap that some middle schoolers would throw together at the last minute for a "science" project (no offense intended to you middle schoolers out there who read /.; I should perhaps have said average or typical middle schoolers).

    9. Re:Stop Spreading Terror! by Lectrik · · Score: 1

      It makes me sick to think that there are people like you out there who would gladly see America cave in and pretend there's nothing out there going bump in the night.

      So do you get out of bed, grab your gun and go check everytime a car drives down the street, a dog barks on the block, or one of your children bumps into something heading for the bathroom?
      Of course things go bump in the night, you have to use some commong sense To determine which bumps need a responce, a magnetic litebrite shouldn't trigger a million dollar security crisis.
      TFA was the first time I saw a picture of the device up close and as a non-expert in explosives, it looks too thin to have explosives inside, or to have an inside

      Any post that is anti-diligence or anti-keep America safe gets high points

      Personally I'm more for anti-let's-not-be-dicks-and-make-people-want-to-9- 11-us.

      Feed the Trolls
      --
      --- As to make my comment seem, by comparison, more intelegent... doodie doodie doodie poop poop poop!
    10. Re:Stop Spreading Terror! by psykocrime · · Score: 2, Interesting

      We're scared of each other, of the government, and of some vague group on the other side of the world, who don't have the means to stage a traditional war, or even a single battle.

      Nah, I'm pretty much just scared of our government. It represents far more of a threat to my safety and well-being than any Al-Qaeda terrorist.

      --
      // TODO: Insert Cool Sig
    11. Re:Stop Spreading Terror! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you are not a fan of nonviolence I take it?

    12. Re:Stop Spreading Terror! by tgibbs · · Score: 1

      I posted a similar reply to a different post earlier, but the difference is in Boston a few of the the second round of the litebrites were put on critical infrastructure--including *underneath* both the BU and Longfellow bridges (the latter of which turned out to be something coincidentally reported and not related to ATHF) and more seriously at the bus stop at the Sullivan Square T station 20ft up on the the main pillar supporting the elevated I-93 right above it...an obvious target if you wanted to kill people stuck in traffic and cause major transportation disruption.


      But anybody with even minimal knowledge of explosives should have realized instantly that the signs were way too small to cause damage to such structures. Not to mention that if somebody was going to place a bomb on a bridge, they'd probably paint it the same color as the bridge to camouflage it, not festoon it with "look at me" lights.
    13. Re:Stop Spreading Terror! by RembrandtX · · Score: 1

      Because .. ahh .. EVERY bomb that a terrorist would plant in a busy metro area would *BLINK FLASHING LIGHTS*
      That makes them easier to hide i hear.
      Almost as easy if the Blinking Lights spell out BOMB, or if there is a loudspeaker attached to the device that shouts out the countdown until explosion.

      Everyone knows, the best way to hide anything is to call all the attention to it that you can.

      So to repeat the objection, any *idiot* should have known this was not a bomb. Someone trying to hide an explosive payload certainly wouldn't have taken the time to build a blinking LED display to go over the bomb. At least not outside of hollywood.

      --

      --Ne auderis delere orbem rigidum meum, non erravi pernicose!
    14. Re:Stop Spreading Terror! by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, terrorists aren't playing by the same set of rules. Their goal is to destabilize through fear. They launched a single attack almost 6 years ago, and the American response is "Oh my gosh, it's another attack!" We are terrified. We're scared of each other, of the government, and of some vague group on the other side of the world, who don't have the means to stage a traditional war, or even a single battle. ... and I'm sure I'll get some people replying "BUT WE ARE AT WAR! THEY SHOOT AT US ALL THE TIME!" Sorry guys, those aren't the "terrorists". Those are the citizens of two foreign countries that the US Government decided to conqueror, and slaughter a fair percentage of their population (in that order), in the name of stopping a loose knit group of individuals around the world. If another country did that to the US, I'd bet every American able to hold a gun would be shooting back too. Well, maybe not, there's a lot of passive idiots who will take whatever abuse they're given, say "thank you", and ask for more.
      I take it you don't see the irony.
      Every time the President invokes terrorism as a reason to take away our civil rights, the terrorists win.
      Every time 9/11 is used as a reason to disrespect our flag, the terrorists win.
      Every time the WTC is used to whip people into a frenzy so intense that we can't think straight, the terrorists win.
      Every time the bodies of our men and women in the armed forces are used to justify blindly attacking countries without adequate reason or plan, the terrorists win.
      Every time the President cuts the VA and the resources needed to protect our troops takes the terrorists one step closer to victory.

      Have you ever wondered why the terrorists haven't struck in America again? I don't, but I can venture a pretty good guess. The reason isn't national security efforts, a loss of interest or even a lack of will; the terrorists haven't struck us at home again, because they don't need to. They don't need to because the President is doing their own work for them. Inspiring fear that around any corner could be ones own doom at the hands of terrorists.

      America has seen this threat before, but to run around like a chicken with its head chopped off really isn't going to make this a safer country to live in. Wiretapping and snooping on millions of conversations doesn't do a damned bit of good if you miss the ten important messages because you were wading through 10,000 ones about uncle Akhmed's vaction to turkey.

      The damage to the German, Italian and Japanese American communities has yet to be fixed from the WWII, is it really justified to do the exact same thing again? Because clearly the Russian Communists of the 50s pale in comparison to a relatively small group of terrorists. Give me a break. National security is important, but these types of uncoordinated ill conceived knee jerk reactions do nothing besides desensitizing the masses to what could very well be the next real threat.
    15. Re:Stop Spreading Terror! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Boston freaked out cos Boston wants to think it's still important.

      Like the "terrorists" would actually bother with that declining heap... they'd only risk blowing up their spoiled children at BU.

      Signed,
      Inveterate New Yorker

    16. Re:Stop Spreading Terror! by JWSmythe · · Score: 1


          Trust your government.

          Your government is here to protect you.

          Your government loves you.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    17. Re:Stop Spreading Terror! by JWSmythe · · Score: 2, Insightful


          I forgot to mention your irony. Well, not exactly irony, but you've spelled it out well. The terrorists used one action to set in motion their real goal. The US has been destabilized for almost 6 years. People trust their government less, and a couple kids putting light-brights around town can cripple one of America's largest cities due to the fear. Oh my gosh Martha, what shall we do? There's a light bright! It must be the bad guys finally back to get us.

          I guess I see the problem though. There is a strong Christian following in our administration. This is a running theme in Christianity. Something bad happened 2,000 years ago, and (theoretically) we know he's coming back for more. I'm not all that into christian mythology, but I think it's Revelations, or something of that sort? I guess if we follow in the current trend, we'll be playing this game for a long, long time.

          You mention the damage WWII caused through Europe, and to those of foreign descent in the US. There are wrongs that go back a lot farther. I usually refer to "Thanksgiving" as "the celebration of the white man's conquest of the Indian lands". But hey, whatever. In the end, they got casino's and radioactive desert. We got ... ummm ... everything else. Or hey, what about the lands previously known as "Mexico". Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California, ... , ... . Or the sovereign nation of Hawaii? Or a little more recently and closer to home, how about the economic destruction of Cuba?

          It's a great country we live in.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    18. Re:Stop Spreading Terror! by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

      Nonviolence has it's place. It's usually where negotiations bring a reasonable conclusion for both parties.

          But, there's a reason there are loaded handguns in my house. I may choose to use the nonviolent solutions, but should the day come where the other party isn't playing so nice, I have the option.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    19. Re:Stop Spreading Terror! by RzUpAnmsCwrds · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, they can't.


      The devices were not large enough to cause significant structural damage and neither contained the shrapnel nor were placed correctly to be antipersonnel weapons.

      Anything could be a bomb, but the question is, what would be effective as a bomb. It's far easier to make an effective bomb out of a trash can or a parked vehicle - we have, in fact, seen both in this country in multiple high-profile incidents. The ATHF signs had neither the size nor correct placement to be particularly effective.

      The function of a booby trap is to tempt the greedy and the careless into doing something supremely stupid.


      Why the hell would you place a booby trap 10 feet off the ground, where no one can touch it? It makes sense for the police to excersize caution when they investigate it, just as they would with an unattended bag in an airport or a suspicious package in the street. But caution doesn't mean paranoia.

      But madness he cannot understand or accept on its own terms.


      This, of course, has nothing to do with anything. We would be happy to have "mad" terrorists - no, it is the calculating, methodical terrorists that pose a real threat. A madman will run into a restaurant with a bomb and kill a few people. Someone who spends years planning an attack can kill thousands.

      For those of you who live with this "Post 9/11" mentality, consider this: about 6800 people die in the US, every day, from a variety of causes. It's just a matter of when and from what. So, the question is, how do terrorist attacks rank against other causes of death in the US? They aren't even a blip on the radar.

      Heart disease kills about as many people every two days as the attacks of 9/11 did. So where's the "war on heart disease"? Why aren't we banning fatty foods? After all, we have to be safe!

      Motor vehicle accidents kill about as many people every two weeks as the attacks of 9/11 did. We're willing to spend billions on defense against terrorist attacks, yet we can't seem to require (what should be) basic safety equipment like side airbags and stability control. If an $8000 Kia (in fact, every new Kia) can have side airbags, why can't they be standard on every vehicle?

      Terrorists want us to fear their attacks. But, when you look at it in context, terrorists just don't kill very many people. Being prepared makes sense - suspicious packages should be investigated, bomb threats should be taken seriously, and, yes, we should probably secure our borders. But being prepared doens't mean being afraid. Most homeowners have fire insurance, but they don't worry every minute about a fire burning down their house.

      Of course, you're far more likely to die in a fire than you are to be killed by a terrorist attack. But that's not the impression you would get by listening to the news.
    20. Re:Stop Spreading Terror! by ConanG · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm tired of people saying terrorists objective is to make us afraid. That's not the objective. They have a goal completely unrelated to us being afraid. The fear that results from their activities is supposed to cause us to cave in to their demands.

      Unfortunately, most Americans are completely oblivious to what the "terrorists" want. Their activities only serve to heighten our fear and anger directed towards them. Their objectives, meanwhile, remain almost completely unachieved...

    21. Re:Stop Spreading Terror! by Ticklemonster · · Score: 1

      I know Boston over reacted, but the given the state of affairs (suicide bombers since before 911, Islamic fundamentalists declaring war on America since before 911, etc) I figure the whole CN stunt was on par with yelling fire in a movie theater. You would think people would at least look to see which way the fire was and figure out there's not one, right? No; they stampede. And I see you took the food I left out. No need to thank me.

      --
      Karma: Bad is the liberal way of saying this guy won't drink the kool aid here on slash dot. I wear my Karma with pride
    22. Re:Stop Spreading Terror! by MikeTwo · · Score: 1

      "and reinforcing the idea that the next attack is coming, even though there is no need for a next attack, because the first one is STILL doing it's job."

      Ouch. That stung. And yet, it's so true...

    23. Re:Stop Spreading Terror! by wirelessbuzzers · · Score: 1

      The terrorists used one action to set in motion their real goal. The US has been destabilized for almost 6 years.


      I don't think that's true. I mean, sure, the US overreacted badly to that one attack, but "destabilized" is a bit strong. Anyway, their real goal is surely more ambitious than, say, 10 years of bad leadership and paranoia. Like, maybe, the complete destruction of the "great Satan" (in case you're not familiar with 30-year-old Islamist nutjob propaganda, that's the US). Or the destruction of Israel, facilitated by isolationist policy changes in their strongest ally (hm, that's also the US).

      Neither of those happened, and neither looks likely in the near future. What happened instead was rampant paranoia in the States, the destruction of the Taleban, the ouster of Saddam, a huge fucking mess in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the ascendancy of Iran. Some of these are helpful to Al Qaeda, and some harmful, but in any case, they did not win.

      I'm not going to start raving about "OMFG teh terrists gonna kill us all!"; in fact, I think that terrorism is a very minor risk, and that Boston's reaction here was ridiculous. But you should remember that terror is only a subgoal, and that the terrorists haven't "won" merely by making us paranoid.

      I guess I see the problem though. There is a strong Christian following in our administration. This is a running theme in Christianity. Something bad happened 2,000 years ago, and (theoretically) we know he's coming back for more. I'm not all that into christian mythology, but I think it's Revelations, or something of that sort? I guess if we follow in the current trend, we'll be playing this game for a long, long time.


      I don't think there's any Christian "mythology" behind the current war in Iraq (except in that religious people are sometimes xenophobic), and it's certainly not related to Revelations. Conventional contingency planning for the apocalypse would be sort of pointless anyway: to the extent that the battle at the end of the world is to be taken literally, it seems unlikely that good will triumph over evil by standard military force.

      The Christian following in the administration does lead to (attempts at) right-wing policies on abortion, gay marriage, education and so on. But that's a different issue.

      You mention the damage WWII caused through Europe, and to those of foreign descent in the US. There are wrongs that go back a lot farther. [several examples]


      He's talking about paranoia and xenophobia causing the persecution of our own citizens, not about empire-building. The empire-building part is probably nastier though.

      I usually refer to "Thanksgiving" as "the celebration of the white man's conquest of the Indian lands".


      Yeah, the same way that Easter is really a celebration of the Crusades. Er, wait...
      --
      I hereby place the above post in the public domain.
    24. Re:Stop Spreading Terror! by westlake · · Score: 1
      consider this: about 6800 people die in the US, every day, from a variety of causes. It's just a matter of when and from what. So, the question is, how do terrorist attacks rank against other causes of death in the US? They aren't even a blip on the radar.

      6800 deaths. in a population of 300 million.

      incidents scattered across a continental-sized land mass and beyond.

      the Roman Catholic church alone has 2,000 years experience in helping individuals, families, and communities cope with these small-scale tragedies.

      but hurricane Katrina should be a reminder of how fragile the social order can become when exposed to an intense and focused assault.

      the Geek sees numbers, but he doesn't always see context.

    25. Re:Stop Spreading Terror! by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      Heh, true. I never should take my iBook with me to the States*; my power adapter developed a loose contact and in order to fix it we dremeled it open, resoldered a wire**, put the adapter back together and kept it closed with some duct tape. Even I think it kinda looks like a bomb now... It's amazing how easy it is to make something look like a movie bomb.


      * And I won't, because I don't want the TSA or some other organization to randomly break it.
      ** ...and were quite pissed off when we found out that the loose contact was due to a broken cable on the other side of the adapter...

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    26. Re:Stop Spreading Terror! by Xenographic · · Score: 1

      > They have a goal completely unrelated to us being afraid. The fear that results from their activities is supposed to cause us to cave in to their demands.

      So... the fear causes us to give in to their demands, but it's "completely unrelated" to us being afraid!? Okay... :]

      Anyhow, I do know about their political aspirations, but I refuse to give in to fear. If they were willing to settle things with peaceful diplomacy instead of killing people whenever they got mad, they might have accomplished something by now. Of course, I suppose I also understand why they don't want anything like peace, which makes me hate them for it in spite of my better instincts.

    27. Re:Stop Spreading Terror! by autophile · · Score: 1

      If you want America perfectly safe from all terrorist attacks, you're going to have to encase the entire country in a 600 foot thick concrete tomb. Good luck.

      Oh noes! The Mexico border wall was to be one side of that tomb! Our plan is ruined! Flee!

      --Rob

      --
      Towards the Singularity.
    28. Re:Stop Spreading Terror! by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Of course, but there isn't really a whole lot of reason to mess around with the past, right? The sins of the past are unfortunately just that. We can't go back and unenslave the blacks, returning to them their rightful culture. We can't give back the land to those that formerly controlled the Americas. All that we or anybody else can do is apologize for wrongs of the past and make fixes to what we are doing now. I probably should have been clearer to indicate that I don't want any sort of reparations for the damage that the US government did to my social grouping. An apology and a promise not to do it again either to "us" or to others would more than suffice. It is a bit misleading when people in the US indicate that what we did to the native peoples is so appalling. Yes, it is, but there are very few countries which didn't do similar things. Of course, that doesn't make it right, but I do think that the limit to what could happen is a proper apology and a real effort at reducing the current effects as much as possible.

  6. Well that sounds like a personal problem. by User+956 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Jim Samples, CEO of Cartoon Network, has resigned over the bomb scare prompted by the Aqua Teen marketing campaign.

    Resigning from your job is easy. Getting a 10-speed, filling it with illegal substances and sending it across the border is not.

    --
    The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
    1. Re:Well that sounds like a personal problem. by Loadmaster · · Score: 1

      Those dogs can smell anything. That's why you gotta kick 'em in the throat!

      Swi

  7. America Is Officially Retarded by copponex · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That's right kids - we're one step away from failing to have the ability to sort by color and shape. How did it come to pass that Lite Brites shut down the city of Boston?

    The government has been very successful in scaring the public into thinking that the terrorism threat is real. The fact is, more people have died from lightning strikes in the past fifty years than from terrorist acts on American soil. This is fueled by the new status of new media as entertainment rather than information, which creates a sea of idiotic speculation before any facts are actually discovered. Witness the media trial of the man accused of Jon Benet's murder, or any of the number of bomb scares that have turned out to be simple security breaches.

    There's no simple solution, but I think we as a society need to admit first that we have a problem.

    1. Re:America Is Officially Retarded by value_added · · Score: 1

      The government has been very successful in scaring the public into thinking that the terrorism threat is real. The fact is, more people have died from lightning strikes in the past fifty years than from terrorist acts on American soil. This is fueled by ...

      I agree wholeheartedly, but Death by Terrorism isn't the problem. It's the societal (read "economic", as in shutting down the airlines, for example) effect of terrorism that's the real issue, and governments representing the people are obligated to Do Something About It. In that sense, it's not unlike property crime which is typically treated as more serious than it would seem to deserve.

      Regrettably, that "something" typically has the added benefit of giving the government more influence and more control than it would normally have, and we all know those in power are want as much of it as they can get. That's human nature. It's also human nature to offer up power to those we consider our leaders. A tug of war, obviously, but in the end things balance out. The Communist scare outlived the McCarthy era, so I figure the current cycle and all the laws that have since been put into place will last for longer than we think.

    2. Re:America Is Officially Retarded by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How did it come to pass that Lite Brites shut down the city of Boston?


      Good question. Here's how, in general:

      Some confused person called in to report some there were some (annoying|new|sign ordinance violating|suspicious) lights attached to something. It's hard to say what this person's motives were. After the call was received someone who wasn't thinking clearly or had insufficient information called the bomb squad. At this point the hyteria could still have been contained, but word about the bomb squad must have got out and a high ranking politician or bureaucrat got ahold of the news and either decided this was the perfect chance to raise his/her profile, was severely deluded, or misinformed. Alerts were sent out. At this point the situation spiraled out of control: it would be impossible call everything off without someone too high up the ladder looking like a complete fool, so to save face the charade had to continue. Of course the politicians or bureaucrats look like fools anyway, so they become very indignant and try to push back against charges that the scare was ridiculous, try to make it sound more threatening, try to prosecute people, etc... If they didn't they'd be lambasted for shutting down Boston because they were too dense to recognize that Lite Brites aren't inherently highly threatening.

      Does that answer your question?
    3. Re:America Is Officially Retarded by JacksBrokenCode · · Score: 1

      That's right kids - we're one step away from failing to have the ability to sort by color and shape.

      Why should we be trusted to sort colors and shapes when we're being "protected" from dangers like listening to music while crossing streets

      .
    4. Re:America Is Officially Retarded by MrPerfekt · · Score: 1

      This is very much my reaction as well. We're now to the point that people in America are surprised by the fact that they get fat when they eat junk food AND can't tell the difference between a Lite-Brite(tm) and a bomb. Here's a little hint for the masses: bombs generally don't want to give away their location by LIGHTING UP AND GIVING YOU THE FINGER.

      The deeper issue here is probably the fact that movies have told us that bombs are colorful, flashy and small when most of the time this is not the case. Combine that with a government that tells you you're not safe in your own home and you have a mixture of fear and stupidity that causes panics like the one in Boston.

      Nothing should have happened to the people who thought up the campaign, actually did the work on the campaign or anybody in the Cartoon Network offices. The true villians of this were the news networks that took the story and ran with it. They're always the cause of overhyping and spreading fear where it's not warranted. If you think about it though, with all the vertical integration that exists now, Turner can easily make their own news (which is really what more or less happened). They owned the network that did the campaign and the network that overhyped it. Pretty ingenious marketing really.

      Regardless, the root of the problem is the gullible American public that overreacts and doesn't think.

      --
      I just wasted your mod points! HA!
    5. Re:America Is Officially Retarded by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      Bombs can be made to fit pretty much any shape imaginable. Disguising a bomb as something else is a very common tactic. As such, there is no standard "bomb" look, color or shape.

      That said, you are right on otherwise. So few bombs are actually placed. It's been a long time since I remember a bomb threat being real in the US. All the scares do lately are disrupt activities. The people with real bombs don't announce them that I remember.

    6. Re:America Is Officially Retarded by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are people REALLY frightened of a terror attack? I know I'm not. Statistically speaking, there are untold things that threaten my safety more than terrorism.

    7. Re:America Is Officially Retarded by edschurr · · Score: 1

      The fact is, more people have died from lightning strikes in the past fifty years than from terrorist acts on American soil.
      The difference is that nobody is responsible for lightning strikes unlike terrorist groups full of culprits. Of course, even given that you'd expect a government would evaluate courses of action carefully and put their resources to the most good... benevolent governments I mean (where's that dictator?).

      (Yeah, this post is an aside.)
  8. That settles it. by callmetheraven · · Score: 1

    Thanks a lot, Boston. America as we knew and loved it is gone. The terrorists have officially won thanks to you.

    --
    You can have my SIG when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.
    1. Re:That settles it. by riff420 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Don't thank Boston, thank the retards who run it. I just live there.

  9. Yes, it was a bad idea. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not because it caused an irrational bomb scare, but because it was a commercialization of public space. How would you like it if everybody did that, for example by spraypainting the company logo all over the city? Guerrilla marketing is still marketing. If you're going to contaminate public space with your commercial message, pay for it like everybody else.

    1. Re:Yes, it was a bad idea. by JVert · · Score: 3, Informative

      They should be procescuted to the fullest extent of the law.

      For graffiti.

    2. Re:Yes, it was a bad idea. by jbirdkerr · · Score: 1

      You are aware that people put up billboards and fliers for advertising purposes every day, right?

  10. Re:Aqua Teen Hunger Force sucks by Crazy+Man+on+Fire · · Score: 3, Funny

    As the t-shirt says...

    Aqua Teen Hunger Force is the Bomb

  11. Booooo! by k1e0x · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Cartoon Network stand up to the stupid city of Boston! They are at fault.

    --
    Bringing liberty to the masses. - http://freetalklive.com/
    1. Re:Booooo! by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      Cartoon Network stand up to the stupid city of Boston!

      Since obviously Boston must be right at the top of every terrorists hit-list it is the duty of every citizen of Boston and every visitor to Boston to report to the authorities every single cardboard box, plastic bag, discarded supermarket trolly that they see left unattended anywhere in the city.

      Everyone in Boston, DO THIS one simple thing and the terrorists will soon have lost!

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
  12. Doin' a heck of a job, Bean Town by bgspence · · Score: 5, Funny

    At least the city of Boston found the weapons of mass deception.

    1. Re:Doin' a heck of a job, Bean Town by SeaFox · · Score: 0, Troll

      What were the President and the CIA doing in Boston?

    2. Re:Doin' a heck of a job, Bean Town by bryan1945 · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't that be the weapons of mass confusion?

      --
      Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
  13. Good ol' boy politics, nothing ever changes. by pcx · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The Boston media screwed up. The Boston Officials Screwed up. The two schmoes who put the signs up will pay for that as they're charged with everything from littering to having bad haircuts (real charge: making city officials look foolish). Big media tosses a bit of pocket change around to make sure things don't get any higher than the two dudes already arrested. And the exec at the cartoon network is fired because the cost of the advertising campaign exceeded the value of the show. So while the Boston Media and Officials try to convince themselves that two million dollars proves they were right, the rest of the country has pretty much concluded that Boston is one supremely messed up city.

    Did I miss anything?

    1. Re:Good ol' boy politics, nothing ever changes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair, only one of the dudes really looked that high.

    2. Re:Good ol' boy politics, nothing ever changes. by antdude · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      And Boston Celtics screwed up this season. Look at their standings. Ick! [grin]

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    3. Re:Good ol' boy politics, nothing ever changes. by Mitaphane · · Score: 1

      The two schmoes who put the signs up will pay for that as they're charged with everything from littering to having bad haircuts (real charge: making city officials look foolish).


      On the plus side they did get a chance to hold one of the funniest press conferences ever. I guess if you're going to be burned at the stake might as well do it in style.
    4. Re:Good ol' boy politics, nothing ever changes. by uofitorn · · Score: 1

      It couldn't have been said better.

      --
      "What kind of music do pirates listen to?" -Paul Maud'dib
      "Yeeeaaarrrrr n' Bee!!" -Stilgar, Leader of Sietch Tabr
    5. Re:Good ol' boy politics, nothing ever changes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      actually, the two schmoes that put them up did the most intelligent thing they could do-- they held a press conference which only incited the public to more vitriolic hatred of them both. in this way, they can claim that there's NO WAY IN HELL they'd get a fair trial by jury in the city of boston, and can request the trial to be moved to another city. genius.

    6. Re:Good ol' boy politics, nothing ever changes. by bryan1945 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, well at least you'll get that guy from Ohio State, rather than the 76ers who decided to play well since we got rid of Iverson.

      --
      Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
    7. Re:Good ol' boy politics, nothing ever changes. by Dripdry · · Score: 1

      I admit that from a certain point of view the media and officials screwed up. However, I laid this scenario out to some older, more conservative people, and every one of them said that both guys that did this were idiots and should be jailed. I completely agree that our "entertainment media" environment is out of hand, but I think it's unfair to say that there's only one point of view regarding what happened and the fallout.

      --
      -
    8. Re:Good ol' boy politics, nothing ever changes. by Breakfast+Pants · · Score: 1

      I must say I agree with this random YouTube comment: "Throw those assholes in jail! Their actions adversely disrupted public operations, and cost the city tons of money and time."

      The city officials this comment is talking about certainly should be thrown in jail, they are guilty of all the things this comment brings up.

      --

      --

      WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
    9. Re:Good ol' boy politics, nothing ever changes. by jubei · · Score: 1

      Older, more conservative people often think that anything different should be banned or punished. It is a very narrowminded view.

      If the people putting up the displays are to be fined for causing panic, what about the whole federal government which is constantly trying to exaggerate the threat to justify their "new powers"?

  14. They should've given police a heads-up by davidwr · · Score: 0

    In this post-9/11 world, the advertising agency should've:

    1) made sure they had permission from the landowners before they placed their ads
    2) given the police a heads-up along with photos
    3) given the major media a "this is not a story but people may call you about it" heads-up, since people tend to call papers when they see things like bombs

    For bridges and other public property the city is probably the landowner.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    1. Re:They should've given police a heads-up by zoomshorts · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "In this post-9/11 world, the advertising agency should've:

      1) made sure they had permission from the landowners before they placed their ads
      2) given the police a heads-up along with photos
      3) given the major media a "this is not a story but people may call you about it" heads-up, since people tend to call papers when they see things like bombs"

      In the post 911 world, terrorist groups would start off small, and make things like this commonplace, so no one would think about them. Pull your head out of your ***.

      Plastic devices with flashing lights or timing devices? Tell me you DID not say that.

      "Hey Mr. Mayor, we have this cool idea to advertise our crap electroniclally, strapped to
      public property...pay no attention to the man behind the curtain..." ONLY an idiot would
      espouse such drivel.

    2. Re:They should've given police a heads-up by BillX · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In this post-9/11 world...

      In a post-Hitler world, should we allow just any idiot with a radical idea to speak freely?

      --
      Caveat Emptor is not a business model.
    3. Re:They should've given police a heads-up by anonicon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Uh, no.

      This exact same public advertising campaign took place in nine other cities with enough brain cells to force a fart out of their asses, and not rampantly overreact to OMG!!!! PINK PONIES FLIPPIN' ME THE BOMB PACK BIRD!!1111 In fact, they had enough brains not to react at all.

      Source:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aqua_Teen_Hunger_Forc e#Boston_advertising_bomb_scare

      The Boston PD and its authorities are Proof #1 of Einstein's theory that "two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."

    4. Re:They should've given police a heads-up by Artifakt · · Score: 1

      Notifying the landowners in this case seems to be mostly the same as notifying the local government, since the devices were placed (mostly) on public land. A few locations might have been more a matter of notifying the railroad that owned an overpass right of way, or notifying state Depts of Transportation rather than just a local government. Giving the police or appropriate security photos as well as the basic story also seems pretty much common sense.
              However, why would you notify the press?
              A. You're not covering yourself legally - as the people who find these and think they are a bomb have no rational excuse if they then notify the press instead of the authorities. In fact if anyone did something stupid and got hurt "Why did you tell the press instead of the police?" might be one of the questions your lawyers would want to ask.
              B. In this age of news hungry shows, desperate to fill any voids in their 24 hour always-on schedules, the chance of the whole campaign leaking is so high. This is not the press of the Morrow or even the Cronkheit era - typically they will give no guarentees they will sit on the story, and often the print media will flat out lie about employees with ties to national TV, and refuse to admit leaks came from their people and not fictious other parties. A few years ago, Fox news won a court decision that said, in effect "Fox apparently lied quite deliberately, but even proving that the protected sources they cite don't exist won't nulify their claim to be immune so long as they are protecting their sources." It's a masterpiece of legal double talk, and it puts the whole press morally on a par with snake oil salesmen. Until the rest of the industry repudiates that, why cooperate with any of them?

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    5. Re:They should've given police a heads-up by drooling-dog · · Score: 1

      I don't think that anyone could reasonably have anticipated the hysterical response by city officials, even in "this post-9/11 world".

    6. Re:They should've given police a heads-up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're making an unwarranted assumption: that it was reasonable to expect the ad agency to predict that people would react in this way. I don't think that's true, partly because no other city where these were deployed acted remotely like this, and partly because when sane people see a box with a lit up cartoon character on the front, they don't jump to the OMFG ITSABOM!!! conclusion.

    7. Re:They should've given police a heads-up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yeah. You're an idiot.

      I live in Boston. On Massachusetts Avenue (a major thoroughfare, after Tremont, Huntington, Boylston, Commonwealth, etc.). There was no panic. There was no particular congestion. I didn't even hear about it until someone called me and told me to watch the news.

      If you think the Boston PD is stupid for calling the bomb squad in when they find electronic devices they're unfamiliar with UNDER A BRIDGE, then I don't know what to say to you.

      Hindsight is 20/20. What would you have said if they HAD been bombs and the Boston police had left them alone... because of why? Because they looked like Spongebob? Because they were flipping you off? What one of those reasons would be satisfactory for you to excuse the PD of ignoring a suspicious-looking device?

      I KNOW I don't even look like a bomb, but I've been stopped by the police for hanging out under bridges. They're sensitive places. Don't be a douchebag just because 9 other cities didn't do their jobs.

    8. Re:They should've given police a heads-up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because Boston was the first city to panic doesn't mean if Boston hadn't panicked none of the other cities would have either.

      BTW one of the major factors in the Boston panic was 2 OTHER, unrelated, suspicious packages in suspicious locations. I think one was near a hospital.

      If the police had known about this campaign ahead of time, they would've known right away the two other packages were unrelated and a major panic could have been averted.

    9. Re:They should've given police a heads-up by likewowandstuff · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's a post-Hitler world, and any idiot can still run for office in a democratic election. Speaking freely is comparatively harmless.

    10. Re:They should've given police a heads-up by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      In a post Ghengis Kahn world, should we allow anyone to ride a horse?

      --
      What?
    11. Re:They should've given police a heads-up by Spudnik · · Score: 1

      Repeat after me Boston PD! I Am Sofa King We Todd Ed

    12. Re:They should've given police a heads-up by c-reus · · Score: 1

      There have been cases of nazi guys doing some improper stuff. However, I can't seem to remember any city in the world going nuts over a swastika on a wall. At the most the guys that painted that thing are fined and/or have to remove the sign.

      In a post-Hitler post 9/11 world I still think people should be allowed to express their feelings (while not doing anyone harm) without the fear of being jailed for life in Guantanamo Bay with no chance of getting out. If I want to shout "Heil Hitler", I'll do that. And probably be beaten up for that, but that's not the point.

      The point is that no one should be concerned if a muslim guy walking past them is a terrorist or a guy in military uniform is a nazi. They should be able to assume that other people do not want to blow them up.

    13. Re:They should've given police a heads-up by Zorgoth · · Score: 1

      In a post-Hitler world, many places do not allow an idiot with a radical idea to speak freely. Specifically if that idea involves Hitler.

      --
      -------------------------------END--COMMUNICATION- --------------------------
    14. Re:They should've given police a heads-up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hmmm.... I for one would love to see the "OMG!!! PWNIES!!!!" light bright sheet

  15. Public & Network's joined fault! by JAB+Creations · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's everyone's fault really. The media and government hype terrorism for certain political forces to establish a "comfort zone" in the middle east by trying to scare the crap out of Americans. Then the same people who own the media companies are trying anything to make money like any other big businesses and it's no secret that bad publicity is somehow good publicity because people are still talking about it versus not.

  16. Most overblown story ever by sokoban · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Seriously folks, I understand that people are still all sorts of freaked out over a terrorist attack which happened in the US over 5 years ago, but it is time to chill out and not be so uptight about anything which may be suspicious.

    These 38 lighted signs which were mistaken for bombs, never should have made the news. They did not look like bombs in any way shape or form, and had been in place for a considerable amount of time before people started going apeshit over them. People seem to fail to mention the "real" fake bombs which were planted in Boston on the same day (http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional/view.b g?articleid=180349), and have been focusing entirely on a silly marketing stunt which didn't hurt anyone. Honestly people, do most terrorists even know where Boston is? It isn't exactly the biggest city in the US, nor does it have any huge symbols of American Imperialism such as the World Trade Center. It has a couple of nice universities, but do you thing the terrorists care at all about those?

    Security will never come through "preparedness" against an enemy which doesn't care whether it lives or dies. If terrorists/crazy dictators/serial killers/thugs want to kill you badly enough, they probably will. The only way we will ever be secure is to make people not want to harm us

    --
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 is the magic number.
    1. Re:Most overblown story ever by Dr+Kool,+PhD · · Score: 0, Troll

      Terrorists care about killing Americans and as a large city Boston has many Americans. Boston and other large cities in America are the target of terrorists and it's a mistake to think otherwise. The only way to make Islamic terrorists not want to harm us is for us all to covert to Islam. America is not willing to do that, so fighting for our freedom is the only alternative.

    2. Re:Most overblown story ever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Honestly people, do most terrorists even know where Boston is?

      Evidently. When they needed to find an airport with the worst security in the nation, they were able to use good ol' Boston as the launching point for the worst terrorist attacks in the history of the United States.

      Don't forget - Boston in where 9/11 started. Boston let the terrorists onto the planes. Boston dropped the ball and caused 9/11.

      So, yes, the terrorists know about Boston - it's a great starting point for launching attacks on actual useful parts of the country.

      As for attacking Boston itself: why destroy your launch-pad to attack the rest of the US?

    3. Re:Most overblown story ever by SirSlud · · Score: 1

      As for attacking Boston itself: why destroy your launch-pad to attack the rest of the US?

      Fuck, why even bother attacking any more; do you honestly think that those that plan terrorist attacks are more interested in the body count than the scale of provokation and the ensuing international loss of credibility? Sure, the foot soldiers think the body count is important. Anyone who plans this kind of thing, those who do the logistics and provide the connections is just looking to make their enemy look silly, like the guy who goads a giant into a fight that is logically impossible to win. The 9/11 terrorists might as well have provoked America into the War on Sawdust. "Terrorism" is as old as history itself, and a great number of attacks that occurr these days have nothing to do with the US. If the US wants to win the "war on terror", they'd have to engage in so many conflicts, they'd have every citizen fighting abroad. What is unfortunate is that the attack was so incredibly front, center and brazen, it blinds people who even despite the attacks are reluctant to acknowledge the extent of violence on the planet today. It's like trying to win the war on snowballs by throwing snowballs.

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    4. Re:Most overblown story ever by FunWithKnives · · Score: 1

      I would mod this funny if I had mod points. I sincerely hope that you were joking. If you really believe what you just typed, you're a woefully misinformed, ignorant individual.

      --
      "We may face a scorched and lifeless earth, but they're accountable to their shareholders first."
    5. Re:Most overblown story ever by westlake · · Score: 2, Insightful
      They did not look like bombs in any way shape or form

      What does a bomb look like?

      Plastique as mailable as a child's ball of clay? The cartoonist's stock grenade or stick of dynamite? A farmer's truck, weighted down with fertilizer and diesel?

      The parcel where there should be no parcels? Movement where there should be no movement? Lights where there should be no lights?

      What does a bomb look like?

    6. Re:Most overblown story ever by mungtor · · Score: 1

      Are you really serious?

      "They did not look like bombs in any way shape or form" --- You're an expert in recognizing what a bomb "looks like"? Because they all follow a pattern, right? Maybe you watched too many episodes of MacGyver or something, but you can wrap an explosive in anything. It doesn't have to look like half a dozen road flares and an alarm clock held together with electrical tape. If you want to sow some real terror, make it bright and shiny so people want to touch it, move it, and maybe take it home with them. Then put it on a delay so that it explodes anywhere from 2 to 48 hours later. The psychological implications of an attack like that would be pretty effective.

      In short, it was a stupid stunt and Boston chose to err on the side of caution rather than passing it off. Now the rest of the country is trying to cover their lack of caring by calling it an over-reaction. Menawhile they're all thinking "if even one of those was really a bomb we'd look like total assholes now". Remember, planes weren't really considered terrorist weapons before 9/11 either. Rules change.

      And the other "bombs" weren't planted on the same day, they were discovered as part of the sweep. Maybe they should have been found before, but it's pretty much irrelevant. Bright, shiny electronics hidden under bridges send off the same message as the weird guy in the van with a lot of candy. Maybe nothing is wrong, but best to be careful.

      "The only way we will ever be secure is to make people not want to harm us" --- That's just fucking naive and wrong. I'll let somebody else try to tell you why.

    7. Re:Most overblown story ever by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      So why are they not bombing Canada? Could it be that they don't have bases in Saudi Arabia.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    8. Re:Most overblown story ever by Petrushka · · Score: 2, Informative

      Fear not. Dr Kool, PhD, is one of the funniest people on Slashdot. I say that thinking particularly of this recent masterpiece.

    9. Re:Most overblown story ever by NonSequor · · Score: 1

      The signs were flat with a small thick part at the bottom. If you've looked at pictures of them you should be able to see that there is no way they could contain a non-negligible explosive charge. It was apparent to any sane person who made a cursory examination of them that they were not bombs.

      --
      My only political goal is to see to it that no political party achieves its goals.
    10. Re:Most overblown story ever by AEton · · Score: 1

      After Sept. 11, the observation deck at the top of tallest building in Boston -- the John Hancock tower -- was closed to the public. It hasn't reopened since. (This is not really for security reasons; at least one tenant signed a lease in the tower only on the condition that the top floor be private space.)

      It's a shame; the view is spectacular.

      --
      We recently had heard in the office over one of the Yellow Machine that's made by Anthology Solutions.
    11. Re:Most overblown story ever by UserGoogol · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Exactly. Anything at all can look like a bomb, so to say "oh noes, that could be a bomb!" is idiotic. Hell, suicide bombers just hide bombs under their clothes; should we ban clothes? That might not be very practical in a place like Boston that can get quite cold in the winter.

      --
      "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." -- Hanlon's Razor
    12. Re:Most overblown story ever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only way to make Islamic terrorists not want to harm us is for us all to covert to Islam. America is not willing to do that, so fighting for our freedom is the only alternative.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_choice

      "The only way the Bush administration can stop global warming is to sign the Kyoto Protocol. They are not willing to do that, so dressing up in clown suits and carrying chainsaws is the only alternative".

      Die in a fire.
    13. Re:Most overblown story ever by Breakfast+Pants · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Are you an idiot? What's your max recursion depth anyway? Isn't it obvious? BAN WINTER.

      --

      --

      WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
    14. Re:Most overblown story ever by hax4bux · · Score: 1

      This is almost as funny as your web site.

    15. Re:Most overblown story ever by winomonkey · · Score: 1

      How many of the terrorist attacks in the past 100 years have been from Islamic militants?
      Not a lot.

      You say that large American cities are the targets of terrorists, and that we should make no mistake to think otherwise. Yes, it is agreed that terrorism is most effective when it is done against large, densely populated areas, as it will typically have the capacity to kill far more people in such an environment. However, let us go back through and look at the plethora of attacks against American cities that have been happening with such frequency as of late.

      Um, so, waiting for something other than 9/11.
      ...
      Got anything yet?
      ...
      Yeah, sorry, not coming up with much, either. Anthrax mailings? Not against a major city, or a large group. Small distribution to a handful of news agencies and politicians...no big bomb in a big city killing everyone. A lot of small attacks, typically of a political or personal nature, and typically against very distinct targets that are aligned with said target. Or, if they were large (Oklahoma City, for example), they were done by Americans. And, as opposed to trying to simply kill people, most of the attacks were driven by political agendas. Even the Towers were attacked because of their symbolism (and yes, I admit that the people inside helped, too). An attack against a stadium of 40,000 would have been more devastating, given two jets crashing into them. People like you, with irrational fears of terrorists everywhere, are the same people that are giving credence and validation to the acts that our government are taking against us and against people around the world.

      I am not Islamic, and I have not been attacked. Not even threatened. However, I was in Israel two years ago, talking with an Islamic Palestinian, and he was very nice. He actually liked me a good deal, despite the fact that he absolutely hated out government. We had a good talk, that crazy Islamic terrorist and I.

      I am more afraid of gang bangers shooting me in a random exchange of gun fire than I am of getting killed by terrorists. Or a car accident. Or choking on a piece of food. Or a nasty systemic infection from an ingrown toe nail. And yet I still walk the streets. I still drive to work. I still enjoy a good meal. I still, most of the time, clip my toe nails.

      But you're right, we should be more careful, more vigilant, and stay the course.

    16. Re:Most overblown story ever by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      The only way to make Islamic terrorists not want to harm us is for us all to covert to Islam. America is not willing to do that, so fighting for our freedom is the only alternative.

      Can you even hear yourself? "The only way..." "...the only alternative." It's absolute language like this that makes it difficult for us to have a coherent discussion with each other. And I don't completely fault your side for saying things like this, I realize many people on *both* sides of the issue are doing the same.

    17. Re:Most overblown story ever by BikeRacer · · Score: 1

      "The only way..." "...the only alternative." It's absolute language like this that makes it difficult...

      And, as we all know, only the Sith deal in absolutes.

    18. Re:Most overblown story ever by fabs64 · · Score: 1

      Parent post is just plain idiotic, you can think up convoluted scenarios that turn every damned thing into a bomb all day, and now society can't function.

      First show at least ONE case where your ridiculous scenario has played out.

    19. Re:Most overblown story ever by syukton · · Score: 1

      should we ban clothes?

      Maybe then we'd start taking the obesity epidemic a little more seriously.

      I think you may be on to something...

      --
      Reinvent the wheel only at either a lower cost, greater effectiveness, or your own personal enrichment and satisfaction.
  17. It happened because it's Boston by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's because it's Boston, and that's the only reason why this happened. Don't forget, what part did Boston play in 9/11? Boston's the city whose security was so fucked up, they let the terrorists onto the planes. Boston is the city that caused 9/11. Not surprisingly, after being the primary cause of the worst terrorist attack on United States soil, Boston is a little jumpy about terrorism.

    But other than causing 9/11, what else is Boston known for?

    Well, there's always wasting billions of federal tax dollars to bury a highway to improve the city skyline, which lead to
    crushing a woman when three-ton ceiling tiles that had been glued to the ceiling fell.

    Apparently Boston wasted billions of federal dollars, only to glue three-ton concrete ceiling tiles to their tunnel.

    If you want to look at government waste and horrible mismanagement, look no further than Boston. The only reason this happened is because Boston is run by incompetent idiots. The part 9/11 had with this is that 9/11 is Boston's most well known failure, one that they're not eager to repeat.

    1. Re:It happened because it's Boston by ZorbaTHut · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, the problem wasn't that the ceiling tiles were glued to the ceiling. The problem was that they were glued badly. The concept was perfectly safe and reasonable, and is a commonly-used construction technique. They just fucked it up.

      There were huge criminial-negligence-caliber mistakes made. But the simple fact that they decided to glue ceiling tiles to the ceiling wasn't one of them.

      --
      Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.
    2. Re:It happened because it's Boston by HexRei · · Score: 1

      I'm not a Bostonian and only followed this story vaguely during its occurrence, but the Wikipedia article mentions steel hangars and bolt fixtures weakening and failing. That would indicate that something other than glue was involved. Unless they glued the steel hangars and bolts on.

    3. Re:It happened because it's Boston by Miseph · · Score: 4, Interesting

      As much as I hate Boston, they don't deserve full credit for the epic level of pork-barreling that went on with the bog Dig. That went through all sorts of state and Federal politics as well. It's also not fair to call them 'incompetent", most of them are very competent, very intelligent people who get a lot done... the problem is that their job isn't to responsibly run the city of Boston, it's to make themselves as wealthy as possible in the shortest amount of time, at taxpayer expense if at all possible. That said, you forgot to mention a couple of other events in Boston's "illustrious" history. First, there's Shay's Rebellion, a local uprising from my neck of the woods (Pittsfield-Amherst-Springfield area) that many historians cite as one of the major motives behind the U.S. Constitution (prior to that, the same function was served by the Articles of Confederacy); a bunch of Revolutionary War veterans and farmers armed themselves and captured an armory in an attempt to overthrow the government, before being slaughtered by mercenaries hired by the Boston plutocrats who were simultaneously collecting exorbitant rent and arbitrarily raising taxes in order to pay themselves higher salaries. They were, in effect, running half of the Commonwealth's area as an enormous sharecropping plantation, raping Western Massachusetts for all it was worth in order to keep Boston, where they all spent most of their time, well funded and to expand the industrial efforts that were beginning in the Central and Northeastern parts of the state (Worcester-Lowell). You also forgot to mention the Quabbin Reservoir: four small towns in the Swift River Valley were forcibly depopulated, the people who lived there paid a fraction of the value of their land and left to find new homes, and then the valley was flooded and a subterranean aqueduct nearly 25 miles long was dug just to bring water to the SECOND largest reservoir in the Commonwealth. The homes and livelihoods of the people living in the area were deemed to be worth less than providing Boston, which had long ago completely depleted its own natural resources, with more water to waste. Oh, and boy am I glad that my taxes mostly go to funding unnecessary local projects in Boston, despite that I don't spend any time there, I live closer to the capitals of two other states, and the towns around here are all starved for funding because well over half of all available state aid goes to just one Metropolitan area. People wonder why I get angry when I tell them I live in Massachusetts, and they ask "near Boston?"

      --
      Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
    4. Re:It happened because it's Boston by amRadioHed · · Score: 2

      Insightful??? Could someone explain to me how Boston was negligent on 9/11? I'm thinking but nothing's coming to mind.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    5. Re:It happened because it's Boston by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget, what part did Boston play in 9/11? Boston's the city whose security was so fucked up, they let the terrorists onto the planes. Boston is the city that caused 9/11.

      One plane took off from Newark. There was nothing special about Boston; passengers were permitted to carry box cutters with them on commercial flights at the time.

    6. Re:It happened because it's Boston by Jafafa+Hots · · Score: 2, Insightful
      How did Boston fuck up security on 9/11?

      The terrorists were not on watch lists that staffers would have ever known about, they were in the country legally, they had valid ID, they weren't carrying any prohibited items, and they had legit tickets. There was NO WAY for the people in Boston to stop them. The security procedures were followed, and the terrorists PASSED them. Given the guidelines of the time, they would not have been stopped in ANY airport in the country.

      The people who fucked up were in the Federal Government and the White House.

      --
      This space available.
    7. Re:It happened because it's Boston by Kaboom13 · · Score: 2, Informative

      The problem with the falling ceiling tile was not the city's fault, it was the fault of the contractors installing them and the engineer who designed them. As designed, they were structurally sound, the problem was they used epoxied anchors (which are perfectly safe) but the contractors did not have the proper tools or training to install them, because they require very precisely drilled holes, that are very clean, to adhere properly. The failure on the engineers part, was to specify those anchors in such a critical location and not specify stringent testing, as well as personally verifying the testing had in fact been done. The engineering firm responsible for that portion was a well known and respected firm (well as respected as any firm that wins government contracts in Boston can be) and the city had no reason not to be confident that they would perform to expectations. One major problem, and flaw in the design, was that it could give no warning signs if there was a problem (for example, deformation an inspector could notice). The anchors were either working perfectly or not at all, with no easy visual way to tell.

      To call a modern and widely used epoxy concrete anchor "glue" is to deliberately misrepresent the facts to make the administration sound incompetent, when in fact the blame rests solely on the engineer responsible for the design, his immediate superiors whose job it is to review the design, and the contractors who could not be bothered to read and follow the directions for the anchors. To blame the city of Boston for this is kind of like buying a new house, only to have it collapse on you, and instead of blaming the people who built it, blaming the realtor who sold it to you.

    8. Re:It happened because it's Boston by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, the Boston apologist...

      Still doesn't change the fact that they wasted billions of federal dollars to replace a working highway with a tunnel, solely because they wanted to improve the city skyline. And still doesn't change the rest of the massive corruption involved with the project.

      The bottom line here is that a completely unnecessary project (an above-ground road would have worked better and completely removed the danger of ceiling collapse) was poorly and incompetently managed, wasting literally billions of federal tax dollars.

      And because it was paid using federal funds, that means that people everywhere in the United States helped to pay for a useless tunnel that ultimately crushed a woman.

      Which gives you an idea of how the city could mistake a set of blinking lights for a bomb. Despite the fact that the devices were too small to actually contain an explosive capable of doing any more damage than a firecracker.

    9. Re:It happened because it's Boston by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've got a lot in common with Upstate New York.

    10. Re:It happened because it's Boston by Mr_Zed · · Score: 1

      For the 9/11 incident that could have happen at any airport it just happened that Boston was the more logical choice and the most strategic. The terroists did their homework. One advantage point is that Eastern part of the country there is more conjestion due to less real estate space. Another strategic advantage point you would know if you ever flew, even in simulation, that it's pretty much a straight line to NYC and DC from Logan. Who in there right mind would have thought this would happen to the US? This could have happen right out of Providence Airport in Providence, Rhode Island or Bradley International Airport Out of Windsor Locks Connecticut. But these airports are just hubs so the planes don't fuel up as much as your major airports. It is so easy to point the finger right off the bat and really lay it on thick. If you remember there was already a bombing under former Predident Clinton which should have been a wake up phone call. Number of things gone wrong and part of it in my own opinion is self-centeredness. This should have been a warning but we didn't take any heed. You don't think all of Boston's city officials from the heads of state all the way down to the patrolman feel aweful about what happen on that fateful day? This is a major blow to their egos. So can you really blame them for being extremely paranoid for doing what they did? Put yourself in their shoes. Another thing is as a parent of your young child would you want your child see a cartoon character giving the finger? I know I wouldn't until they get in high school. So with this in mind, whatever is happening to our morals? As for the Big Dig incident I am as appalled as you in this but I don't know about you but I am one of many in the state of Massachusetts that is still seeing my hard earn state taxes going to this behemoth of a mess. I remember when they first opened it up and heard there were still leaks. I told the people around me I wouldn't be a bit surprised if a good chunk of concrete drops on a car killing someone. I am NOT sticking up for Boston because most of my state taxes remain past the Worcester side of the state so my section of the state hardly sees any of it. But as for what happen on that fateful day there were lot of mistakes done on many levels. You don't know what's going to happen and how do you protect the unforseen events? Look at the Oklahoma bombing. He was a citizen of the country. You don't have the right to bad mouth the security or the police or any other law official for 9/11. But I take it that you are one of those that is so quick to judge without looking at all of the facts first and trying to see the other side of the coin. People like you are more scarier than terrorists. I have great respect for what the president of Cartoon Network has done it because doing something like this takes major league sized balls. If I had a large corporation I would want a man like him as a leader. Also, I may not like the way my government is running things but I still also have major respect for anyone who puts their life on the line for everyone.

    11. Re:It happened because it's Boston by hey! · · Score: 1

      As much as I hate Boston,


      I can't let this one pass.

      Isn't hating an entire city irrational?

      Isn't having to establish your bona fides by assuring everybody you share their irrational hatred encouraging irrationality?

      You might like or dislike a city. I don't like Dallas, because I prefer a city which is pedestrian friendly. I much prefer Manhattan, or Toronto. But I don't hate Dallas. I don't agree with the dominant politics of Texas. But I don't hate Texas or Texans. I don't wish them harm, I wish them well. If there were a disaster like severe hurricane or a terrorist attack, I wouldn't gloat over their weakness and pain. I'd want my representatives in Congress to step up and provide them with relief.

      Hate is an emotion based on fear. In hatred, the prospect continued survival, well being, prosperity, and freedom of the object of hatred is linked to fear for your losing the same valuable things.

      I understand you're using the term hate "loosely". But in fact there is altogether too much casual acceptance of hatred; hatred can be mild, but still hatred. The underlying uncritical and unthinking enmity is the same, just to a lesser degree.

      I don't even think it is good to hate Al Qaeda. Not because Al Qaeda does not deserve to be hated, but because it cripples our ability to pursue clear headed and coldly rational action against them.
      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    12. Re:It happened because it's Boston by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think he has some pretty good reasons for hating Boston, despite whatever your feelings on the word "hate" are.

    13. Re:It happened because it's Boston by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One question: where were the bomb sniffing dogs? They would have been able to say it wasn't with one sniff. And what about electronic noses, I thought these were out now that could detect explosives.

    14. Re:It happened because it's Boston by Agripa · · Score: 1

      I do not disagree that the design using epoxy resin to anchor the ceiling support bolts into place could work well but it requires a high level of quality control and ongoing periodic inspection. To compound the installation mistakes, inspections that gave warning of failure do to plastic deformation were ignored. I try to avoid using non-captive joints where safety could be impaired.

    15. Re:It happened because it's Boston by Miseph · · Score: 1

      I think you're confused as to what I meant by "I hate Boston". Obviously, it is completely silly to hate the literal, physical city of Boston itself... it is, after all, just a collection of buildings and streets with some people occupying them. I referred more to the socio-political institution of Boston... to the fact that all events in Massachusetts are rated solely on their effect on Boston and/or wealthy Bostonians rather than accepted on their own merits; for instance a couple years ago, several towns in the Northwestern portion of the state suffered massive flooding: roads were lost, homes destroyed, electric and phone service was out for weeks. It took the governor two weeks to so much as fly over the area in a helicopter. Compare this to this summer, when state officials rushed to have a district closer to Boston, where many lawyers and lower level officials who commuted to the city lived, declared a disaster zone and secure Federal assistance despite that the flooding was both far less severe and far less widespread. Nor is it that I hate the people of Boston, I know many Bostonians, and some of my closest friends are from that area. If a natural disaster warranting dramatic response were to hit Boston, I would absolutely want for it to be resolved as quickly as possible, and for everything to come out okay. Just like I would with Dallas, or New Orleans. Indeed, I think this is one of the biggest flaws in your comment: you equate hating a generalized entity as hating everyone involved. It is absolutely appropriate to hate Al Qaeda, it is not, however, appropriate to hate any particular member of Al Qaeda. I also hate things like capital punishment, poverty and war, but I don't executioners, poor/wealthy people or soldiers. These are not irrational things to hate, nor does hating them cloud my judgement; I simply refuse to weaken my position on them by saying "dislike" or or"oppose" or "have a preference against", those are all true, but none explain why or the degree to which I do. You are conflating two entirely separate definitions of "hate", which though they share some general characteristics (enough that we can reasonably use one to describe both), are distinctly different. Though if you must justify hate with fear, then I DO fear that Boston will continue to harm the rest of the Commonwealth by abusing its vast political power over the rest of the state (conferred both by being by far the largest population center as well as the capital) at the direct expense of those towns and cities unable to resist both due to their distance (note that Boston is by no means central to the state on Massachusetts), as well as their lack of political power against the immense legislative delegations of Boston and its surrounding towns and cities; as well as that this will directly harm myself, my family, and my community. I feel that such fear is extremely justified by the fact that it has been happening for nearly 300 years. You'd be afraid too.

      --
      Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
    16. Re:It happened because it's Boston by Fear+the+Clam · · Score: 1

      Judging by your bitching about Boston I take it you didn't get into BU?

    17. Re:It happened because it's Boston by the+narf · · Score: 1

      I must say I agree with you in every particular about the institutional myopia that affects Boston, especially concerning the western part of the commonwealth.

      Because of this I decided, as a lot of others like me have, that I will not stay in such a state. So I moved up to New Hampshire.

      Might this be a way out of your predicament?

    18. Re:It happened because it's Boston by Miseph · · Score: 1

      It would be, but I love the Pioneer Valley. I've tried to live elsewhere, and I don't feel comfortable with the "normals".

      It will take my finding a very special kind of place before I'd be willing to migrate permanently, because it takes a very special kind of place for me to be comfortable with who I am, my beliefs, and my values... all of which are considered to be somewhere between eccentric and twisted everywhere else I've been.

      --
      Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
    19. Re:It happened because it's Boston by dfenstrate · · Score: 1

      I do not disagree that the design using epoxy resin to anchor the ceiling support bolts into place could work well but it requires a high level of quality control and ongoing periodic inspection.

      The Big Dig used 'Affirmative Action' in staffing their quality assurance & inspection department. They took secretaries and otherwise unqualified people, trained them for a couple weeks and then sent them out into the field.

      Having completely unqualified people inspect work is probably the easiest way to do crappy work and have it signed off as "SAT." There probably wasn't a conspiracy to that effect, but that's what happened.

      --
      Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
  18. Craven cowardice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The reaction of the City of Boston and Turner officials tells me that the terrorists have won. America has sunk very low since the days of the founding fathers. This nation was founded by people who would not put up with being jerked around like this. Compare the reaction of the idiots responsible for public safety in Boston with the heroism of the firefighters who gave up their lives on 9/11. It makes me sick to my stomach.

  19. This is what is meant by the expression... by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ..."the terrorists have won".

    --
    Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
    1. Re:This is what is meant by the expression... by tonigonenstein · · Score: 1

      Wrong. The terrorists have not won, the government has.
      You seem to forget that the goal of terrorists (whoever they are), is not to terrorize the population for the sake of terrorizing the population, but in order to attain a certain political objective, like forcing the government to make concessions (e.g. retiring troops), forcing a military reaction in order to unite the population against a common enemy to increase one's power (e.g. The Hamas provoking a military action from Israel in Lebanon. Notice that they consider that a "victory", even though many lebanese died as a result), or something else.
      When the population freaks out for every little incident, no "terrorist" sees any benefit, but the government, which can play on fear, erode liberties, increase police spending, and avoid discussion of the real issues (unemployment, education, health, ...), certainly does.
      Now of course if you consider the government to be the terrorists, you would be right.

      --
      The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up.
    2. Re:This is what is meant by the expression... by dcam · · Score: 1

      What? Their ultimate aim was to force the resignation of this man? I had no idea.

      --
      meh
  20. Let me see if I have this right... by Supp0rtLinux · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Sony could put up a PSP campaign saying "white is right"...

    But these guys are getting fined and losing jobs over something that was truly harmless?

    1. Re:Let me see if I have this right... by feepness · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sony could put up a PSP campaign saying "white is right"...

      The PSP campaign wasn't in the US.

    2. Re:Let me see if I have this right... by Papabryd · · Score: 2, Informative

      Ok, I'll bite.

      For the nth time, the campaign that you refer to was:

      A. Based solely around the image of white woman dominating a black woman. B. Built around the message "white is right" C. Made and presented in the racially-hypersensitive United States of America. D. None of the above.

      If you knew how to use the Google you would've discovered the answer is D.

      As this Joystiq post illustrates, there were several images in the ad series in addition to the incindiary one of the white female grabbing the black one. For those new to the situation, each woman represents a color of the Sony Playstation Portable, that ad series was meant to announce the release of a white PSP. For bonus points, where was the billboard series actually presented? Amsterdam. Not the United States.

      Sony's ad agency had to know the outrage it would create if the ads were released here where the first thought is always race. The purpose of the ads was anthropomorphizing something mundane and aesthetic. To spice things up they made the young hot models show aggression. Rather than a bumble it would appear the ad agency knew exactly who they were marketing to.

      The agency major miscalculation came in forgetting about the internet. Obviously someone was going to take pictures of these and send them around the world the moment the dropped. Apparently they figured the drawbacks didn't outweigh the potential gains. Given the controversy in combination with Sony's reverend blunder factory, I think they would've been better off without.

      Getting back on topic, I agree with your sentiment that this furor over something completely innocent (middle finger pixels aside) is ridiculous. Even if Sony never said "white is right."

  21. No by dsanfte · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If real attacks come, they'll be like Madrid. You won't know it until it happens, it'll be in a crowded place, during rushhour, and there won't be any ambiguity or warning. Boom, and it's done, and lots of people will be dead. And there's little chance of stopping it. That's life, and it fucking sucks, but here's what I can tell you for sure:

    They won't be leaving fucking light-brites at the side of the road.

    Some things just aren't plausible.

    --
    occultae nullus est respectus musicae - originally a Greek proverb
    1. Re:No by gbulmash · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      They won't be leaving fucking light-brites at the side of the road.

      If they thought we'd ignore them, why wouldn't they? It's easy to Monday morning quarterback and criticize the actions of others when you've never been in that position or had that responsibility.

      If you knew that if you screwed up, people could die, would you be as as cavalier about an incident like this?

      And while some of you say you'd rather die than have to put up with this paranoia, I say fuck you, you narcissistic pricks. I've got a kid. And if a little overreaction means the difference between drawing flowers with him and placing flowers on his grave, then I'm all for a little overreaction.

    2. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You ain't gonna be drawing flowers with him. No, he's gonna be drawing portraits of Our Great Leader while turning you in to the Thought Police.

    3. Re:No by professionalfurryele · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You request to tyranny that it furnish you with it's version of security is being granted as we speak. Your son may grow up safe from terrorists, although those who you plead with for his life could hardly care less, and can do little to protect it. The security you seek is a figment of your imagination. The protection you seek is from an enemy that is hardly a threat. It remains to be asked however, where will you plead to when your son is threatened by the very tyranny you invite?

      It would be a grave error in judgement to confuse those of us who fear extremists in our governments more than we fear extremists a thousand miles away as merely narcissistic.

    4. Re:No by rossifer · · Score: 1

      If you knew that if you screwed up, people could die, would you be as as cavalier about an incident like this?
      Let me be sure I understand: you're asking if I would treat lite-brites mounted in visible locations more seriously if I was "the decider"?

      Your answer: No.

      I would treat them like small signs and take them down if the necessary authorizations had not been filed properly.

      I've got a kid. And if a little overreaction means the difference between drawing flowers with him and placing flowers on his grave, then I'm all for a little overreaction.
      Oh noes! Think of the children!

      For chrissakes, you're arguing like Bush's press secretary here. Stop talking out of your ass and join the conversation.

      Here's the big hint: risk is not limited to 0% and 100% probabilities and the outcomes are not limited to "your child is in a pastoral paradise" and "he's dead, Jim". Life has risk. People who don't understand this are doomed to believe the lies of others (because they're unable to apply critical thinking to statements).

      Be smarter than those people.

      Right now, our response to terrorism is worse than terrorism. This needs to change.

      Ross
    5. Re:No by gripen40k · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you knew that if you screwed up, people could die, would you be as as cavalier about an incident like this? But have you seen these things? They didn't have to be cavalier about anything, all they had to do was use some logic to discern that there is no way that these things could contain a bomb. They were literally a black board with some lights and a battery, and unless the batteries were made by Sony there is no way it could have been used as a bomb!

      Sure overreaction is fine in certain situations and to a certain extent, but the GP is right, the Boston officials were just being plain stupid...
      --
      Har?
    6. Re:No by inviolet · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I've got a kid. And if a little overreaction means the difference between drawing flowers with him and placing flowers on his grave, then I'm all for a little overreaction.

      Having a child is the best reason to be cavalier about this. The world is full of risks, and this particular risk (terrorist litebrite bombs) is well on the "might as well worry about being hit by a meteorite" end of the risk spectrum. Yet, tour child is watching your reactions and noting your opinions in order to develop his or her own sense of reasonable.

      Furthermore, your child will eventually be living under the heel of the authorities -- the same authorities who are subconsciously but quickly realizing how much control they can take due to incidents like this... and how much fun it is to control others.

      So take care when you are tempted to demand a padded world for your child. That kind of safety, at that price, is not a blessing, will not make them usefully safer, and will not cause them to develop fortitude and strength of character.

      --
      FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
    7. Re:No by s20451 · · Score: 1

      They won't be leaving fucking light-brites at the side of the road.

      Stupider things have happened. You remember that kid who wanted to bomb mailboxes across America in the shape of a giant happy face?

      --
      Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
    8. Re:No by Gentlewhisper · · Score: 1


      means the difference between drawing flowers with him and placing flowers on his grave, then I'm all for a little overreaction.


      If it comes to that you too will be in a grave, along with any other children you have, and your wife too, so don't worry too much about that.
    9. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They won't be leaving fucking light-brites at the side of the road.

      Some things just aren't plausible.


      Hell, if I were a terrorist, I would want people to weird out because of my light-brites, it would mean that more people would crowd around the device, if it weren't obviously a bomb.

      More casualties = bigger news = more fear = more paranoia = the terrorists win.

    10. Re:No by maxume · · Score: 1

      Do you take your kid in the car? Much higher risk of something happening than terrorism, even in the "new world that exists after 9/11". That may well change but at the moment, the chance of someone anticipating a terrorist action(exclusive of actual detective work, just 'we need to protect against this' type of stuff) is essentially zero.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    11. Re:No by KutuluWare · · Score: 1
      I've got a kid. And if a little overreaction means the difference between drawing flowers with him and placing flowers on his grave, then I'm all for a little overreaction.


      Homeland Security has been notified, and will be around to collect all of your child's Toys-R-Us-purchased destructive terrorist devices momentarily.
    12. Re:No by rynthetyn · · Score: 1

      My general opinion is that it's good luck more than anything that our shopping malls and big box stores have not been attacked by terrorists because if they wanted to do it, there's nothing stopping them. We're spending all of our time chasing bogey men when the easiest targets are not only unprotected, they're virtually unprotectable.

      When it comes right down to it, we need to be cautious, but we also need to live our lives. The point of terrorism is to disrupt our way of life, and the sort of people who would contemplate attacking us are probably sitting around laughing at how soft we are that there has been only one terrorist attack in 5 1/2 years yet we're behaving as if they were setting off bombs every other week. Our own paranoia is doing their job for them without them having to lift a finger or worry about that nasty blowing-yourself-up bit.

      --
      Eagles may soar, but weasles don't get sucked into jet engines...
    13. Re:No by dsanfte · · Score: 1

      My friend, unlike most people in our western society, I understand who the enemy really is, and what needs to be done to them. This pussyfooting "winning hearts and minds" bullshit isn't the answer, and I think we can all agree on that. Neither is betting the "all times : one time" odds that we can prevent all future attacks, instead of eliminating the source of the threat.

      I cannot mention any of them here because I would be moderated troll, since they are unacceptable. Indeed, if you refuse to think outside the box of current western "christianity-based" morality, the situation is untenable, and the "war" is unwinnable.

      --
      occultae nullus est respectus musicae - originally a Greek proverb
    14. Re:No by dsanfte · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're thinking way too far ahead. The first and foremost goal of a terrorist is to see people die. If you are attracting attention, you're halfway to having your bomb diffused, and 90% of the way to being caught.

      --
      occultae nullus est respectus musicae - originally a Greek proverb
    15. Re:No by SQLz · · Score: 1

      Yeah, people ignore flashy signs? Jeez. Why even bother with the lite-bright when you can drop it in a trash can or someplace else no one will even see it? Why go through all that work when you need a paper bag, c4, and a detonator. All if you must be from Boston. Face it Boston, this negates your world series win. You have the "Bill Buckner" of police forces.

    16. Re:No by gbulmash · · Score: 1

      I would treat them like small signs and take them down if the necessary authorizations had not been filed properly.

      A powered device has been mounted in a public place. It is big enough to contain an explosive charge and projectiles. The person who mounted it is nowhere to be found.

      Your answer is to have someone mess with it as people walk by. If you're wrong and it explodes, the person messing with it definitely dies. The people walking by are injured or killed. And you're left answering questions like "why didn't you clear a perimeter" and "why didn't you have a qualified person inspect it before it was touched"? The money it would have cost to approach this with caution is 1/100th of the dollar value of the variety of wrongful death lawsuits being filed against the city. What's your answer?

      Put yourself in the position where if it is a bomb, but it gets anyone, you're on the rack. If it isn't, but you've inconvenienced people, you're on the rack. In fact, there are thousands of people not in your city who criticize your decisions in forums and chatrooms across the internet. And the ONLY time you even partially win is when it's a real bomb, but you keep it from getting anyone (and even then, Monday morning quarterbacks will still nitpick how you kept it from getting anyone). Then tell me again what you'd do if you were "the decider."

      Shmuck.

    17. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      damn, you're a prick!

    18. Re:No by FunWithKnives · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You know what? I have a child, too. A four year old son, whom I love more than anything else in this world. And do you know why I am scared for him? Because of people like you, that take this overblown, over-protective, sublimely stupid stance on "terrorism".

      Maybe, if you really are that fucking scared that your child is going to become a victim of a terrorist attack, you should lock them in a room in your basement, and feed them by sliding trays under the door. Because, and I suppose you didn't know, along with the near zero probability of your child being killed in a terrorist attack, there are also other, much more probable ways for your children to die, that do not involve malice on the part of anyone at all. What a concept, eh?!

      I hope, so very, very much, that our society does not continue down the path that you obviously want to lead it down, because I will blame you, along with the rest of the people that let this neo-"Red Scare" get the best of their common sense, if my son must live in a United States of America that is completely transformed, from the environment that I grew up in, into some sort of Orwellian, locked down nanny-state in which everyone questions everyone else, and the slightest thing that is deemed abnormal is rejected and destroyed.

      I sound pissed off, and it is because I am. Very much so. Because I've got a kid, too, and if a little common sense, context, and commitment to life and liberty is the difference between my son leading a fulfilling life or being the next Winston Smith, then I am all for the common sense, context, life, and liberty.

      --
      "We may face a scorched and lifeless earth, but they're accountable to their shareholders first."
    19. Re:No by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      Look around. If we went into full emergency response every time we find something that doesn't look like a bomb we'll spend all our time and money running around like idiots. If the terrorists wanted to make a bomb that we would ignore they would not put blinking lights on it, they would put it in a dirty paper bag or behind a tree or disguise it as any of the other millions of things you find lying around a city any given day.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    20. Re:No by Raideen · · Score: 1

      You remember that kid who wanted to bomb mailboxes across America in the shape of a giant happy face?

      No, I don't recall hearing about that. However, this event is more like some kid who wants to put happy faces on mailboxes across America in the shape of a giant cartoon bomb giving you the finger.
    21. Re:No by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      I cannot mention any of them here because I would be moderated troll, since they are unacceptable. Indeed, if you refuse to think outside the box of current western "christianity-based" morality, the situation is untenable, and the "war" is unwinnable. Almost every great evil in history has been done under guise of doing good. Don't pretend what you want to do is acceptable just because you wrote your own moral code to justify it.
      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    22. Re:No by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      A powered device has been mounted in a public place. It is big enough to contain an explosive charge and projectiles. The person who mounted it is nowhere to be found. That only makes sense if the powered device had no discernible purpose. A battery operated sign does not qualify. Not even slightly.
      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    23. Re:No by tftp · · Score: 1

      In that case real bombs formed a happy face. But it is not possible for any number of happy faces to form a bomb and explode.

    24. Re:No by Ticklemonster · · Score: 1

      "almost every great evil in history has been done under the guise of doing good". So I suppose the left really thinks that it is doing good? The great evil will be when it allows America to fall with no more than a whimper. Do not confuse the issue. We all know what supposed liberties we give up in order to keep our nation safe. I still have the basic liberties I always had AS LONG AS I ACCEPT THE RESPONSIBILITIES THAT COME WITH THESE LIBERTIES. I have the freedom to speak my mind, but I know better than to think this means I ought to exercise it for no reason other than to hear the noise I make. God you people here are amazing... the slash dotting of America!

      --
      Karma: Bad is the liberal way of saying this guy won't drink the kool aid here on slash dot. I wear my Karma with pride
    25. Re:No by fredklein · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A powered device has been mounted in a public place. It is big enough to contain an explosive charge and projectiles

      No, it's not. The only 'container' it had was just big enuf for 4 D batteries. And with the 4 D batteries in it, there was no other room for your "explosive charge and projectiles".

      Your answer is to have someone mess with it as people walk by. If you're wrong and it explodes, the person messing with it definitely dies.

      By all means, if you really think it suspicious, have the bomb squad clear the area and check it out. Personally, I think it's an over-reaction, but....

      The problem came after the bomb squad check out the first one, confirmed it WAS NOT a bomb, and they continued to freak out about the others. That's why everyone thinks Boston (Officials, not the entire city) is stupid- they continued to over-react to things that had already been proven harmless.

      Put yourself in the position where if it is a bomb, but it gets anyone, you're on the rack. If it isn't, but you've inconvenienced people, you're on the rack.

      I'll choose "It's not a bomb, but I have it checked out. Once it's determined to be safe, I STOP FREAKING OUT."

    26. Re:No by DahGhostfacedFiddlah · · Score: 2, Insightful

      instead of eliminating the source of the threat.

      I cannot mention any of them here because I would be moderated troll, since they are unacceptable.


      Let me guess - genocide is the solution to all our terrorist problems?

      I understand who the enemy really is, and what needs to be done to them.
      No you don't. The worst atrocities in history have been perpetrated by people who were certain they were right, and proceed to treat their "enemy" as sub-human.

    27. Re:No by kubrick · · Score: 1

      And while some of you say you'd rather die than have to put up with this paranoia, I say fuck you, you narcissistic pricks.

      Better to die on our feet than live on our knees. (Or, to put it another way, better to die like lions than live like sheep.)

      --
      deus does not exist but if he does
    28. Re:No by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, what does your self righteous ego stroking have anything to do with the discussion at hand? The GP was obviously hinting at doing great violence towards innocent populations of foreign countries just so that his life can be a little easier and now you are apparently defending him by going off about some straw man liberals are killing the country bullshit. Whatever.

      Have fun giving up all those rights that you weren't using anyway. I'm sure the founding fathers just threw those in cause they though the Constitution looked better without all the blank space at the bottom.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    29. Re:No by dsanfte · · Score: 1

      innocent populations of foreign countries


      Terrorism's roots are in the "innocent populations". They are the enemy, they, the culture and people that spawn them. That's what people seem blind to, the bare and unpleasant reality of it all. Little Billy stands a good chance of growing up to be a suicide bomber, and his parents are to blame.

      So what are you going to do about it?
      --
      occultae nullus est respectus musicae - originally a Greek proverb
    30. Re:No by dsanfte · · Score: 1

      Atrocities by whose judgement? Let's forget the ones that happened in the 20th century, we have no perspective on those yet. Think ancient history, perhaps the suppression of the Nika Riots in Constantinople, or the Jewish Revolt of 66-73AD. Were those massacres? Were they justified?

      If Constantinople had fallen before the middle ages, there would have been no Renaissance, no Enlightenment, no Industrial Revolution, and dare I say, no America.

      If Judea had been allowed to revolt, who knows what might have happened? No Roman rule in that part of the world might have impacted Christianity's later rise to Imperial status.

      What is an "innocent population"? Who is to say that no good can come from killing? Lots clearly has.

      However, as you would tar me with that brush, let me say I do not support outright genocide. It's a waste of resources. I would prefer to try deculturization, stripping the Islamic peoples of their languages, religions, and ideals, normalizing them to the west, and integrating them into our culture instead of letting them continue down the path of having their own, one that will, it seems, perpetually threaten ours. The means of doing so would be subversive and insidious, taking the form of a commercial invasion of their economies, progressing to a forced domination of their media, and culminating in a banning of local languages and a standardization of Western values in governments, places of worship, schools, and businesses, enforced by well-bribed puppet governments.

      --
      occultae nullus est respectus musicae - originally a Greek proverb
    31. Re:No by TempeTerra · · Score: 1

      While I agree with your sentiment, a terrorist is actually more interested in having people scared shitless than outright murder. The premise of terrorism is that you can't directly kill enough people to make a difference, but you can kill enough people to scare all the ones you couldn't get to directly.

      I'm getting a bit OT here, but this discussion has made me think of what ripe opportunities there are for terrorists now. Given the current political climate in America you could run a very effective terrorist cell without committing any crimes. Leave packed backpacks in public places. Walk around looking foreign and shifty during rush hour. Put das blinkenlights under bridges. Watch as the local government overreacts and provides free publicity reminding all their citizens of the bad men who want to murder them in their sleep.

      --
      .evom ton seod gis eht
    32. Re:No by seebs · · Score: 1

      The problem is that, while it's true that overreaction is likely to be the difference between your child living and your child dying... Overreaction is likely to cause his death.

      In short, the policy you are pursuing is not merely unnecessary for your goals, it stands in direct opposition to them. You would have to actually stab him yourself for the contradiction between your goals and your methods to be any greater. Overreactions like this lead to lack of resources to do things competently and lack of consideration given to real threats.

      --
      My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
    33. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I've got a kid. And if a little overreaction means the difference between drawing flowers with him and placing flowers on his grave, then I'm all for a little overreaction.

      I hope the kid doesn't grow up to be a bedwetting pansy like you are.

      Be a man and knock off the drawing flowers. Buy him a gun and teach him to use it to hold off the bastard tyrants in our government who have nothing better to teach him than to make abject, paralyzing fear the guiding star for his life.

    34. Re:No by tkrotchko · · Score: 1

      I didn't hear about that. Is there a link?

      How many bombs did he make? Or did he get any to explode?

      --
      You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
    35. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All of this reminds me very much of Dubya getting elected. Twice.

      Equally mystifying. Equally mystifying.

      I tell ya, it's a real anomaly.

    36. Re:No by randyflood · · Score: 1

      You know, part of the problem with dicsuccions about terrirism is that no one seems to understand what terrorism means. It doesn't mean "People who I don't like," or even people who attack our military forces. I would define terrorism as politically motivated violence by a subnational group agains civillian targets.

      Some people think that if the government thinks someone might be a terrorist, that person suddenly forfeits all of their civil rights. They think that the government should be able to lock them up indefinitely without bringing any charges against them, and send them off to be tortured.

      The problem is, the definition of terrorism has gotten so watered down that practicaly everyone is a suspected terrorist. By law, we have declared that someone who hacks into a military or hospital computer is a terrorist. We are arresting people who put up cute little signs and saying they are suspected terrorists. Why would you need a chemistry set if you are not a terrorist? Why would you need a gun if you are not a terrorist? Why would you need to read books written by terrorist sympathisers if you were not a terrorist? Why would you need to make international phone calls if you are not a terrorist? Meanwhile, in addition to the paranoia, the government is insisting that rights granted to us by the Constitution are suggestions. It is a small stretch from where we are today to the government shipping the people who put up the signs to a detention camp somewhere and torturing them. The government wants that power.

      It's sure a good thing that they would never suspect anyone of terrorism who was innocent, right?

      --
      Randy.Flood@RHCE2B.COM
    37. Think ancient history, perhaps the suppression of the Nika Riots in Constantinople, or the Jewish Revolt of 66-73AD. Were those massacres? Were they justified?

      If Constantinople had fallen before the middle ages, there would have been no Renaissance, no Enlightenment, no Industrial Revolution, and dare I say, no America.


      While it's likely there would have been no "Renaissance", no "Enlightenment", what would have taken their place? Without an accurate method of predicting social change (and we have nothing even approaching that), there's no way to know what lies down the road untravelled. Maybe we would have reached space a thousand years ago, or maybe we'd still be tending potatoes in fields under Byzantian rule. You seem awfully certain (again - a bad thing) that the course of history has been the best possible one that could have happened.

      But I'll admit, your solution is half-correct. You seem to want to dominate the middle east though. I think that recent history has shown that that path just leads to more hatred. It's been over 50 years now since it was tried in Iran, and look at the state of that country right now. Ironically, more progress occurred when they were just left alone for forty years. Before the Iraq war, Iranians were electing reformists - trying to escape their radial religious government. Now the radicals are back in power, which I believe has a direct correlation to the fear created by the US messing around in the middle east again.

      Cultural dominance doesn't have to be forced - although the free speech necessary to affect social change might. People around the world are smart enough to compare their own surroundings to others, and recognize that certain ways of life are better. But to dominate them forcefully/covertly is to have a huge gap of understanding between those dictating the new "culture" and those living it, and thus breed more contempt.

    38. Re:No by Xenographic · · Score: 1

      Well, there IS the old trick of having a small explosive that attracts rescue workers who are then killed by a larger one. I believe the IRA once used a tactic like this.

      That said, you're 100% correct that you do not call attention to the device itself. Especially not like that, because then you wouldn't have any idea when the rescue workers might show up because you don't know when authorities might respond.

    39. Re:No by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      The number one thing to be doing about it is to understand why they hate us. Hint: They don't hate our freedoms. Killing innocent people because they might be terrorists or potentially could be terrorists is both self defeating as that is precisely the type of stuff that breeds people willing to strap a bomb on and it is also disgustingly evil.

      If you think we have the right to bomb random people to try and prevent them from attacking us, why don't you think they have the right to bomb random American's to try and prevent us from attacking them? But I suppose it's ok if we do it, right? Cause we're "good".

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    40. Re:No by dsanfte · · Score: 1

      You seem awfully certain (again - a bad thing) that the course of history has been the best possible one that could have happened.


      I am not certain about the future, but I am definitely certain when it comes to the past, as the past is static and fixed. Events that have happened in history are the only events that could have led us to be who and what we are today. There could have been no other sequence of events that would exactly reproduce the world we have now.

      It's not the best that could have happened, it's the only one, but unfortunately we do not know which events are inevitable until they've already occured.
      --
      occultae nullus est respectus musicae - originally a Greek proverb
    41. That's my point - the atrocities of the past were by no means necessary, nor were they necessarily responsible for the good that followed them. Maybe they were, but it's certainly premature in the science of social prediction to start making violent decisions based on that possibility.

    42. Re:No by dsanfte · · Score: 1

      The number one thing to be doing about it is to understand why they hate us. Hint: They don't hate our freedoms.


      They hate us because we're rich, and not muslims. Hell, probably mostly because we're rich. That's the easy part.

      If you think we have the right to bomb random people to try and prevent them from attacking us, why don't you think they have the right to bomb random American's to try and prevent us from attacking them? But I suppose it's ok if we do it, right? Cause we're "good".


      I'm not American. I'm Canadian. And it is OK when we do it, OK for us at least, because we're us. Given the choice between them and us, there is no choice.
      --
      occultae nullus est respectus musicae - originally a Greek proverb
    43. Re:No by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      They hate us because we're rich, and not muslims. Hell, probably mostly because we're rich. That's the easy part. Oh really? Ever ask yourself why the son of a wealthy businessman would hate us if they hate our wealth? Why would the rich people of Iran and Saudi Arabia who are supposedly funding the insurgency hate our wealth? The US isn't even the wealthiest nation in the world per capita, so why do they hate the US so much more than everyone else?

      The real reason is because of our history of interfering in the Middle East in order to further our own interests.

      And it is OK when we do it, OK for us at least, because we're us. Given the choice between them and us, there is no choice. Your lack of empathy is disturbing.
      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
  22. Meanwhile, in a parallel universe by s20451 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    (Meanwhile, in the parallel universe where these things actually were bombs)

    COME ON! It's a huge pile of electronics with a display that's giving you the finger! What retard would possibly not know it's a bomb?

    --
    Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
    1. Re:Meanwhile, in a parallel universe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So apparently in this ficticious parellel universe, a conversation such as the following occured?

      Abdul: Farid, have you almost completed the bomb yet?

      Farid: Yes, Abdul. I have made it incredibly small, yet still able to kill many of the hated Americans. I have cleverly disguised it in a brown paper bag so the stupid Americans will think it is just a piece of garbage. We can hide it in garbage cans, mailboxes, lockers, newspaper vending machines...

      Abdul: You FOOL! We must place this thing in plain view! That is the only way it will be inconspicuous!

      Farid: But won't that attract the American's attention?

      Abdul: No! We should also put lights on it!

      Farid: Uhh..that seems really stupid...

      Abdul: And make it look like a children's cartoon character!

      Farid: Oh, come on now!

      Abdul: Quiet! Do as I say! We should also have the cartoon character making a rude gesture! That will surely fool them!

      Farid: Ahhh! Now I see your genius! Obviously a brightly lit, comic device placed out in the open will surely fool them! I shall do as you say!

      Sorry, the above doesn't make sense in ANY universe....

    2. Re:Meanwhile, in a parallel universe by Loadmaster · · Score: 1

      Obviously, you're not from Boston.

      Swi

    3. Re:Meanwhile, in a parallel universe by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      I can't get on an airplane with a four ounce tube of toothpaste, I have to take off my shoes walking through their detector, my laptop has to be xrayed outside of its case, and there's a huge sign saying "don't joke about bombs". So of COURSE a huge pile of electronics with a display that's giving you the finger would cause suspicion!

      Duh!

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    4. Re:Meanwhile, in a parallel universe by greg_barton · · Score: 1

      Meanwhile, in the parallel universe...

      Is that the same parallel universe where you have three green nipples?

      Better watch out. When you start treading in parallel universe land, anythings possible.
  23. Re:Or perhaps he's using this as a convenient cove by meme+lies · · Score: 1

    Maybe the guy was on his way out anyway (unwillingly or willingly) and this provides the perfect cover/excuse to do so. Assuming he was an otherwise successful CEO, it seems strange to have to resign over something like this. Or perhaps the insanity that's infected Boston has now seeped in Cartoon Network.

    He's the CEO of Cartoon Network, but Cartoon Network is a susidiary of Time Warner. He has bosses, too.

    Most likely he was given an opportunity to resign with some grace instead of being fired; this would be (in a way) mutually beneficial as he can be the martyr who accepts all of the blame (which is actually a prized trait in a CEO and may help him find another position) and allows his superiors to remain pretty much invisible.

    Of course the other option would be for all parties to resume business as usual, considering this already seems like yesterday's news and the incident will be quickly forgotten, but the corporate world doesn't work like that...

  24. Re:Aqua Teen Hunger Force sucks by The+Real+Toad+King · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Thank you for your insightful and totally on-topic reply Anonymous Coward! For you, I TURN MY CAPS LOCK KEY ON.

  25. If I were Jim Samples by alanmeyer · · Score: 3, Funny

    ... then I would have just blamed the whole thing on Meatwad. Shake gets away with that kind of crap all the time.

    1. Re:If I were Jim Samples by Spudnik · · Score: 1

      No it would have to be Ignot and Err.

  26. Boston's Response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    If Boston doesn't freak out at least a little bit, what keeps other companies from launching the same types of campaigns at taxpayer expense?

    The question asked is whether Turner / etc. got what they deserved -- which they did. The only other thing would be to slap some sense or respect into those two mental children who hung the signs and then made the absurd comments about hair. Hope the one kid is laughing as he is deported.

    Yet we are still talking about "Boston's Response"...

    1. Re:Boston's Response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      what the fuck are you talking about? If Boston doesn't freak out at least a little bit, what keeps other companies from launching the same types of campaigns at taxpayer expense? the freakout is what fucking caused the fucking taxpayer expense, numbnuts

  27. Does this mean? by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 1

    If he's resigning, a new CEO of Cartoon Network must be in the works. Admit it, everyone just wonders if Ranma ½ is going to show on Adult Swim? Really, the whole 'Run for your lives! That Lightbright's a killer!' thing is sad, but I'm wondering how a ghange of CEOs will affect the network itself. I hope whoever comes in next won't give the anime the kiddie down treatment. At any rate, after all this commotion the ATHF movie better not suck.

    1. Re:Does this mean? by Mix+Master+Nixon · · Score: 1

      If that was the guy responsible for allowing a bunch of live action crap on Cartoon Network, good riddance.

      --
      Oppressing an entire population is never cheap.
      --Jeckler (/. Beta IS GARBAGE!)
  28. If anyone deserves a CEO Golden Parachute... by Absent+Observer · · Score: 1

    While it's a shame that inept CEO's get millions in severance packages, if there were one guy who deserves one, it's him. Let's hope he gets a bundle in cash, so he can chill for a few month before picking up the next gig.

  29. Does this mean? by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 0, Redundant

    If he's resigning, a new CEO of Cartoon Network must be in the works. Admit it, everyone just wonders if Ranma ½ is going to show on Adult Swim? Really, the whole 'Run for your lives! That Lightbright's a killer!' thing is sad, but I'm wondering how a change of CEOs will affect the network itself. I hope whoever comes in next won't give the anime the kiddie down treatment. At any rate, after all this commotion the ATHF movie better not suck.

  30. YTMND as always -- by RoutedToNull · · Score: 5, Funny

    I think this says it best... http://bostonbombsquadtraining.ytmnd.com/

  31. slow down and think for a minute by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It costs money and time regardless of the level of reaction.

    Boston would have / should have billed Turner if they hadn't offered to pay for the money. In fact, it probably would have been a LOT MORE if it had went to court.

    1. Re:slow down and think for a minute by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I think what the GP was trying to say is that the expense would have been much lower had the people in charge thought things through a little more rationally. And don't go telling me that they had every right to act the way they did - like chickens with their heads cut off: they're paid to be leaders and they should act as such.

    2. Re:slow down and think for a minute by ZenShadow · · Score: 1

      Having seen one of these signs up close and in person, I can honestly say that the city of Boston MASSIVELY overreacted, and Turner shouldn't have had to pay a cent.

      The sign in question looked NOTHING like a bomb. Any idiot with two brain cells could have easily discerned that by examining one for five seconds.

      It's not Turner's fault that the Bush administration has people looking under their beds for terrorists every night before they can get to sleep...

      --S

      --
      -- sigs cause cancer.
    3. Re:slow down and think for a minute by Lectrik · · Score: 1

      The sign in question looked NOTHING like a bomb. Any idiot with two brain cells could have easily discerned that by examining one for five seconds.


      But it's boston... they don't have 2 brain cells between the guys calling the shots.

      Do you think a jury would have been able to look at the device and not laugh boston out of court for over-reacting?
      --
      --- As to make my comment seem, by comparison, more intelegent... doodie doodie doodie poop poop poop!
    4. Re:slow down and think for a minute by ZenShadow · · Score: 1

      A jury would laugh Boston right out of the courtroom.... :-)

      --S

      --
      -- sigs cause cancer.
    5. Re:slow down and think for a minute by the_womble · · Score: 1

      The people want them to act that way.

      If they failed to react to something that turned out to be a bomb, they would be out.

      When they over-react to something that turns out not to be a bomb, it is not they who have to quit.

      So, they are better off always reacting to anything that is the least bit out of the way.

    6. Re:slow down and think for a minute by smenor · · Score: 1

      The sign in question looked NOTHING like a bomb. Any idiot with two brain cells could have easily discerned that by examining one for five seconds.

      How can you be so sure?

      I mean - maybe the terrorists have developed a sense of humor and antimatter weaponry.

    7. Re:slow down and think for a minute by Lectrik · · Score: 1

      I'd hope to at least get a song out of Boston before they were laughed out of the court room

      --
      --- As to make my comment seem, by comparison, more intelegent... doodie doodie doodie poop poop poop!
    8. Re:slow down and think for a minute by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They acted completely appropriately for the first one. What they did next is what infuriated everyone.

      They found the first one at 9 (story). At noon they announced to the public that it was a false alarm. Consequently, we can infer that they likely knew it was a false alarm no later than 11. Then they find another at 1pm. Might you expect the bomb squad to notice a trend and act accordingly - maybe tone down the paranoia? They had 2 hours to think about it! THAT's the thinking that I expect public officials, the ones in the know, to do. Call the chief of police and say, "hey, let everyone know that these things are harmless."

      Instead, they scream their heads off comparing Turner Broadcasting's Lite-Brite stunt to actual terrorist bombings that actually kill people, and that they got SCARED (by Lite-Brites), and that they spent $750,000 (blowing up Lite-Brites) and ohmygod who's gonna pay for it?

      Land of the brave, indeed.

    9. Re:slow down and think for a minute by the_womble · · Score: 1

      I am not defending them.

      What I mean is that they will get away with being stupid, because the voters are stupid enough to think "oh, they can't take any chances, the Turner people should know better".

  32. Thanks for the hint, Zonk. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sure no one would have commented on this story without your prompting. Good work.

  33. Terrorists Win! by sciop101 · · Score: 1
    The purpose of terrorism is to change behavior.

    It is successful.

    --
    The only thing new in this world is the history that you don't know.[Harry Truman]
  34. If it wasn't for... by dexomn · · Score: 1

    the fact that the government and the media sensationalize war and talk about 'terrorism' as if they weren't committing it themselves... (so we're all scared, in the name of freedom, and the shit that this country stood for almost 200 years ago...) we wouldn't be in this mess.

    I mean seriously; would people be freaking the fuck out if it was the Pillsbury dough boy? Or maybe Mario? Should I call the police and let them know that there's a sign on the highway threatening unknown danger if I'm going over 45 miles an hour?

    If we can impeach a president over a few blowjobs and then another one can get on TV and say "Fuck you idiots I'm the king." and that's cool then I don't know what the fuck the point is.

    1. Re:If it wasn't for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no point. Even 200 years ago we didn't stand for that shit. We stood for liberating rich white men from England's rule, so that they could grow even richer.

      I mean, where do you think we got all this land? The land fairy? And our infrastructure, the immigrant worker fairy? Please.

      This place is just as fucked as it was when we got here.

  35. Atlanta Reacted Better by StarWreck · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Its quite obvious that the high-strung nut-jobs in Boston over-reacted. The EXACT SAME ads were in Atlanta for a week before they were installed in Boston and on the very first night in Boston people were crying that it was 9/11 times a million!!! They didn't even bother taking the ads in Atlanta down until a couple of days after everybody freaked out in Boston and still not a single person thought they were a bomb.

    --
    ... and in the DRM, bind them.
    1. Re:Atlanta Reacted Better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      on the very first night in Boston people were crying that it was 9/11 times a million!!!

      9/11 times a million? Jesus, that's... 911,000,000!

    2. Re:Atlanta Reacted Better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      No it isn't, it's 818181.(81)

    3. Re:Atlanta Reacted Better by Trespass · · Score: 1

      Maybe that's because there's nothing in Georgia worth blowing up.

    4. Re:Atlanta Reacted Better by StarWreck · · Score: 1

      Mod parent down. Troll Bait (-1)

      --
      ... and in the DRM, bind them.
  36. Light Bright Bombs by mr-mafoo · · Score: 2, Funny

    What terrorist would leave a bomb decorated with a scaled-up 32x32 pixel motif lit up in bright blue LEDs?

    Osama Bin LightBright

    1. Re:Light Bright Bombs by DeadManCoding · · Score: 1

      Ohh, if I only had mod points. Sorry guys, but that joke was funny...

      --
      "The only constant in the universe is change." - Unknown author
  37. How ridiculous. by gd23ka · · Score: 0

    No further comment beyond that.

  38. There is such a thing as bad publicity (sort of) by shma · · Score: 3, Informative

    On top of this, Forbes is reporting that this whole sorry episode didn't even help raise the number of people who watch the show. The good news is that the ratings haven't gone down either.

    --
    I came here for a good argument
  39. Re:Or perhaps he's using this as a convenient cove by ThePlissken · · Score: 1

    He personally signed off on the campaign, yes, but it wasn't his idea. I know who approved at the level below Samples. This was not designed to be a fun way out. This was just a campaign on the scale of anything else Adult Swim does which is crazy, off the wall and ballsy.

  40. Cars look exactly like car bombs by Neon+Aardvark · · Score: 1

    Whereas those things looked like a marketing gimmick.

    Anyone who parks a car in Boston should be forced to resign from whatever job they have, and then have their genitalia pointed at by an unattractive woman whilst being water-boarded while a continuous loop of the Barney song plays in the background.

    --
    Azural - instrumentals
  41. Cowards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People in Boston are cowards to have such an over-reaction to some LEDs and batteries. Seriously this country is doomed if people are so willing to buy in to cowardice like that.

  42. Parallel Universe Fallacy by copponex · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yes, I forgot to say that my opinion on the situation was limited to the known universe. Thanks for catching that for me, though. In that parallel universe, your post might have had a point.

    1. Re:Parallel Universe Fallacy by s20451 · · Score: 1

      Yes, I forgot to say that my opinion on the situation was limited to the known universe. Thanks for catching that for me, though.

      I'll let it slide this time, but you should know better.

      --
      Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
  43. Seriously... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...what the hell are you talking about?

    Read the friggn' question in the article...

    The question here is whether Turner got what it deserved...

    1. It broke the law by placing / defacing / etc. public property.

    2. A two cent sticker on the back of the sign listing the ad company / turner's contact information could have prevented this.

    3. It cost taxpayer money / city time to remove in ALL the cities.

    To run around saying Turner/CN/etc. has no responsibility is, well, irresponsible..

  44. Distinct lack of common sense on both sides.. by cheros · · Score: 1

    On the side of the marketing team someone could have been smarter and discussed this with police and city hall before they let it loose. Unknown electronic devices without a label on the back stating "it's ours, call this number" was possibly not the brightest idea.

    On the side of the police someone could actually have been clever by investigating a device instead of trying to hog news coverage in their eagerness to show how wonderfully they were "protecting the public". Now they look like fools.

    In short, neither side has exactly covered itself with glory here.

    --
    Insert .sig here. Send no money now. Owner may sue, contents will settle. Batteries not included.
    1. Re:Distinct lack of common sense on both sides.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "could have been smarter and discussed this with police and city hall.." Discuss what? They were light brights. I'm glad I do not live in Boston, I don't have to warn the police that I'm setting up a light bright, beer sign, outdoor lamps, etc., in fear that they might mistake them for bombs and fine me for it.

    2. Re:Distinct lack of common sense on both sides.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what would they say to the authorities? "Hey, we're gonna vandalize public property. Here's the number where you can fax the lawsuit to"

  45. Freeway with Overpass Sniper. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One day going up the freeway, there was a white car parked dead center on a busy overpass.

    The 'alarm' went off in my perception - *great sniper spot*.

    I slowed down, and sure enough it was a sniper
    - A state police man in an unmarked car, with a radar gun out the window.

    Lined up on the next on ramp was a collection of regular marked police cars, zooming up the ramp and ticketing speeders.
    A 'harmless' speed trap.

    But my first impression was not that of a law enforcement officer, but of a 'lone gunman' scenario - like the east coast sniper team from before.

    I was really surprised no one called the police - on the police, for disrupting traffic during rush hour.

  46. Oh, you've got to be kidding... by alisson · · Score: 1

    I have to say it again:

    "oONoEzbLINkylIGhtswe'ReaLLgONadIE!!1"

  47. Limits to Marketing? by erroneus · · Score: 1

    Should there be limits to Marketing? Damn straight there should be. Can we assume that given the punishment given to the company responsible is limit enough and that other marketers will take a lesson from this? Not so much. Can we assume that marketers are still willing to push their limits ever outward at any cost to themselves or the public? I think yes, but what you think. Been getting spammed lately? Got more than enough crap in your mailbox to throw away? People calling your phone at inconvenient times? Strangers knocking and hanging crap on your doors? People jacking with your car to put crap on it? Got a fax machine printing out a lot of crap you don't want? How about every imaginable effort to ensure that you record and watch the TV commericials that you'd just as soon skip? How about the broken promise of "commericial-free TV?" You decide.

    1. Re:Limits to Marketing? by b1scuit · · Score: 1

      Ok. So, let's just be clear here.

      This "punishment", it wasn't about whacky marketing. It has NOTHING to do with marketing at all, any flavor of it. It has to do with some guys who happen to be in the marketing business, plying their trade under the assumption that people weren't stupid and scared enough to freak out and completely overreact to lite-bright. Boston didn't make the cut, and they're pissed about making total fools of themselves in front of the media. (that they called in the first place)

      I'm as much for real restrictions on invasive forms of marketing as most people, I hate it. I mean really, that shit didn't hurt anyone. If anyone did any harm it was the city of boston for well, terrorizing people. Though really, I'm hoping this starts to happen more often, so the rest of the world will see how stupid it is to run from shadows.

    2. Re:Limits to Marketing? by erroneus · · Score: 1

      Getting attention is what marketing is all about.

    3. Re:Limits to Marketing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People jacking with your car to put crap on it?

      One broke my wiper.

  48. Hara-Kiri by binaryspiral · · Score: 1

    This reminds me of John Belushi's samurai...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_Night_Live_S amurai

    Unfortunately, someone's going down, and it's not going to be Ted.

  49. Knee-jerking 2.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The city, homeland security, and the department of defense are still f-ing retarded.
    Sorry, I never thought this was actually funny, I laughed, but only because it's so sad that these people are getting paid TRUCKLOADS to run the nation and "keep us safe". They're all dumb-asses.

    No, I'm not trolling, I'm dead serious. I'm sick of my tax dollars paying for BS wars, BS church-building, BS programs and BS blowing up LED signs.

    Also, the signs were cute. Fuck them for blowing them up. But that's hardly the point...

    I can safely say that americans are stupid.

  50. What a freaking pussy by JeanBaptiste · · Score: 1

    I hope he can hear this because I'm typing as hard as I can.

  51. Turner should sue Boston by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Boston politicians have flung quite enough slander at their network that I'm surprised Turner doesn't sue them. Looks to me like a slam-dunk win, too.

  52. How Long Tell The Leadership Of Boston Resigns? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Any ideas?

  53. Concourse Nation by djmoore · · Score: 1

    Jim Samples shows he's got more integrity than any Boston public safety official or federal official of any kind.

    No reasonable person would conclude that these devices were bombs.

    Those who claim, "But...anything could look like a bomb! We can't take any chances!" are half right. Anything can look like a bomb. If that's the course you take, resign yourself to living under airport concourse rules: possess only the expected or explicitly permitted, keep it by you at all times, prepare to be searched at any moment by any official on any pretext.

    The message here is that citizens must try to predict what pompous, cowardly officials will deem threatening or suspicious.

    Of course, a real bomb would either not look like a bomb or would be completely hidden. (Wait till campaign season then hide your C4 boombox behind a Kennedy campaign poster.)

    This is the public equivalent of arresting school kids for running around on the playground with pointed fingers and cocked thumbs, yelling "Bang! Bang! You're dead!"

    Action was taken against Cartoon Network because that's a way of pretending to be tough on terror while carefully avoiding do anything that might offend actual terrorists.

    Go ahead, folks. Try to imagine Boston officials trying to arrest, oh, say, a local imam or CAIR director for placing signs with the Crescent and Star picked out in green lights.

    --
    In the wrong hands, sanity is a dangerous weapon.
  54. ...a tiny correction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Nothing should have happened to the people who thought up the campaign, actually did the work on the campaign or anybody in the Cartoon Network offices."

    Except for the fact that it was against the law to place the things on public / private property.

    Plus, do you really want this kind of thing happening again? I don't know about you but there's too damn much advertising as it is without breaking the law and defacing public property.

    What do you think would have happened if a cop caught one of these guys in the act of placing the thing?

    "They're always the cause of overhyping and spreading fear "

    Same can be said for the reaction to the city's reaction and subsequent self-whipping of the posts here.
    1/10 cities reacting badly isn't that bad considering the dumbfounding stupidity and irresponsibility of the idea.

    "Pretty ingenious marketing really."

    Not when you pay $2M dollars and the ratings for your show DON'T CHANGE.

    1. Re:...a tiny correction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      [Quote] What do you think would have happened if a cop caught one of these guys in the act of placing the thing?[/Quote] They would have given them a ticket for a few hundred dollars and told them to take it down. Now, they are facing years in prison and their lives ruined.

    2. Re:...a tiny correction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Now, they are facing years in prison and their lives ruined."

      As far as I know they are only charged, not sentenced.
      Most likely it is something to show the city is serious when the kids aren't.
      You wonder if being contrite and apologetic would make a difference?

      You want someone to blame?
      These kids only need to blame their own stupidity in their reaction to the charges and this:

      "Boston -- One of the men criminally charged after placing blinking cartoon advertisements around the city videotaped a police bomb squad removing one of the electronic devices, but did not tell the officers the object was harmless.

      Surveillance cameras caught 27-year-old Peter Berdovsky videotaping officers removing what they thought was a possible bomb."

      Something tells me attitude has a bit to play in this...

  55. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  56. Idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It amazes me that the advertising campaign was taking place in 9 cities. Only the idiots of Boston had any problems with it.

    And, how in the world did Boston seem to think that it cost so much? All of the law enforcement officers were probably already on the clock, so it wouldn't have cost them any more that it would have anyway.

  57. Morons. Total Morons. Lite Brite Is Not a Bomb. by CritterNYC · · Score: 1

    Morons is the only word I can think of to properly classify:

    - the people who reported "suspicious devices" with a cartoon character flipping them off (would they react the same to fred flintstone or pacman in LEDs?)
    - the people who thought they were bombs ("OMG D batteries!!!!11`1!")
    - the endless media pundits saying they were suspicious (maybe we can frighten people into watching our channel longer)
    - the prosecutors that went after the marketers (well, we know this is stupid, but we have to now that the ball is rolling)
    - all the people who spout things like "in a post-9/11 world, we have to be vigilant" (there's a coca-cola sign that looks suspicious near me... it's all glowing and red) there's a difference between being cautious and being stupid, especially once you realize you're wrong
    - and now, the folks at Cartoon Network that gave in and paid 2 million dollars and then sacked people

    For anyone that can't seem to think clearly, let me make this really easy:
    LITE BRITE IS NOT A BOMB

  58. Am I scaring you? by vought · · Score: 1

    "I'm doing it as hard as I can!"

  59. Bunch of Morons by xC0000005 · · Score: 1

    How does ANYONE think those things were bombs? If they honestly did, should we let those people call 911 again?

    Hey, Boston Bob - you see that thing that looks like a cartoon charcter giving us the finger?
    I dunno. Looks like a bomb to me.
    Careful Bob, remember the last time, when you called the bomb squad over the alarm clock?
    It had batteries and wires, and it didn't light up. How was I supposed to know it was an alarm clock?
    It was *your* alarm Clock, Boston Bob. It didn't light up because you let the batteries run out.
    It was the alarm company's fault for not making it clear that it wasn't a bomb. I'm calling this one in and shutting things down. Can't be too careful.

    --
    www.voiceofthehive.com - Beekeeping and Honeybees for those who don't.
  60. My gift to the fine people of Boston by bXTr · · Score: 3, Funny

    I know you can't see this, but I'm doing this harder than I've ever done it before.

    --
    It's a very dark ride.
    1. Re:My gift to the fine people of Boston by Anti_Climax · · Score: 1

      I know you can't see this, but I'm doing this harder than I've ever done it before.

      I like it, though I have to say I prefer my girlfriend's quote more:

      Can you hear this Boston, or shall I turn it up for you?
      --
      Even people that believe in pre-destiny look both ways before crossing the street.
    2. Re:My gift to the fine people of Boston by bXTr · · Score: 1

      I like it, though I have to say I prefer my girlfriend's quote more:

      Nice pic. I first tried an ASCII art version, but /. doesn't allow it. Damn you /. and your lameness filter!

      --
      It's a very dark ride.
  61. thetruth.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://thetruth.com/ is the (I assume government-funded) shock marketing campaign involving, in the last two commercials I have seen, seemingly severed body parts in trash cans and baby dolls (of unknown composition- could have been bombs) encased in ice.
    Both of these ads film the astonished responses of people in public places.

    Let's assume that the ad agency alerted the police that there weren't, in fact, severed body parts in trash cans- that it was all guerrilla marketing. Let's assume that the marketers also provided adequate proof that the dolls weren't bombs. But the passersby wouldn't necessarily assume this, and wouldn't necessarily see that it was advertising. How many calls were made to 911? How many resources were wasted?

    It's possible that bombs could have been made to look like innocuous light-displays. Being vigilant is one thing. Charges of terrorism and hoaxes, a payout of two million dollars, heads rolling- that's something else. There are few similarities between these lights and bombs. The police acted as they should have- tested something out of the ordinary. The case might even be made that they could not be sure that some weren't decoys (lights) while others were bombs. But at some point along the line it must have seemed worth considering that they should turn their attention back to the cars, trucks, trash cans and suitcases (for the consideration of volume if nothing else) - especially if the lights blow up like lights and not like bombs.

    What would have happened if these had merely been fans, without a corporate scapegoat? Would the charges have gone further?

    All this uproar over some lights- the panicked view that anything and everything could potentially be a bomb. I'm never going to look at a severed arm in a trashcan the same way again.

  62. I agree by Xenographic · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I, for one, find it incredibly disturbing that authorities could mistake this for a bomb. That, to me, shows that they are ill-prepared. I've heard many times how they "still had to take it seriously" but they didn't. Anyone *competent* should've known several reasons why it wasn't a bomb:

    * No source of shrapnel, that plus the odd placing makes them incredibly ineffective as anti-personnel weapons.

    * They're WAY too small to cause structural damage, even if the batteries were supposed to be shaped charges. I'm sorry, but I don't see an explosive that size as being able to even scratch a bridge like that.

    * No payload -- batteries don't explode (Sony's catch on fire, at most) and even if they did, and even if they were shaped charges, they're oriented completely wrong on the device, so I don't see how they were supposed to cause anti-personnel damage.

    * You do NOT call attention to a device like that with blinking lights. SOME of us would know it was a bomb even if it had a cartoon on it and others would assume it was one anyhow. Now, it's true that the IRA used to do something somewhat similar, but what they did was have a small explosion to attract rescue workers & such, then a larger one to kill them. You don't attract people with blinking lights, you'd never be able to properly time the explosion unless you were standing there, waiting to get caught.

    So what have we learned here? Hopefully that a terrorist's purpose is to cause terror.
    Every time you panic, the terrorists win.

    1. Re:I agree by killjoe · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I for one find it highly disturbing that the things were in place for days before the were "discovered". If it had been a real bomb they would have gone off without anybody noticing.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    2. Re:I agree by Greg.Rodden · · Score: 3, Funny

      I find it disturbing how much you seem to know about bombs...

      --
      I have ridden the mighty moon worm!
    3. Re:I agree by pilkul · · Score: 1

      And real terrorists just learned a neat new trick: scatter lite-brites around the city, distracting the bomb squad while your real bomb explodes somewhere else.

    4. Re:I agree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I, however, disagree with you. If you have seen a IED all of these devices don't like anything destructive at their first appearance. Actually they look like "normal" objects that you take for granted like radios, garbage cans, vehicles, signs, etc. but these devices had maimed and killed people. I have personally made these "funny light" devices and it doesn't much making it into IED. It doesn't take much explosives to maim or kill a non-protected person. And the shrapnel you need is the plastic will not vaporize but will be flying debris into whoever you want. Take a "toy" noise maker like a M100 and put a plastic sheet over it and and get anyone with 10 feet of it and see the results. If you want to try and tell me the results... if you live.
      I'm not saying that we should over-react to any "unusual" object but you don't need to be a "foreign terrorist" to be killing people for their sake. Take Timothy McVeigh.

    5. Re:I agree by DavidTC · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And the reason you'd make IEDs out of flashing colored lights instead of, say, a garbage can would be?

      And, let's just ask ourselves one actual serious question here: How many bombings have there actually been in public like this? The Olympic bomber guy, and, well, that's about it. (And Atlanta, of course, didn't react to the signs at all.)

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    6. Re:I agree by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      Why even bother with making real bombs? If terrorists actually wanted to disrupt things in this country, calling in fake bomb threats would work pretty damn well, especially if they planted suspicious packages beforehand in hard-to-reach-safely places.

      If they were really clever, they'd put something in them that looked like an explosive after it was blown up and a cell phone and wires to make it look like it had a trigger.

      It's a lot easier than making a bomb and trying to hurt people with it, and it's nearly impossible to get caught, because you don't actually have to get any explosives. If you were really smart, you could put it together as you installed it so they couldn't ever catch you actually carrying anything.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    7. Re:I agree by jmccay · · Score: 1

      What if the payload was not a bomb but instead a virus or chemical weapon? Then what? All it takes is a couple of people being infected while moving through the city. I am more surprised that it took so long to find these things. The police and other agencies have to side on the side of caution. Anything else, you'd be complaining about who they didn't do enough. They can't win in today's society because there are so many polarized people.

      --
      At the next eco-hypocrisy-meeting, count the private jets used to get to the meeting. Should be interesting to see that
    8. Re:I agree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure someone would notice a bomb going off...

    9. Re:I agree by JM78 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Anyone *competent* should've know several reasons why it wasn't a bomb:

      Considering Boston was the only city out of a dozen or so to even bat and eye at this let alone through down a gauntlet and put the entire city under seige is proof enough for the rest of us that they overreacted on a whole new level.

      Those stupid things were here in Seattle too and people thought they were an intriguing gimmick. I think it's sad that innocent people are suffering by getting arrested and charged for criminal action and a company had to shell out big cash all because smug politicians have zero humility and cannot admit they freaked out. Excuses out the wazoo only make them look more inept.

      --
      I am Jack's smirking revenge.
    10. Re:I agree by Boronx · · Score: 1

      The Army trains thousands of engineers in this stuff, then releases them into the wild.

    11. Re:I agree by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Oh, given that they had already found two fake pipe bombs, which no one here on Slashdot seems to know about (http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional/view.b g?articleid=180349), the paranoia of the Boston authorities seems more understandable. It's also a really good idea sometimes to give your staff practice treating a small emergency as a real one, so that when they have the real one they're familiar with the procedures.

      I'd much rather the Boston police take it seriously, and be wrong, than take it casually and be wrong.

    12. Re:I agree by anagama · · Score: 2, Funny

      The LEDs are a sure sign of biological weapons but if you are going to make a poisonous chemical device, everyone knows you have to go incandescents. Jeez, what were you, sleeping during bomb making class?

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    13. Re:I agree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't let the "interesting" fool you, I'm pretty sure that was a joke.

    14. Re:I agree by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      Now, it's true that the IRA used to do something somewhat similar, but what they did was have a small explosion to attract rescue workers & such, then a larger one to kill them.

      Are you sure about that? I remember the IRA nail bomb attack on the Horseguards' Parade, the attack on the Tory party conference in Brighton (brought half the hotel down and still missed Maggie...), the Canary Wharf bomb, etc, all of which either did kill or only didn't through blind luck, but I certainly don't remember the tactic you describe. I *do* remember lots of reports of the IRA telling police that they'd planted a bomb in a certain area, giving plenty of time to evacuate people. I also remember the Omagh bomb, when the phoned-in warning deliberately mislead police as to where the bomb was, causing them to evacuate people *to* it, rather than *from* it. However, that was an extreme* splinter group, the "Real IRA", who were pissed at the Provisional IRA for entering in to peace talks with the Brits.

      Now I admit that I'm no expert on the matter, but I've lived in the UK all my life, and the IRA was active for a lot of it, and I don't remember any reports detailing the tactic you describe.

      (* I appreciate the irony of referring to them as extreme in comparison to the rest of the IRA, but relatively speaking they were)

    15. Re:I agree by ari+wins · · Score: 1

      I thought it was every time I bought a bag of illicit drugs the terrorists won. Which, I guess really can't be true, because the score atm would be something like 818592-0.

      --
      Don't worry if you're a kleptomaniac, you can always take something for it.
    16. Re:I agree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is surprising that you and the bomb squad have so little knowledge of explosives...

      Please go back and review chemistry 101, to get a basic understanding of potential energy.

      Follow that up with a quick overview of the size and shape of basic infanry weapons and explosive devices.

      Then sit down and watch a few Discovery, or History channel shows on the uses of explosives, with attention paid to shaped and timed charges, as used in demolition and mining. Follow that up with a bit of selected reading on the actual shape and size of IEDs and other bombs and you will have a beginner's understanding of the subject.

      Mix that with some youthful reading of the Handbook of Physics and Chemistry back when chemisry sets had things that could react with something more than bubbles...

      At that point you too would be laughing at the Boston Bomb Squad and Mayor.

    17. Re:I agree by CTachyon · · Score: 1

      I find it disturbing that you find it disturbing. I was nodding along with the GP, and most of what I know about explosives comes from watching various television series starring Richard Dean Anderson.

      --
      Range Voting: preference intensity matters
    18. Re:I agree by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      The same thing that applies to conventional bombs (in the location they were found they were practically useless as anti-personnel weapons) applies to chem weapons - if you release a small amount of sarin in a closed environment like a subway train all hell breaks loose. If you do the same in the open air the effect is less dramatic due to the fact that the sarin dissipates into the surrounding air and there's usually fewer people per area. There's a reason why gas grenades are bigger than AA batteries - an effective range of a couple inches isn't really useful.

      As for biological weapons: You'd need a pathogen that can survive air contact for a certain amount of time, is extremely infectious, can not be easily countered and has a suitable attack vector (inhalation, skin contact). That's certainly doable (although very hard if you're not a large nation's government), but there are much easier ways to infect people and have the world know it than putting up small amounts of the pathogen in easily locatable containers so that each can only infect a small group of people at best. If you want to cause mayhem you infect the city's drinking water or the contents of a blood bank and release a video after the first infection wave. The same applies to chem weapons - if you want attention, don't draw it until after the attack.
      Bioweapons have another drawback: Once you used one strain of virus it's going to be identified and countermeasures are taken. Two months later they're stocked with the drugs they need to counter it and lots of vaccine to immunize people, should the same attack come again. For terrorists bioweapons are effectively hard to obtain one-shot weapons so they'd want to make sure that they hit enough people to get the message across.

      Of course, terrorists could also spread around small, curious-looking contraptions that cause the bomb squads to get called for nothing. Any nation sufficiently paranoid can be affected by this; it would work in the USA and the UK. Remember, terrorism is not about killing people, it's about demoralizing them.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    19. Re:I agree by Xenographic · · Score: 1

      Actually, that's probably a good thing. A device that small wouldn't cause any significant damage unless someone was holding it, so if no one was nearby, we'd have been fine (even if if had been high explosive).

      And I suspect that many people did notice them, but realized that they were harmless. That, too, would be a good thing.

      I just hope that the lesson people take from this is "DON'T PANIC" ... it's still good advice :]

    20. Re:I agree by Bastian227 · · Score: 1

      I'd much rather the Boston police take it seriously, and be wrong, than take it casually and be wrong.

      I agree, but that's not the point here. They took it seriously (great) and were wrong, but they did not take being wrong casually. They were embarrassed, and then childishly blamed others for their own actions. Cartoon Network made us over-react! They should pay!

      If you give me the finger on the roadway, and I pull out a gun and shoot you, you're not at fault.

      Don't get me wrong. Cartoon Network should pay some hefty fines for littering or something. I just think this was a series of misunderstandings, and the situation should be blamed as such.

    21. Re:I agree by Rocko's+Modurn+Life · · Score: 1

      Boston over-reacted and Cartoon Network is the scapegoat.

      Whatever. Cartoon Network paid because the city of Boston had to pay all the public workers they called to deal with the scare. Call it what you want but it wouldn't have happened without this so-called 'marketing'. It's amazing how we're all just accepting the invasion of advertising. Keep your ads on TV, in magazines and on billboards. Stop trying to shove them in my face with 'clever' marketing campaigns.

      Mod up the parent for doing some research and giving city officials credit for doing their job.

    22. Re:I agree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Facts is: September 11 - real threat - no action.

      Here : no threat - real action.

      The "authorities" screwed up both times.

    23. Re:I agree by Castar · · Score: 1

      OK, I can agree with taking the first one seriously - even after they see the device that the person reported, and can visually verify that it's not a bomb, they can be safe and blow it up with a bomb squad and so forth. But then, they should say "Oh, OK, not a bomb, nothing to see here, move along."

      Instead, they shut down the city over something that they had *verified* was not a bomb. This really does look, as another poster has suggested, very much like people willing to go to any lengths to avoid admitting they were wrong.

      --
      I yearn for you tragically. A. T. Tappman, Chaplain, U.S. Army.
    24. Re:I agree by Alchemar · · Score: 1

      I can see where practice drills would be a good idea. Threatening people with proscecution, and charging millions of dollars in fees because you weren't ready is probably a bad idea.

  63. It came around the full circle... by PaulBu · · Score: 1

    ... did not it?

    Oh, irony... :-/

    Paul B.

    P.S. Reason has some good coverage of the incident: http://reason.com/news/show/118476.html and the aftermath: http://reason.com/blog/show/118625.html .

    And of course any self-respecting /.-er respects Bruce Schneier, who has this http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/02/nont errorist_em.html to say...

    And everyone knows that bombs have blinking lights on 'em. Every single movie bomb you've ever seen has a blinking light.

  64. Yeah by KKlaus · · Score: 1

    For better or worse (with respect to America's view on terror) I'm glad these guys got hammered. If it takes the vindictiveness of city officials to put an end to what amounts to corporate littering, that's fine with me. I hate the idea that a wealthy corp that can easily handle fines designed for highschool and college kids takes advantage of said legal situation and puts crap like this around town. I don't have young kids, but if I did, driving past a moonite flicking us off that I knew was somonee's illegal ad campaign would annoy the hell out of me. And don't forget, they put these things on private property too. So if one good thing comes of all this, maybe it will be that these ad agencies will stop this "guerilla marketing" crap, and stop paying kids to commit crimes on their behalf. The whole thing annoys the shit out of me. This is largely tangental to the terror idiocy, however.

    Cheers.

    --
    Relax I just want some peanuts.
    1. Re:Yeah by BoberFett · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because, ya know, poor college kids never plaster advertisements around big cities. I've never seen thousands of concert flyers for some little indie band glued to buildings and poles. Doesn't happen. It's just the evil corporations that litter and advertise.

  65. clarification by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I think what the GP was trying to say is that the expense would have been much lower had the people in charge thought things through a little more rationally."

    And if that would have happened, Turner, etc. wouldn't have paid out as much as they did and probably would have done the same crap again at taxpayer expense without consequences.

    The good thing about the over-reaction (if there is one) is the bitch-slap it gives to stupid ideas like this.

    "And don't go telling me that they had every right to act the way they did - like chickens with their heads cut off: they're paid to be leaders and they should act as such."

    No they didn't.

    But don't tell me Turner / CN / etc. has the right to do whatever the hell they want either including breaking the law and abusing city time and taxpayer money.

    I'm just f*ckin tired of hearing about Boston as if that is the only thing to this story and being shouted down by the rabble as if I am insane when I say that it was a completely irresponsible, un-funny idea in the first place.

    1. Re:clarification by anagama · · Score: 2, Insightful
      So ten other cities had these and failed to go ape-shit. To me, it just sounds like boston is at the wrong end of the bell curve here. What's more retarded than Boston though, is bending over and paying out. Let me just cite this once again: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/302011_devices 01.html. The headline reads: Cartoon Network publicity stunt sparks panic in Boston -- but not here

      And it has some choice quotes, like this one:

      "To us, they're so obviously not suspicious," said King County sheriff's spokesman John Urquhart. "They're not suspicious devices or packages. We don't consider them dangerous." ... Neither Seattle police nor the King County Sheriff's Office received 911 calls regarding the figures, authorities said.
      There, proof that both residents and officials of the Pacific Northwest are smarter/less paranoid the residents/officials of Boston.
      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    2. Re:clarification by DavidTC · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Pffft, it's not just the Pacific Northwest.

      Atlanta didn't freak out, and Atlanta has actually been bombed repeatedly by a terrorist, namely, Eric Robert Rudolph, who, started with the 1996 Olympics, then proceeded to bomb an abortion clinic and a lesbian nightclub, then moving over to Alabama for the last attack. The Olympic attack was, in fact, 'leave an unattended napsack in public'. I don't know what the others were.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    3. Re:clarification by wirelessbuzzers · · Score: 1

      I still don't understand.

      What's the taxpayer expense here? I mean, it more or less amounts to littering, I suppose, so it might cost them all of a hundred bucks to get some guy to spend five minutes taking each sign down and throwing it out.
      And then, well, if you ticket them for littering, you've recouped your hundred bucks, and then some. The only reason it cost Boston any significant amount of money is because they called the bomb squad.

      To those who think we should call the bomb squad every time someone puts a small box of blinkenlights by an overpass, think again. If we treat boxes of blinkenlights like litter, then the terrorists don't gain anything over making their bomb look like litter.

      --
      I hereby place the above post in the public domain.
    4. Re:clarification by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aw get that stick out of your ass. It'll be more comfortable, I promise.

  66. Which one? Bizarro World? :] by Xenographic · · Score: 5, Insightful

    > COME ON! It's a huge pile of electronics with a display that's giving you the finger! What retard would possibly not know it's a bomb?

    The kind who knows that real bombs have payloads. The kind that knows that a device that small isn't going to cause structural damage to something like a bridge even if it was 100% high explosive. The kind who knows that they were very, very poorly placed as anti-personnel devices, called unnecessary attention to themselves, and probably wouldn't have been able to kill anyone at all, unless that person had been standing right next to them.

    You know, the kind of person who might be found on a bomb squad :] Well, a competent bomb squad, like those found in all the other cities...

    --
    Every time you panic, the terrorists win.

  67. Advertisement successful! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Y'know, I needed this advertisement. Frankly, besides the constant quoting of the show both in online forms and real life, the thousands of avatar icons, the hordes of fans wearing T-Shirts with ATHF cast members on it, and the inevitable two months of daily Slashdot stories both before and after the movie's release detailing every element of it, I had NO idea there was a show called Aqua Teen Hunger Force, let alone that a movie was planned about it.

    Of course, I say this sarcastically, but as evidence shows, the city of Boston honestly wasn't aware of this fact. Which makes me wonder what that style of advertising is supposed to do. They have Lite Brite representations of the Mooninites with no further explanations. No "ATHF coming soon to theaters near you", no "Coming this year", nothing. Who is this supposed to appeal to? Anyone who knows the significance of a Mooninite flipping you off "as hard as he possibly can" already KNOWS there's an ATHF movie coming out. Anyone who doesn't know why this badly-drawn character is flipping them off will most likely be annoyed by the show, more annoyed by the movie, and, as shown, may take it as a threat.

    It may just be me, but I see these sorts of ads as a form of corporate/fanboy self-pleasure.

  68. Maybe firing the guy is a publicity stunt... by Sargeant+Slaughter · · Score: 1

    He's worked there 12 years, maybe he wanted to leave anyway. What better time than now. Keeps the network in the headlines for a few more days...

    --
    I hear and I forget. I see and I remember. I do and I understand. -Confucius
    1. Re:Maybe firing the guy is a publicity stunt... by GiMP · · Score: 1

      Hell, once this is out of the headlines, there wouldn't even be a reason that they couldn't just rehire him. 2 million for this kind of exposure? Better than a superbowl ad. Of course they're gonna milk it for as long as they can.

  69. How 2 Million? by KidSock · · Score: 1

    I want to know how they arrived at two MILLION dollars. I would think that after having the bomb squad out to look at one of these things and after the police realized that those two dimwitts couldn't plant seeds let alone bombs (it's all about "intent") that they would just send everyone home and charge Turner $20,000. But TWO MILLION? They must have used electron microscopy trying to catalog every tool mark on every screw. Turner obviously has some business they're trying to protect. If they actually went to court over it I don't see how they could loose. The authorities in Boston should be embarrassed.

  70. Samples out @ Cartoon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nothing to see here - move along.

    I live in Atlanta and I'm married to an ex Cartoon Network exec who used to work for Samples. Apparently he's a real jerk to work for...

    Common wisdom wandering through the CN and TBS employee grapevine is that either TBS was tired of Mr. Samples - or visa versa. Nobody seems to believe that his leaving is a strict consequence of crippling Boston with Lite-Brites - but it works for cleaning house.

    I'm sure glad I live in Atlanta where the Lite-Brite attacks don't work. :-)

  71. May I suggest... by msauve · · Score: 1

    that if you're not merely being facetious (I suspect fatuous is more accurate) with " If we took that attitude, next thing you know, you'd be getting shredded by a Hello Kitty full of C4 and nails." - you should immediately contact your local law inforcement and let them know that there are suspicious bomb-like things at the local Kmart, Target, Wal-Mart, etc.

    Oh, lock your door and keep it locked. Don't come out, ever. The real world is a dangerous place, and you're simply not prepared to deal with it.

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
  72. What if? by Error27 · · Score: 1

    What if they were really made of out cheese cake? Then everyone in Boston would be eating cheese cake and having a great old time! Think about it! Who would be laughing then? Everyone! Out sheer cheese cake manic delight!

  73. Fucking Bullshit by gelfling · · Score: 1

    We are a nation of assholes, cowards, soccermommies and pussies. How is it that the fucking NEWS departments can literally make shit up, get all their facts wrong racing each other to the 'scoop' and they suffer for it. In fact they never even apologize? Complete and utter bullshit. Big city cops want nothing more than to dress in black, sling their AR-15's and pretend they're holding the line on the robot alien horde coming over the hill.

    From now on when cops scream 'fire' in a crowded theater and people get trampled you can bet that they won't be punished for it. Because of 'terrorism'......ooooh scary~~~~~~!

    1. Re:Fucking Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Weeell..

      - you buy the newspapers who make money off this crap
      - you watch the TV who makes money off this crap
      - you buy from the companies that advertise in those 'sources'
      - you didn't really object as a citizen when the voting in the US didn't emerge as all that pristine (which, strangely, did NOT get the media exposure it deserved - funny that).

      Also

      - what Washington does is not representative of what the average American thinks, but they ARE your representatives. Houston, we got a prooblem.
      - indicting one guy about lying to keep his family together and not indicting a guy that appears to have lied to get his little war game going isn't exactly portraying the US as a well balanced place
      - to get the RIAA and MPAA trying to dictate law around the word (to save their broken business model) instead of accepting the fact that other nations have other rules is not really going to endear you to the rest of the planet.

      If you're so annoyed about it - do something or support those who do. Yes, you're in a mess but it can be fixed - still. There's plenty of good stuff too, but it's getting drowned by idiots. Lose them. DO not offer support to those who turn out not to have your interest at heart.

      And make sure you brush your teeth before going to bed :-).

  74. Re:Aqua Teen Hunger Force sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He's right - its weak. Right up there with 'The Brak Show'. And I -like- adult swim shows and have watched many episodes of ATHF. Its just not funny enough. I'm really sorry about that.

  75. They are spammers by BinBoy · · Score: 1

    It was spam. Anyone involved in spamming should be fired.

  76. Meta Comment: A Comment About the Comments by thedbp · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Most of the comments here are of the mindset that the reaction was absolutely justified - that they should have seen it coming - that anyone in their right mind would have assumed those were bombs.

    Its amazing to me how this state of paranoia and fear has not only become so widespread, but ACCEPTED even - as if everything really changed on 9/11. Here's a fact for you: NOTHING CHANGED AFTER 9/11. The ONLY thing that is different in America is the amount of surveillance we are being subjected to and the number of rights that are being eroded before our eyes.

    More people die every year from peanut allergies or swimming pool accidents than terrorism. Terrorism IS NOT A BIG THREAT. Beyond that, it is IMPOSSIBLE to completely stop. The war on terror is a FARCE and its SOLE PURPOSE is to subjugate a nation enslaved by comfort and convenience - with their consent.

    The people who should have to pay for this are the idiots who overreacted. Did you see those signs? THEY LOOKED LIKE LITE-BRITES and had a CARTOON ALIEN FLIPPING THE BIRD. What muslim extremist would use that as their terrifying logo of doom?!?!

    HOW THE HELL DID YOU PEOPLE GET THIS WAY!? AREN'T YOU LOOKING AT THE WORLD AROUND YOU?! Don't you see how absofuckinglutely ridiculous it is to consider the reaction to these HARMLESS and FUNNY signs in any way justifiable?

    "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither" - Thomas Jefferson

    Chew on that.

    1. Re:Meta Comment: A Comment About the Comments by BluBrick · · Score: 1

      You downplay the very real threat of terrorism. You ridicule the reasonable reactions of elected officials, public servants and law-abiding citizens. You object to anti-terrorism measures.

      And you have the gall to quote Thomas Jefferson?

      Well, your true allegiance is betrayed by your .sig - a quote from Yusuf Islam!

      --
      Ahh - My eye!
      The doctor said I'm not supposed to get Slashdot in it!
    2. Re:Meta Comment: A Comment About the Comments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Thomas Jefferson read your post, he'd kick your ass and send you up to Canada on a rail to live in the snow with all the other freedom hating traitors.

      Your side lost.
      Freedom won.
      Get over it.

    3. Re:Meta Comment: A Comment About the Comments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thomas Jefferson would NEVER have allowed Homeland Security to have the unchecked power that it does. And I would much rather my tax dollars be spent on bettering the lives of people in the countries we invade rather than killing them. Maybe they wouldn't hate us so much then.

  77. too many 'do gooders' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    in this world...

  78. Re:Which one? Bizarro World? :] by Garse+Janacek · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Mod parent up.

    I live in Boston. The city screwed up, badly. Pretty much everyone I know thinks city officials made us look completely ridiculous. This was not a case of reasonable precautions, even, as they say, in a post-9/11 world.

    All these people keep saying "But it could have been a bomb, you don't know!" or "Well if it had been a bomb, you'd be glad they responded the way they did!"

    No. I agree wholeheartedly with the parent here. It couldn't have been a bomb. Literally, physically, something that looks like those devices could not possibly be an explosive device of any serious power, nothing that poses any danger to any structure or even any human who wasn't essentially holding them in his hands.

    An ordinary person off the street might not know this. That's fine. But a bomb squad member damn well better know this, and it terrifies me that the bomb squad members in our city apparently don't. What the hell are they going to do if there is a real bomb, and they have to try and disable it without blowing up anything important? If they don't even have the basic grasp required to know there should be a payload, what exactly do they know about the construction of bombs? Seriously, I'm not nearly as bothered by the possibility of some terrorists planting a bomb as I am knowing that if there is a bomb, our trained professionals whose job it is to handle that sort of thing won't be able to do anything about it, even if they know where the bomb is and have plenty of extra time. What the hell is the bomb squad for?

    --

    I am the man with no sig!

  79. Too much time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I remember years ago, visiting MIT, and watching at a Frat Party, after Jello had been thrown out of a window and hit a car, how 5 squad cars and two police vans showed up, and very violently bundled the president of the frat house into a Van.

    I've never seen a more inappropriate use of force, or too many police officers who looked bored and needed something to do.

    This publicity trick was applied in several cities, and Boston seems to be the only one who reacted as if it were a genuine threat. In a time of "terrorism" Boston officials should be fired, because they have successfully miscultivated the attitude of the people and officials there, to think flashing lights are dangerous. If the authorities can't differentiate between a blinking sign, and an actual device, how can they be trusted to effectively, efficiently allocate resources in a time of geniune need?

  80. He should not have resigned by arthurpaliden · · Score: 2, Interesting

    He should not have resigned. He should have taken those responsible for this gross overreaction to task by produced a show about how stupid the response was. Using industry/military experts in bomb making, demolition, target selection and mission execution.

    And it goes with out saying that he would not use the talking head pseudo terrorist experts, read political appointees, that spouted as fact that is possible to successfully get the components of on and to mix binary explosives on a moving plane loaded with real people and a flight crew who would notice that one washroom was never available not to mention the thermos cases the components would have to be brought on the plane in.

    www.thebostonbomb.com

  81. Bomb Stops At The Top by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    "While I might expect a bomb to be disguised, I certainly wouldn't expect it be disguised as a cartoon figure that will DRAW attention."

    I would, then I could remote-detonate it. Taking out what really matters. No, not the civilians.

    BTW with this mans act, I guess slashdot is going to have to revise it's cynical attitude towards business.

    1. Re:Bomb Stops At The Top by alshithead · · Score: 1

      ""While I might expect a bomb to be disguised, I certainly wouldn't expect it be disguised as a cartoon figure that will DRAW attention."

      I would, then I could remote-detonate it. Taking out what really matters. No, not the civilians."

      No! Drawing attention means you only get the lowest common denominator...not the smart folks like us. Personally, I never follow the crowd to see what is going on. I can catch it on the news if it's important enough and damn it...I'm not a sheeple.

      "BTW with this mans act, I guess slashdot is going to have to revise it's cynical attitude towards business."

      Slashot's cynical attitude towards business is well founded and won't change until business becomes more altruistic. Hell, we don't if he quit on his own or was told to quit. Feel better now?

      --
      I reserve the right to think for myself. Others' opinions are optional. Puppy on lap = typos...not illiteracy.
    2. Re:Bomb Stops At The Top by iron-kurton · · Score: 1

      With all due respect, you don't matter. None of us really matter. And as far as gp's post is concerned, "taking out what really matters" implies that he'd take out the bomb-squad or whoever tried to defuse the device. They don't matter either. No. The people that really matter would be nowhere near that device.

      --
      Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine -- Robert C. Gallagher
    3. Re:Bomb Stops At The Top by Anomolous+Cowturd · · Score: 1

      Bah. Different things matter to different people, it's entirely subjective. For a sane person, it's usually in the order: myself, family, friends, property, country, world, etc. For the insane... some sort of absolutism...

      --
      Software patents delenda est.
  82. they can't tell joke from real threat? by Grinin · · Score: 1

    If people can't tell that this sort of thing is not a threat and in fact is simply a joke then I have even less faith in the people protecting this country. If I saw some weird looking circuit board, with a square looking character on it giving the bird, the first thing that comes to mind is definitely not "OMG BomB!"

    Yes, it is definitely unfortunate that someone had to lose their job over this, especially since this means that turner will have to tighten the leash on Adult Swim once more, just when they were getting a little more freedom from their parents.

  83. Who wants to test this? by The+Orange+Mage · · Score: 1

    Buy a Lite Brite, make the image on it an American Flag, attach a battery so it can run by itself, and plop it in front of the fence at the White House.

  84. CEO? by JustinKSU · · Score: 1, Interesting
    FTA:

    In a letter to employees, Jim Samples, the general manager and executive vice president of the network, wrote: "I deeply regret...
    I'm not sure where CEO came from. GM/VP is a different job.
  85. So what was actually on the ads? by Diablo1399 · · Score: 1

    Some cartoon giving the finger? And this was interpreted as a potential terrorist threat? Jeebus, got paran0id?

  86. WTF? by buss_error · · Score: 1
    Excuse me, but eight other cities had exactly the same happen to them, and they didn't go off their nut over it. Boston's elected/appointed leaders went over the edge, over reacted, and they want to blame others.


    Sorry, I don't buy it.

    Somewhere, some how, the signs should have been classed with "annoying, but harmless". This didn't happen in Boston, despite eight other cities being able to discern "terrorist bombs" from "annoying ads".

    Not only do I object to Turner Networks paying Boston USD750,000 for thier costs, but USD 2,000,000 seems to me to be rewarding insane behavior. Turner should have said "Grow up. If that simple action is beyond your ability, we'll see you in court."

    I fail to see where rewarding hysteria on any scale is a "good thing". Jim Samples should not have resigned, and Turner should not have opened a cash box to hysterical old ninnies. I've seen the sign in person, and there simply isn't any way a compentent person would have confused this device with any kind of bomb.

    --
    Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
  87. i don't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    care

  88. It seems to me that.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (I know I'm going to be modded down for this but..) It seems to me that Americans are trying harder each day to convince the world that they truly represent the lowest, most idiotic people that have ever existed! If Americans existed in prehistoric times, they would have outlawed fire right after it was invented, citing safety concerns and then executed the person who found out how to make a fire!

  89. Sorry, but by fredrated · · Score: 1

    when people are running around screaming "They've got guns! They've got guns!" only a moron pulls out a plastic gun and waves it around.

    1. Re:Sorry, but by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      "when people are running around screaming "They've got guns! They've got guns!" only a moron pulls out a plastic gun and waves it around."

      I missed the Fox news report about bombs that look like blinking cartoon characters made out of LEDs.

      Otherwise a completely valid comparison.

  90. Complete Overreaction, of Course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I for one welcome the day that the terrorists start decorating their roadside bombs with bright LEDs... Total overreaction on the part of the city; Boston is a laughingstock as a result and its politicians are lashing out in embarrassment. 2 million dollars because traffic got congested for a couple hours? Please.

  91. Re:Which one? Bizarro World? :] by rta · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I think you might be too harsh on the bomb squad here. While i don't have an attribution, one of the articles in the middle of that day on cnn had a quote from a random citizen who said something like "Well, earlier I saw on TV a bomb squad guy holding it in his bare hands and just walking along with [the device] so I knew it couldn't be TOO bad ".

    What the actual bomb squad guys thought / knew and what the managers and politicians decided to do with the information, those are different things.

  92. Hope the Boston Police does the same by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is honorable that he goes and takes responsibility. Although I think much more blame is to be leveled with the (Greater) Boston police. I live in this town and they can be really on a power trip and quite corrupt.

    It really does not make me warm and fuzzy if the police misses an object that is lighted for two weeks. If the locations are sensitive like bridges, etc. and cops drive by these place for 10+ days and do not notice or figure out what is going on, then major blame is to be leveled with their vigilance.

    Also, the first object was reported and shot down in the morning. Why did the police at the very least at this point in time point out the other locations? They really never saw these things? They didn't know where thee were?

    Well and when citizens find the other displays after noon the police still hasn't figured out that the pieces of the first display do not contain any explosives? Come on, The airport with explosives sniffing equipment is 15 minutes away!

    That this escalated to a scare like it did is to be blamed on the inability of the police to do their job. This fine police force did even let the governor and the major stand in front of the cameras and make a big scene, while the press listening did get the word about the truth. I'm waiting for the guy or gal who takes the responsibility and resigns as well.

  93. this is serious... by yulek · · Score: 1
    --
    in this age of communication i'm just not getting through
  94. Re:Which one? Bizarro World? :] by rta · · Score: 1
    to reply to myself here.... the quote is:

    Wanda Higgins, a 47-year-old Weymouth resident and a nurse at Massachusetts General Hospital, heard about the threat as she watched television news coverage while preparing to leave work at 4 p.m. "I saw the bomb squad guys carrying a paper bag with their bare hands," Higgins said. "I knew it couldn't be too serious."
    http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,158 4062,00.html
  95. Utter failure of threat assessment by RonBurk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Anybody who's ever been stuck in traffic can understand the knee-jerk "those bozos should pay" response.

    But anybody who cares about national security and terrorism should be sobered by what happened in this case: an utter failure of threat assessment. Our ability to survive terrorism is not just reliant on the ability to detect and respond to threats: it's crucial to be able to detect the lack of threats and not respond to them.

    What Boston demonstrated is that they are ripe for terrorism. After all, terrorism is about creating terror, not about inflicting actual damage. Boston showed you can terrorize them with some children's toys and no explosives at all.

    Of course, the knee-jerk conservative reaction will also include the phrase "abundance of caution" and "we can't take any chances". The problem is if you have an abundance of caution and can't take any chances, then a real terrorist action can have you dancing all over the place trying to respond to decoy threats and missing the real action.

    Correctly assessing situations that are not threatening is just as important to security as correctly assessing situations that are.

    1. Re:Utter failure of threat assessment by 3choTh1s · · Score: 1

      Maybe what we should have here is the opposite action. I am hereby initiating a call to arms. Bostonians unite! I implore you, each and every one, to make signs out of Litebrites... Giant banners written in crayon... Huge paper mache balls with fuses. And when everybody is doing it, no one is wrong. What will they do? Sue the entire city? Their own city? But maybe just maybe this is the only way to get people to realize that over-reacting doesn't make your life any better.

      The only real way to make it better in a post 9/11 world is to live life, not in a way that says that we will be cautious but optimistic, but to say that we don't care what kind of crap you throw at us. We will not be scared. We will not be afraid of what's out there and we will become educated enough to make correct judgment calls about the things we see day to day.

    2. Re:Utter failure of threat assessment by venicebeach · · Score: 1

      But anybody who cares about national security and terrorism should be sobered by what happened in this case: an utter failure of threat assessment. Our ability to survive terrorism is not just reliant on the ability to detect and respond to threats: it's crucial to be able to detect the lack of threats and not respond to them
      Discrimination is only the goal when a miss is equal in consequence to a false alarm. I think in the case of terrorist attack it is presumed that a miss (lots of people die) is more expensive that a false alarm (money is lost) and so the bias is adjusted accordingly to avoid missing an attack. This will necessarily result in more false alarms.
    3. Re:Utter failure of threat assessment by malkavian · · Score: 1

      The point of the GP, I believe, is that it becomes a simple matter of creating a lot of noise that gets responded to, making it very easy to hide a real threat.
      Keep creating the noise, and people will become lax, at which point you can easily place a real threat.
      Or, create a large amount of decoys, and hide the real threat in there.
      Without correct assessment, and fast assessment, you've just proved that you can a) drain funds, and keep a state of terror, and disillusionment with the local authorities (terror and propoganda, anyone?), which achieves the aims just nicely, and will have a lot of the populace behind the insurgents following this route (all harmless pranks!). b) Make simple use of decoys.

      I'd say I'd agree with the GP, Boston has just proved that it's a playground for any insurgency attempts.
      And actually, as a terrorist is by definition someone who creates situations of terror from nothing, I think the authorities fit the role quite well. Odd when you find yourself unwittingly fighting for the other side.. Even stranger when they pat themselves on the back and think they've done well.

  96. Re:Which one? Bizarro World? :] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I live in Boston. The city screwed up, badly. Pretty much everyone I know thinks city officials made us look completely ridiculous.

    Oh, please. No, Massachusetts looks like its full of retards because everything coming out of that hellhole is retarded - starting with Ted "DUI" Kennedy and John "Our Troops Are Idiots" Kerry. When you combine it with media reports showing people from Boston upset at the people who placed the LEDs and with the fact that every news outlet from Boston is reporting the incident as a "bomb hoax" while every news outlet outside of Massachusetts is calling it what it is ("idiot officials think blinking things are bombs"), you have a pretty clear picture:

    People from Massachusetts are idiots.

    Don't try and minimalize this by saying that it was caused by just the city officials. It wasn't. All of Massachusetts overreacted to this, and all of Massachusetts looks like an idiot now. The Massachusetts media took the police at face value, and the Massachusetts people accepted it without question.

    So, no, it wasn't the "city officials" making you look like idiots. It was yourselves.

    Remember: those city officials were, at some level, elected. If you voted for Governor Deval, you're just as responsible for the overreaction as the officials themselves. You voted for them. They just represented the idiots that elected them.

  97. The Terrorists have Won by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think in a society where people deal with hundreds of different pieces of technology on a daily basis that it is both sad and alarming that people can't tell the difference between a lightup display and a bomb. I mean, come on people. It had a picture of a Moonanite flipping you off. If that image says to you "bomb" then you might consider getting a job with the FAA working the security areas at the airport.

  98. Re:Which one? Bizarro World? :] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This reminds me of my time spent in Iraq in 2005. So you drive out in humvees, leaving the relative safety of a base surrounded by perimiter guards that only gets rocket and mortar attacks a few times a week. There you are, just 3-4 gun trucks, 9-15 guys, practically alone in the Sunni Triangle. You pass by blown up guard rails, craters in the side of the road 4-5 feet across, remnants of car bombs.

    Yet, even then, after many explosions targeting us, when we saw a pile of rocks on the side of the road, we'd still have the sense to know it was just a pile of rocks. Hell, we'd go kick it and see. EOD took time to respond. And they're needed at real bomb sites, not the fake or imagined ones.

    Our platoon had a nearly 100% rate of not calling out EOD for non-bombs. And the only bomb training we got before hand was the old plastic utensil land mine detector course.

    This shit in Boston is just crazy. My security image below is 'stoned', exactly what the Boston officials must be. Or maybe they /should/ be.

  99. Massachusetts attorney general quote by adrianmonk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think this quote, by the Attorney General of the State of Massachusetts, Martha Coakley, sums up the overreaction and the unwillingness to look at the situation rationally:

    "For those who responded to it, professionals, it had a very sinister appearance," Coakley said. "It had a battery behind it and wires."

    (My source for that quote is a Boston Globe article.)

    Oooooooh! Batteries and wires!! Run away!

    My feeling is this: if I lived in the state, I'd damn well make sure I stayed away from Radio Shack, because I'm likely to get caught in the crossfire when someone buys a few electronics components and the SWAT team comes in to take out the "terrorist" with a storm of bullets. Have these people never, ever seen a homemade electronics project before!? For God's sake, MIT is located in their state!

    1. Re:Massachusetts attorney general quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The BIG difference is that these "homemade" projects were left unattended in extremely busy areas with absolutely no explanation as to what they were. And most people don't really have the electrical knowledge to differentiate between an IED-type device and a harmless prank just by looking at the PCB. Hell, would you take a wired-covered breadboard filled with chips through airport security, even if you know it was safe? Same thing applies here...

      The "lightbright" display doesn't necessarily mean it's safe. If that was the case, real terrorists would just decorate explosives with rainbow stickers and bright pink bows. The fact is that there were dozens of crudely manufactured devices with exposed wiring and PCB all over bridges, subways, bus spots, etc., and quite honestly, that looks extremely suspicious.

      I still don't see what Boston authorities did wrong. They received many many calls about suspicious looking devices, took the necessary precautions in the event that they were real explosives, and fully investigated the situation. Blame it on the guys that put the devices in such busy areas...

    2. Re:Massachusetts attorney general quote by Spudnik · · Score: 1

      quote "For those who responded to it, professionals, it had a very sinister appearance," Coakley said. "It had a battery behind it and wires." Funny thing is, this sort of thing happens at airports all the time, Batteries and sometime an odd buzzing sound.

    3. Re:Massachusetts attorney general quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too bad you can't really buy electronics parts at Radio Shack (now "Circuit City" or "The Source", a subset of "Circuit City") anymore :(

    4. Re:Massachusetts attorney general quote by adrianmonk · · Score: 1

      And most people don't really have the electrical knowledge to differentiate between an IED-type device and a harmless prank just by looking at the PCB.

      I don't care if most people do or do not know how to differentiate. The statement by the attorney general was that "professionals" responded to it, and they were the ones who thought it had a "very sinister appearance". Professionals responding to a 911 call about a bomb threat should be able to tell the difference between bombs and non-bombs, by looking at circuit boards and other means. It's their job. If they can't do it, they are incompetent, and the real problem here is that a major American city has hired incompetent people who have a meager ability to tell a threat from a non-threat.

      And that brings up another problem: if they are making errors that are false positives, how do we know they're not also making errors that are false negatives? If they are distinguishing between bombs and non-bombs based on how sloppy or neat the wiring is, then all terrorists have to do to disguise bombs is make them have nice, neat packaging like consumer electronics items have. If the sloppy wires' hanging out was what raised the alarm in the minds of the "professionals", it seems quite possible that something that looked very neat and clean and like it was mass-produced would not raise any alarm, even if it were a bomb.

      I'm not saying Cartoon Network is completely without fault, but the government has a responsibility to be knowledgeable enough to tell the difference between threats and non-threats without making too many mistakes in either direction. Electronics are quite common in today's society, in case you hadn't noticed, and so the government has a responsibility to know something about them. Based on this situation, it would appear they don't know much about them.

    5. Re:Massachusetts attorney general quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What exactly did the authorities do wrong? They received multiple calls from throughout the city about suspicious devices, cleared the areas for safety, scrambled their bomb squad, and evaluated the threat. I'd expect that if 30+ completely *unexplained* objects of crude quality were found throughout the city that had been systematically placed in busy areas.

      The difference between crude wiring and that of "professionals" is of intent. Nice packaging and slick presentation takes a lot of time and effort. Making something that's aesthetically pleasing is often more difficult than making the product itself. If you are a amateur bombmaker with limited resources, chances are you aren't going to slap on a glossy paintjob, make the wires tidy and serviceable, and package it all into a slick looking box. It's a matter of time.

      Sure, there are exceptions each way, but don't blame people for naturally becoming alarmed when they see a crude collection of electronics sitting unattended above a busy bus stop.

  100. Re:Aqua Teen Hunger Force sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In paranoid Boston the bomb is Aqua Teen Hunger Force

  101. Where to draw the line? by GiMP · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Should one be jailed and fined millions of dollars for plugging in an alarm clock at a public place? Littering, perhaps. Vandelism? Probably not.

    The truth is that a car parked underneath a bridge is a much more realistic and simple solution for a terrorist. However, the city isn't calling out the bomb squad for every car parked under a bridge. In fact, I cannot think of more than one case that I've heard about where such an event has happened. I wonder why this hasn't happened more?

    Really, the line should be drawn somewhere, and I think that line is 'common sense'. I think that this is a case of misunderstandings. The artists were too naive, they underestimated the stupidity of other people. The city reacted based on THEIR OWN concerns. This was not a hoax, the devices were not bombs, they weren't intended to look like bombs. Could some people mistake them as bombs? Apparently. However, I do not believe that one should be legally responsible for the mistaken actions and responses of another. The artists did break some laws, but nothing more than vandelism, trespassing, or littering.

    Is this the result of the last presidental elections when Kerry was called a 'flip-flopper'? You know, sometimes people make mistakes. Maybe the city of Boston should realize that and consider changing their stance. Sometimes it is better to admit mistakes and correct one's actions, rather than carry a bad idea forward just because you're afraid of a little change. For that matter, I'd rather have a "flip flopper" as president than one that can't admit that they were mistaken in their judgements and decisions, and continues to drive our country forward like a Lemming off a cliff.

  102. why do ceo's step down by mrcdeckard · · Score: 1


    i'm sorry, i just don't see this as any reason for someone to step down. granted, i'm not used to brushing elbows with ceo's and hanging out in boardrooms, so i don't know how those social circles work, but i always imagined them as an "ol boys club" of sorts. i just can't see that he was under any real pressure to step down.

    i just wonder if he was quietly wishing he could retire, or he was on the outs for some other reason, and this was just an excuse.

    i assumed the 2 megabuck payout was kinduva acknowledgement that they got some publicity, "and, hey, it's pocket change" sort of a thing.

    it just seems so implausible that they really freaked out about. then again, maybe they grew up with (and agreed with) mcarthurism . . .

    mr c

    --
    "Physics is like sex. Sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it." - R. Feynman
  103. The Bush Stops At The Top by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "After all, a population won't revolt against a government when they think that it is the government that is the only thing standing between them and total unmitigated chaos."

    Well that sure explains Bush's low popularity ratings. Bush isn't positioned properly.

    1. Re:The Bush Stops At The Top by MrNaz · · Score: 1

      It seems you are using the terms "President" and "Government" interchangeably. They are not. There is no significant difference in foreign or domestic policy between Democrats and Republicans. In a two party system where both parties are following the same agenda with differences only being cosmetic, the purpose of voting is purely illusory.

      --
      I hate printers.
  104. I must be missing something here by bluto00 · · Score: 1

    Though many people have been citing this as 'the ultimate successful advertising campaign'
    Who has called this the ultimate successful advertising campaign? Was it this before the terror scare, or did the reaction of Boston law enforcement make it so?
     
    It's funny, I was thinking how this was one of the worst advertising campaigns (what were they thinking?! Can they go any lower?! etc.).
     
    So I guess that probably would make it the ultimate successful advertising campaign in the bizzaro world manipulative up-is-down logic of advertising.
  105. On the moon... by FranklinDelanoBluth · · Score: 1

    On the moon innocent CEOs have their pants pulled down and they are spanked with moon rocks.

  106. Bottom Line by catdevnull · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We live in a culture that has become so paranoid that we've traded freedom for "security."

    Maybe it was, indeed, a bone-head idea to "tag" public spaces, but the government and media need to quit making stories out of nothing. There's plenty of stupidity to go around on this one.

    The clue phone is ringing:

    Boston, Line 1:
    Your anti-terror "heroes" went all Barney Fife over nothing. You guys just need to chill the f**k out and learn to triage terror from shennanigans. If you go the full-monty everytime some paranoid citizen dials the bomb-squad over flashing light and some wires, you're gonna have to figure out a way to pay for that kind of over-kill out of your own budget instead of drama-queening your way into restitution.

    Viral Marketers, Line 2:
    WTF? Maybe go for something a little less obscure the next go-round, eh? Only about 1 in 5,000 people driving by those signs had any kind of clue what the hell those bird-flipping little dudes were anyway. Way to spook the natives, dorks. Don't forget to include some useful information about your "product" next time. Seriously, this is like the corporate version of "JACKASS."

    Bottom Line: Two stupid parties did two stupid things. One was the government the other wasn't. Guess which one wins?

    I think Meatwad summed it up like this:
    I'll touch 'em all the way to the trash can is what I'll do...

    --

    I might know what I'm talkin' about, but then again, this is Slashdot...
    1. Re:Bottom Line by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Bottom Line: Two stupid parties did two stupid things. One was the government the other wasn't. Guess which one wins?"

      Guess what those parties have in common? They are stupid americans (or should i say just "americans"? because the "stupid" is implied).

    2. Re:Bottom Line by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not all Americans are stupid--just the loud ones. Obnoxious "foreigners" who like to bash Americans may not be stupid, but they certainly like to generalize!

      (ooh...irony).

  107. It wasn't so much knee jerking by kimvette · · Score: 1

    IMHO, It was not so much of a knee-jerk reaction as it was about media whoring for ambitious small time politicians and officials.

    --
    The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
  108. Re:Which one? Bizarro World? :] by Rich0 · · Score: 1

    Could be worse. Remember back when they closed half of of DC because some guy parked a tractor in a shallow pool for a day or two? There were about 50 things they could have done to just take the guy into custody. Instead they put him under siege as if he had hostages and shut down all kinds of buildings for two days.

    The 9/11 terrorists could probably have disrupted the Pentagon more if they just dressed somebody up as a clown with bulky clothing and had him stand in the parking lot for a week...

  109. Re:Which one? Bizarro World? :] by Garse+Janacek · · Score: 1

    Uhm.

    Alright, this is a troll, but whatever.

    First: Not all of Massachusetts overreacted. I don't personally know anyone who reacted the way you describe. Certainly those people exist, but I don't believe there are nearly as many of them as you're suggesting. The fact that news agencies managed to find hysterical people here is not surprising, but doesn't say much about (1) the density of those people (in both senses :-P), or (2) what those people were reacting to. A lot of people were probably reacting strongly at first, knowing nothing except that the T was shut down and there were "dangerous-looking devices" found. Okay, they believed what they were told, and didn't know any more than that, some concern is appropriate. But we're past that now, and the fraction of people who both know the details of the event and believe the reaction was appropriate is not very large, at least not judging by every single reaction I've seen here (as opposed to the completely different ones I see in the paper -- and, for whatever it's worth, everyone I've talked to here is also annoyed at it being called a "hoax").

    Second: I did vote for Governor Patrick. I'm glad I did, because he's already undone some of the damage done by the previous governor, and his opponent was running one of the worst smear campaigns I've ever seen (including the recent presidential runs), not to mention having a very disturbing platform in other ways. Saying that this one incident is my fault for voting that way, and completely ignoring every other possible issue facing the state, is a little ridiculous, to put it lightly.

    I don't like Ted Kennedy either.

    The fact that you even included the "Our troops are idiots" thing probably means I shouldn't have replied, since that kind of makes it clear that you aren't basing your comment on actual events that actually happened, but on how it can be spun if you take things out of context and consider every individual in an entire state in the worst possible light. I guess Fox News has probably been making fun of Massachusetts a lot since this incident...

    Of course, your "People from Massachusetts are idiots" should also have clued me in. Oh well.

    --

    I am the man with no sig!

  110. Never by dtfinch · · Score: 1

    Never underestimate the stupidity of average people. That was his mistake.

    Oh no! Dear God NO! It's got blinking lights! Run for your lives! It's a BOMB!! WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!

  111. Overreaction! by Legatoistheman · · Score: 1

    The lighted ads featuring the mooninites were already up in new york city for 3 weeks when they were put up in boston. In my opinion, boston didnt even bother to check into it, and made a big fuss over nothing. Not everything is a terroristic threat, even after 911, and we shouldnt live in fear of a terroristic threat either. We need to live our lives and if something happens fine, but not take things too seriously. As for the law enforcement in this situation, did they even do any checking at all into anything before declaring it a terroristic bomb scare plot? I doubt they did and it is this overreaction that can and will let terrorism flourish in our country.

  112. Re:Which one? Bizarro World? :] by Garse+Janacek · · Score: 1

    Perhaps you're right -- unsurprisingly, there has been little coverage of who exactly is responsible for the bizarre overreaction, and most media seems to be ignoring the issue entirely by pretending the overreaction was justified. Sigh. It is plausible, though, that someone jumped the gun and signaled the alert (shut down the T, etc.) before there was really any information, and then just tried to mask that afterwards by not releasing the information that the bomb squad immediately realized there was nothing dangerous.

    Such a scenario would still be really screwed up. But screwed up in a "bureaucratic ass-covering" way which, while still highly distasteful, is still more appealing to me than what I had been assuming, that is, that the people encouraging this response were the actual trained experts...

    --

    I am the man with no sig!

  113. I agree-AT&T:Reach out and blow someone up. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apparently he doesn't know about remote detonators.

  114. One bad apple by skorch · · Score: 1

    People are quick to make sweeping generalizations about the entire city of Boston and its residents, but the fact is these things were in place for a while and obviously the vast majority of people who encountered them paid them no mind. It wasn't until one person out there saw this, didn't know what a mooninite was, and called the cops. After that the cops probably should have known better after seeing the device, but until at least one of them had been recovered there isn't really any way to tell what it may have been. So long as you don't know what the images depicted were, you have the option of either ignoring it and risk being called negligent if anything goes wrong later, or you can treat it as a worst case scenario and risk being called overly cautious. When in a law-enforcement position, being overly cautious is generally a better label to strive for than negligence.

    Anyway, the point is, all it took was one person who didn't know a mooninite from an IED, and then when you call the cops screaming about bombs throughout the city, it's pretty predictable how they'll react. The vast majority of the residents of Boston clearly could have cared less. If anything, I think this shows the need for mandatory screenings of the movie as a public service, to prevent this sort of tragedy from ever happening again.

  115. WTC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not Bush blew up the WTC for real as a publicity stunt to pass the Patriot Act.

  116. he shouldn't have left by hellfish006 · · Score: 0

    I think that its completely wrong for him to resign. The ONLY city to freak out was Boston, no one else did not even New York City. If people can't tell the difference between Lite Bright and a bomb well then screw 'em. He should keep his job, this only shows how great of a leader he was, he got the community involved!

  117. Sign hangers still being prosecuted by tgibbs · · Score: 1

    It's worth noting that even after the stupidity of Boston public officials netted the city a windfall of $2 million dollars in sorry-we-didn't-anticipat-that-anybody-could-be-th at-stupid money from Turner Broadcasting--over twice what the the city wasted on its absurd overreaction--the poor dudes who put up the signs are still being prosecuted. They didn't come up with the idea, or make the signs, they didn't intend to scare anybody, they were just young guys doing a job. But somebody has to pay for exposing the mayor, the attorney general, and the police, as the idiots that they are. So they'll accept the Turner money--and perhaps take a bit off the top for themselves (this is Boston, after all)--and scapegoat the innocent guys who put up the signs.

  118. Terrorists.win == True by Spokehedz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    All they wanted was to incite fear and massive panic amongst the people of the USA.

    They won.

    America the brave. It is to laugh.

    1. Re:Terrorists.win == True by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 1

      I keep hearing people spew the notion that the "goal of terrorists is to terrorize".

      Yeah, right.

      Terrorist is a label applied to one's political enemies. NO ONE calls their self a terrorist.

      These are people who have goals and are very dedicated to achieving them by any means necessary. Their goal is not simply to terrorize. Terror is the means, not the end. Look into what they want to achieve and learn to understand how they look at the world, and you'll be a little closer to finding a solution that brings about peace.

      The idea that terrorists is an actual ideology that people subscribe to, and that these people just want everyone to live in fear -- and nothing more than that -- is a colossal misunderstanding that can only help perpetuate the ongoing conflict.

      --
      You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
    2. Re:Terrorists.win == True by cdrguru · · Score: 1

      Indeed, we should all understand exactly what these folks want and are absolutely dead-set on acheiving by any means necessary.

      Remember that to these people anyone living outside of the domination of Islamic law is an abomination. If you don't think their way, you have two choices: convert or die. Oh, and please don't take my word for it - the Quran is full of such statements.

      Yup, the Christian Bible is full of stuff like "do not suffer a witch to live", but when exactly was the last time you found a Catholic priest beheading a Wiccan?

      Most of the people in the West have learned that over the past 1000 years it might be better to be just a tad more tolerant while many of those of the Muslim faith are very, very nostalgic for the days when much of the world was ruled by Muslims.

      Do you really think the bombings and behadings in Indonisia are because of the occupation of Palestine by Zionists? And the support of these people by Christians? How about the Sunnis killing Shites in Iraq? Is this all because of Palestine? Probably not.

      In some ways, the last Christian-vs-Christian religious war was the IRA vs. British Government. But it was pretty isolated. It did involve non-combatants just as todays Muslims are involving non-combatants, as this seems to be a common thread of religiously inspired conflicts.

      But do not for a moment believe this is all because of Palestine. There is way, way too much conflict across the planet that is both Muslim-vs-Muslim and Muslim-vs-Christian. Look at Sudan. Look at Indonesia. Many places far from Israel all involving people that would like to justify their struggle by pointing elsewhere.

    3. Re:Terrorists.win == True by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you look carefully, you'll notice I didn't mention religion at all. I'm not really sure what you're trying to say. All I've said is that no one goes about employing "terrorist" tactics for the sole purpose of scaring people. The people who do that stuff want something.

      People who spout off empty platitudes like "All they wanted was to incite fear and massive panic amongst the people of the USA. They won," are only helping the world to continue to not understand what's happening. This is not ALL "they" wanted. They certainly want more than just that. The word "they" suggests a monolithic organization that does not actually exist. Each participant has their own motivations and goals. Treating them all the same and ascribing to their actions the vague and abstract goal of only wanting to make people afraid is ludicrous.

      I'm not saying that everyone just needs nurturing and sympathy and then we'll magically have world peace and brotherly love. I'm saying understand them -- know your enemy.

      Find out what turned those people who are against you into enemies, and act to stop that from happening to more people, so that in time there will be fewer people who want to be your enemy. If you do not understand how the enemy thinks, if you do not know what he wants or understand how he most likely will try to achieve his ends, you are at a hopeless disadvantage.

      Take away your enemies' motivations for hating you.

      Understand their true goals so that you can thwart them properly.

      Or shit your pants every time a couple of pothead cartoon marketers stick up a couple of lite brights in public areas. The choice is yours.

      --
      You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
  119. Comments from a bostonian... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    First a thank you to all the slashdotters who have unilaterally decided that citizens of my city are gun slinging luddites... Hopefully I can provide a little more of a first-hand analysis.

    While there is no question that the reaction of the BPD was an overreaction, there is no question that the actions of Cartoon Network and Interference were totally unacceptable. The first "device" that was found was placed at a critical intersection of the major North-South Interstate highway that feeds the city, a major subway train line, and the commuter rail that services all communities north of the city. Further, it was adjacent to (a few feet away from) the main fiber optic right-of-way between the city and northern communities (a fact that was missed by media - surprise, surprise). Finally, despite the fact that many try to blame this on post-9/11 hysterics, a group of anti-Semites attempted to blow up this same bridge/highway on 4/20/01 (Hitler's birthday - classy) so forgive us for our post 4/20 paranoia.

    An explosive device - even one with a limited payload - if successfully detonated would have impacted the ability for more than a half million people to travel to or from and communicate with the metro area. Further, the other devices were placed on every single bridge that allows people to travel out of or into the City of Boston from/to the North.

    Finally, the foolish duo that installed these devices were filmed an hour into the incident watching the BPD and bomb squad in their investigation and decided to remain silent for several hours, allowing the situation to continue to snowball out of control.

    There is plenty of blame to share here amongst all of the actors involved. It is tempting to blame "the man" for overreacting, but the reality is there is no one that should escape criticism. It is not ever - no - not ever - acceptable for a marketing campaign to be based on the illegal placement of advertisements on publicly owned infrastructure, especially not on critical pathways into and out of a major metro area.

    Source: I was there (if only my personal experience could be validated in a wikipedia entry...)

    1. Re:Comments from a bostonian... by kindbud · · Score: 0, Troll

      What a drama queen. Is everyone in Boston this scared? How do you get through the day?

      --
      Edith Keeler Must Die
    2. Re:Comments from a bostonian... by Pitr · · Score: 3, Interesting

      By that reasoning, any really good, well developed, high traffic position to place an add is a fantastic position to place an explosive device.

      So the CN is responsible because there _could_ have been a bomb. This reminds me of the guy on the British subway who was gunned down because he _could_ have had a bomb, since his jacket was a little bulky, and he was running for the train. I'm believe both cases came about through fundamentally flawed reason and response, not to mention unreasonable levels of fear.

      The reason this is all a HUGE problem, is that it sets a terrifying precedent for the way people think and act; Look over your shoulder all the time, and point the finger at anyone/thing that freaks you out. It can be summed up as, "Cry 'Wolf!' as often as possible.". This idea fundamentally opposes rational thought, and the very principles of "Innocent until proven guilty." are only a little further down this slippery slope.

      This level of paranoia cannot be condoned as "reasonable" or "acceptable". It intrudes on the most basic principles of freedom and liberty. Or, to close with my favorite Ben Franklin quote:

      "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

      --

      --Not to be worried, Pitr fix.
    3. Re:Comments from a bostonian... by DaAdder · · Score: 1

      Finally, the foolish duo that installed these devices were filmed an hour into the incident watching the BPD and bomb squad in their investigation and decided to remain silent for several hours, allowing the situation to continue to snowball out of control.

      I'm not sure I'd step up.

      In an atmosphere where even suspected un-american tendencies can lead to immediate retraction of civil rights and liberties, I might just cut'n'run as fast as I could if I ever though I'd be suspected of something like this.

      Sticking around to argue your case might be the honorable way to deal with these things, but lately it doesn't seem to go to well for those that do over there. So thanks but no thanks, but I have a train to catch.
    4. Re:Comments from a bostonian... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >An explosive device - even one with a limited payload - if successfully detonated would have impacted the ability for more than a half million people to travel to or from and communicate with the metro area.

      So, to protect the city from a half million people being unable to use the bridge, Boston shut down the city?

      I have a new way to stop the spread of diseases! Kill everyone in the city you want to stop the spread of disease in!

      Oh so appropriate captcha: pinhead

    5. Re:Comments from a bostonian... by junk · · Score: 1

      OMFGWTFHELP! A LITE BRIGHT! What's next? Neon Budweiser advertisements at bars and pubs are going to get called in? "Open" signs at liquor stores?

      Have you noticed that you've not gotten one person to agree with you? I'm with the guy who says that he probably wouldn't have stepped up either. The f'ing bomb squad was called! That means the police are already on high alert and probably not in the best of moods.

      I don't think there is anything that could be said to convince a rational, non Bostonian, person that the actions of the local Government, police and people were justified.

    6. Re:Comments from a bostonian... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First a thank you to all the slashdotters who have unilaterally decided that citizens of my city are gun slinging luddites... The comments above haven't decided that - just that the local police farce are.

      You don't read like one either - just an idiot. In lots of places in the world, real wars are going on and real people are getting killed. They don't have the option of overreacting to an advertising prank - they're too busy working out whether it's safe to cross the road or not.

  120. Buck Stops At The...other guy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here let me fix that for you so the uneducated and mypoic masses can better understand were you're coming from.

    "That too, is a tinfoil hat cry; That people are too myopic to see reality is a situation engineered by the masters of the mass media."...except for me. "That people are ignorant of politics is an engineered situation by those in charge of education."...except for me. "That people are too busy just making their mortgage payments is a situation engineered by the financial sector."...except for me. "All corporates have a similar goal: To sell stuff. A compliant, constantly consuming, politically disenfranchised public is the kind of public most willing to allow wealth to flow uphill without resisting."...except for me. "The corporate sector is deliberately engineering a system that people are unable to fight without catastrophic loss to themselves in the form of mortgage defaults, bankruptcy or outright criminalization under ever broadening crime and terrorism legislation."...except for me "Time to invade another country, this time over tin, because I just used up the national inventory!" Used up all the ego too.

  121. Ignignokt lives ... by BearSquirrel · · Score: 1

    It is reasonable to question whether an object is a bomb. But we have to remember that real life terrorists aren't as concerned about style as say ... The Joker. No, I believe tormenting the cops with riddles is the job of fictional villians who are excellent at constructing plot device but not actually killing. Yeah, it could be a bomb, but there are scores of other things one could build a bomb out of that are less visible (key if you don't want the Boston Bomb squad to foil you) and more effective. I sincerely hope the citizens of Boston construct their own Mooninite light bright signs and put them up. This incident was a hoax by politicians, not marketers.

  122. I agree-The notebook is mightier than the bomb. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    *scribble, scribble* *scribble, scribble* Anything else?

  123. Possible Realities and Real Possibilities by NetSettler · · Score: 1

    If real attacks come, they'll be like Madrid. You won't know it until it happens

    A lot of news, especially that from the US Administration, is probably some combination of smokescreen paranoia, or outright manipulation. And yet, I have to believe that at least some of the reports of "foiled plots" have some element of truth. And they seem to suggest that the terrorists are getting caught planning more carefully than you're giving credit for. I'm not taking notes, so not sure what to cite, but I have the definite sense I've seen stories about terrorists dropping items in public to how long it took for authorities to notice and take action. Consequently, there's no reason to suppose these couldn't have been such items. That might not mean the city was being attacked, but it might reasonably mean that it was about to be, or that plans were underway. Showing a good strong show of concern might mean the difference between terrorists choosing Boston or another city. And that might not seem like a big distinction, but if you live in Boston it could be the kind of subtle distinction that still ends up mattering.

    As for the original thread question of whether this issue was overblown or not, I'd like to just say this: A lot of the commentary has focused on this as a binary activity with two possible postures--overblown or not. I wasn't aware of the activity as it happened, and only heard after-the-fact accounts, but my impression is that there were several unrelated questions that call for different answers. At first, the police found these things and there was concern. At that point, it's probably reasonable to guess that the perpetrators didn't know what was going on and were innocent of any intent to upset or deceive. And you could imagine it was possible they went about their day without knowing, in which case they'd be innocent all day. But as soon as they saw that a negative frenzy was created, the situation shifted and it should have been called off. At that point, their failure to come forward when they could see real fear shifted from "innocent bringers of a curiosity" to "reckless holders of important knowledge". There could have been a panic and a mad attempt to leave the city, or some part of it, in which people were injured. There could have been a large expenditure of resources better spent on real terrorism and robbing later ability to actually make such expenditure. And so on. In the case of the original broadcast of War of the Worlds, years ago, there were people who just committed suicide because they feared a bad situation. The world is different now, and space aliens might not scare that way, but there's every reason to believe that terrorism can still scare people, and such outcomes are not impossible. The fact that the individuals were aware of the concern and the network was telling them to hold off says there was a serious breach of good judgment, if not worse. How one measures it might indeed be a personal judgment, but measuring it as a non-issue seems ... underblown.

    While I think it shows good leadership for the CEO to step down, I think it would have been better leadership for him to know what his organization was up to and to have either known about it in advance or to have stopped it when it was going awry. If he really didn't know because someone planned it without passing the info up the ladder, that person should have been fired rather than the CEO taking the fall. That it didn't go that way certainly hints at the possibility that it would have later come out that the CEO did know, though certainly he's due his day in court... or in People magazine ... or wherever we end up trying the case. But I wouldn't rush to call him a hero or a great leader or anything like that at least until the facts are in. It may simply have been an issue of taking minor embarrassment now or facing serious public embarrassment and possible legal action later. If such were the options,

    --

    Kent M Pitman
    Philosopher, Technologist, Writer

    1. Re:Possible Realities and Real Possibilities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet, I have to believe that at least some of the reports of "foiled plots" have some element of truth.

      One thing I wonder about is if it's at all like the 1960s -- where the most violent agitator in each group was often planted by the police or the FBI, and sometimes things got a bit out of hand as they attempted to entrap as many people as possible...

  124. Why he never should have bothered resigning... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Okay, if Boston thinks they're bombs... well okay. Thats what they saw it as. But why the hell didn't they do anything to stop them from setting up the displays. If they were truly concerned they would have noticed something was up and done something about it. The fact that the signs were put up is testament to the fact that HAD they been real, Boston most probably wouldnt have noticed in time. So lack of action by Boston in the face of a "terrorist threat" is the reason CN should have paid NO money, and the CEO should have kept his job. Anybody else see the bad judgement here?
    Sephiroth2k

  125. Re:Which one? Bizarro World? :] by Shai-kun · · Score: 1

    Man, it'd be totally awesome if they had a bomb squad blow up that clown. Confetti everywhere!

    --
    ...or so I've been told.
  126. Most overblown university ever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "It has a couple of nice universities, but do you thing the terrorists care at all about those?"

    Let's ask the Taliban. Or even better, the Iraqis.

  127. 9/11 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In this post-9/11 world we must always remember 9/11 and never forget the lessons we learned from that unique day in history which took place on September the 11th otherwise known as 9/11. No other day in history other than 9/11 could be said to have made such drastic changes as 9/11. No other day in history could possibly said to have been as tragic. Uh... 9/11, terrorists, Jihad, Al Queda, Muslims, Boo!, weapons of mass destruction, dirty bomb, anthrax, homosexuals, flag burning, nuclear, abortion, family values, rape, child mollestor, serial killer, unpatriotic, pornography, sex offender, atheist, drugs.

    1. Re:9/11 by Spudnik · · Score: 1

      Well they wern't carrying LiteBrights on those flights!

  128. I bet... by Omeger · · Score: 1

    That his severence pay is a LOT more than $2 million.

  129. Did it really happen? by pseudosero · · Score: 1

    The reaction of Boston and the severity of the whole thing; I still can't decide if the entire thing is a joke or not. Life, that is. I can't decide whether or not life is a joke now. As hard as he can is apparently much harder than we thought.

    --
    sometimes, nothing.
  130. Oh, no... That wouldn't do... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You'll NEVER get a Masshole to admit anything of the sort.

  131. a lesson learned by j33px0r · · Score: 1

    To ensure safety in my household, I have grounded my children for 3 months for putting their lightbright in the hallway. Thank you Boston for teaching me how to rear my children. Oh wait, I don't have any children. I was just having a SIMS flashback. Please disregard prior coment.

  132. This might be funny... by Svartalf · · Score: 1

    ...but it's PAINFULLY true. I'd have modded this "Insightful" instead of "Funny"- because it's dead to rights accurate.

    We've handed the terrorists another high-payoff, extreme low cost, attack with a very definite soft-target- and they
    now know we'll do almost all of their work FOR THEM.

    --
    I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
  133. Dumb dumb dumb by heyitsgogi · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I literally can't imagine a stupider response on behalf of the Boston police/gov't. I think they were legitimately confused, as to the nature of the signs, and instead of looking for a reasonable answer, let all the fox-news wolf-crying (are terrorists in your kitchen? find out tonight at eleven!) stir them into a bomb-squad frenzy. Then, I think they were so embarassed by their own resulting ineptitude and overreaction that, to save face, they went on the warpath and used their bully pulpit to cow those port advertising guys, as well as everyone at Cartoon Network. Which is a damn shame -- it's as clear a case of abuse of power as you can get. If anyone should be resigning, it's the Mayor, for infringing on freedom of speech and expression. This is not much different, honestly, than this story other than scale.

    --
    who let a poet in here?
  134. THIS was "Insightful"?? by Svartalf · · Score: 1

    Oh, please.

    High profile devices, placed at an altitude that would have rendered shrapnel pretty much ineffective. (I watched the videos of them PLACING the damn things all over Boston...) Here's a clue: High profile, low cost, low risk- without drawing attention to the devices or people until the act
    actually goes down. Light-brights made out of LEDs and D-cells do not make for this- they draw attention to themselves.

    They EODed an unknown device. If they were being serious about a potential terrorist act, you HAVE to assume the possibility of
    Sarin, Tabun, VX or similar- or a weaponized biological agent. EODing the stuff is the worst possible thing you could have done
    as it'd very likely distribute the damn stuff instead of dispose of it.

    I'm sorry, but this was an overreaction by this City. From start to finish. Worse, they did everything wrong if it wasn't one.

    --
    I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
  135. There's only one solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We all go out, buy lite-brites, and put them all over every city in the US to show how stupid this all is.

    America, as a citizen that has watched you go to shit over the past 30+ years (and watched the shit flow even more freely over the past six), I have to say you really and truly suck. I only wish I could leave, but thanks to this society that pretty much fucks over the life of anyone unfortunate enough to become unemployed for a while and can't pay bills, I'm stuck.

    Thanks.

  136. 2 million bucks for 6000 viewers, no wonder by saikou · · Score: 1

    Apparently the whole media blitz did not register on ratings.
    Target audience of 18-24 olds grew from 380000 to 386000 last week. In other words 2 million bucks bought mere 6000 of viewers. If that's not an utter disaster of ads campaign I'm sure it's very close to it.
    It also may mean that show has saturated its audience and no matter what they do they won't get bigger ratings.
    Causing such bad returns on such large involuntary investment is very upsetting and I understand why he resigned.

  137. Remember, Bostonians burned "witches," too by Eternal+Vigilance · · Score: 1

    A violent over-reaction to things that are outside their knowledge or belief has been a hallmark of Boston for 300+ years. Were the unfortunate women burned because some people thought they were dangerous witches actually dangerous? Of course not. Exact same behavior here, just substitute "terrorist" for "witch."

    "But if they were witches, you'd damn sure be thankful we burned them!"

    In a sad way, the Northern witch-burnings were just the white equivalent to Southern lynchings. So much the North and South had in common! Think how history might have been different, if only they'd been able to find this common ground.

    It's also sad how it's economically easier for Time Warner to kill the head of Cartoon Network than address the issue, which was the paranoid and incompetent response of the Boston authorities (in which they were much like the elephant blaming the mouse for being so scary).

    Of course, most authorities don't become authorities because they're comfortable with anyone actually seeing their paranoia and incompetence, and so TW gets the "Boston Legal" plea bargain of either pretending they were wrong or paying a lot of money. TW, as one would deduce from watching CNN, is in business to make money and not defend principles, and so the outcome here is the one we might despise but should expect.

    It is encouraging that so many people are able to see the incompetent paranoia in Boston's initial response, and the craven cowardice in Time Warner's. (In this respect the two parties are just caught in the same split in our national character the Republicans and Democrats act out for us at the national scale.) That people can see these two halves and recognize that neither one is right is (ahem) a good sign.


    (The best response to this whole thing would have been for the Boston authorities to admit "wow, we overreacted. But it's because we were really scared by you." And then CN could have meaningfully responded "wow, we're really sorry we did something that had that effect. Is there something we can do to help you feel better?" And then some real connection and understanding and growth could have occurred on both sides. We didn't get that outcome this time. But since we can at least talk about that as a possibility, we're getting closer to the moment when it will be the outcome some next time.)

  138. Looks like the Terrorists Won by Spudnik · · Score: 1

    Its sad to see a mighty country like the USofA being afraid of its own shadow, this is exactly what these terrorist wanted, a government jumping at scary shadows, arresting innocent citizens, while denying habious corpus rights to the same citizens, its sworn to protect. In the words of Billy Witch Doctor.Com "Arise Chicken"

  139. FUCK boston by posterlogo · · Score: 1

    way to prove the terrorists have won, boston. bravo.

  140. Stupid warning labels by VGPowerlord · · Score: 1

    I can just see the next stupid warning label:

    Warning: Placing in a public area may get you fined for causing a bomb scare.

    --
    GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
  141. Re:Aqua Teen Hunger Force sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I agree. Maybe talking fast food is popular with stoners or people tripping on lsd.

  142. Re: Oh come on you can't be serious. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry, even people unfamiliar with Ignignot and Err, would be an earnest IDIOT to think that flat light box, OBVIOUSLY some sort of ad or joke to anyone but an idiot (or an entire city of idiots, in this case) and the fact that the city didn't admit to overreacting, instead a lot of very innocent people are suffering unnecessary consequences. This is one of the most absolutely ludicrous stories of the year, I am sorry. Just proves all the more what a sad state of affairs we are REALLY in, in this country right now.

    -kneeL

    "OMG they've actually re-elected him!" "...Twice! LOL"
      -Entire World 2004

  143. Re: Oh come on you can't be serious. by Jekler · · Score: 2, Insightful

    One could argue that anyone who understands the "sad state of affairs" the United States is in would be idiotic to perpetrate such a campaign.

  144. Press Conference..... by IHC+Navistar · · Score: 1

    Anybody who saw the two stooges who actually put up the signs would realize that these are two unbelievably stupid individuals who should have been drowned by their mothers long ago.

    However, the executive shouldn't have resigned over this, unless he specifically told the two idiots what to do, what to put up, and where. Anybody who was directly involved in the erroneous placement of the ads are the only people who should either be resinging or fired. If the exec told Wingus and Dingus to go out and do exactly what they did, then, yes, he should resign. But if he didn't then why should he be at fault? I'm more than certain that there are more individuals who were far more involved in the actual scandal than he was. To play devil's advocate, he probably just said "We need to promote this movie. It's popular for the market segment we are targeting, so figure out a good way to advertise it."

    Honestly, that's probably where his involvement ended. The two idiots who carried it out should be forced to bear all of the costs for the whole fiasco and fined into oblivion, along with their supervisor, but only if he specifically told them to do it that way.

    --
    Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
  145. Far more complex than you realize by mshurpik · · Score: 1

    The issue is far more complex than just "who in hell would think this is a bomb?" I hope you are aware that:

    * Boston had a legitimate bomb scare at a hospital on the same day.

    * The hoaxsters may have called in the bomb threat themselves, explaining why no other city reacted this way, and also why they are facing prosecution.

    * The dread-haired guy videotaped police officers removing one of his devices and didn't step in to inform them of its benign nature.

    I am surprised by the triple fallout ($2m settlement, CEO resignation, and criminal charges) but this lends further support to the theory that this was a deliberate hoax. If it was a simple misunderstanding, then any one of the three penalties would have sufficed.

    1. Re:Far more complex than you realize by Garse+Janacek · · Score: 1

      Hmm... you "hope I'm aware that":

      Boston had a legitimate bomb scare at a hospital on the same day.

      So? Then the legitimate bomb scare should be in the news. But it isn't. Only the illegitimate one. If this is a real explanation for the reaction, it should be presented as such, instead of treating the devices like they really looked threatening.

      The hoaxsters may have called in the bomb threat themselves, explaining why no other city reacted this way, and also why they are facing prosecution.

      Nice begging the question there. They aren't hoaxsters unless they deliberately tried to make people think it was a bomb. You say they may have. If there is serious evidence of this, why isn't the story being presented in this way, instead of, as I already said, treating the devices like they really looked threatening? All the public figures I know of are justifying their actions based on how these really were appropriate reactions to the mere presence of the devices. No one has been saying they reacted that way purely because of a hypothetical bomb threat, and it doesn't seem like there's much (public) evidence for what you're suggesting. If I were justifying a reaction like this, I'd be sure to mention "and we received a bomb threat" at every opportunity...

      The dread-haired guy videotaped police officers removing one of his devices and didn't step in to inform them of its benign nature.

      So? So, maybe he passed up an opportunity to decrease the magnitude of the reaction. I'm not particularly defending the guys involved, it seems like they've made things a lot harder on themselves and they could have responded a lot better. But this is again a hypothetical scenario: I wasn't criticizing the people in charge because I believed that no one else could have done anything to stop it. I was criticizing them because even if nothing else had been done to stop this overreaction, they should have been able to handle it themselves. The fact that someone else could have improved the situation and didn't is no excuse, when the situation never should have gotten that bad in the first place.

      I am surprised by the triple fallout ($2m settlement, CEO resignation, and criminal charges) but this lends further support to the theory that this was a deliberate hoax.

      Hmm. So, legal action lends support to the theory that the person is guilty. Eh.

      The guys seem to have been clueless. They don't seem to have incited a deliberate hoax, and if they did I don't understand why no one has bothered to mention this fact except by vague implications about how suspicious-looking the devices were.

      --

      I am the man with no sig!

    2. Re:Far more complex than you realize by Xenographic · · Score: 1

      * Boston had a legitimate bomb scare at a hospital on the same day.

      So the more rational folks were busy? I guess.

      * The hoaxsters may have called in the bomb threat themselves, explaining why no other city reacted this way, and also why they are facing prosecution.

      Well, what I saw mentioned was that they called in and said that the devices were harmless. That's not quite the same as calling it in and claiming it's threatening.

      * The dread-haired guy videotaped police officers removing one of his devices and didn't step in to inform them of its benign nature.

      Videotaping things like that is what he does for a living, so that's not unreasonable. I also can't blame him for not letting the people know--they're the freaking bomb squad and they *should* know what is or isn't a bomb. That said, as per above, they apparently called their boss to let the city know that the devices were harmless. I can't say that that's unreasonable, and it's not like the police were going to get hurt by a glorified Lite Brite.

      I really can't see why people don't realize that the hype is due to politicians trying to cover their collective asses for an overreaction which no other city managed. I am glad, however, to have heard replies from many other city residents who are rightfully embarrassed by the city's response on their behalf. Hopefully their influence well help their city become one that is actually prepared for terrorist attack, should such a thing happen again.

      Remember, every time you feel terror, the terrorists win.

    3. Re:Far more complex than you realize by mshurpik · · Score: 1

      >I really can't see why people don't realize that the hype is due to politicians trying to cover their collective asses for an overreaction which no other city managed.

      Because I find the overreaction itself suspicious, especially since it took a full 2 weeks for the city to "overreact." Besides, plenty of people already agree with you, and yet this groundswell of support didn't stop Turner from paying out cash or axing one of its top employees.

  146. WTF by jibjibjib · · Score: 1
    "It had a very sinister appearance," Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley told reporters. "It had a battery behind it, and wires."

    http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/02/01/boston.bombscare/

  147. See kids, this happens when you trust a bunch ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... of weed doers with your advertising.

  148. The irony of your remarks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "it has that look and feel of "bombs" you see in movies "

    If what you're saying is true, it just goes to show that Boston's police have no more training that the average citizen when it comes to spotting bombs. And if you have no training, then the first thing you do is ask someone who does before shutting down the city.

    That is, if you're not a moron...

  149. Oh Brother by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I've got a kid"

    Yeah so what. So does the entire rest of the world's population, pretty much. I have a couple kids. That doesn't mean I becoming an idiot when they're born.

    "And if a little overreaction means the difference between drawing flowers with him and placing flowers on his grave, then I'm all for a little overreaction"

    Is there any chance you could hand your kids off to someone competent and then wait in the tunnel in boston to catch any ceiling tiles that might fall? I have a feeling the world and your kids would be better off.

    No offense.

  150. Provincetown more manly than Boston by kindbud · · Score: 1

    Provincetown may be P'Town but Boston is now PeePants Town.

    --
    Edith Keeler Must Die
  151. ministry of truth by l3v1 · · Score: 1

    Well, these days, if you don't want to get kicked in the arse, better get your ads certified and blessed by the ministry of truth before putting them out in the open. I would think it was not their fault some idiot thought those things were bombs (even my non-tech sister just laughed about the whole thing, me, well, I didn't laugh, I was sad), but I don't matter I've got used to that.

    --
    I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
  152. Terrorists won by smiiiff · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Things like this make it very clear all the terrorists in the world aiming at the USA can go home and leave the USA alone for a few years. They won and anything they do won't be half as bad as the imagination of American bureaucrates and the average retarded Joe. The USA can destroy itself all by it's self. Unless Bush goes out the window and the USA gets rid of the fear mongering media you guys lost. clear and simple

  153. Not mutually exclusive by Cyran0 · · Score: 1

    Going back to the original question, I'd say the answer is "both".

    I think the point has been sufficiently made in the comments thus far that this was blown way out of proportion and the fault for the panic lies with the response, not with the original act.

    On the other hand, this is just another stupid marketing campaign. Sure, sure, it's an inside joke for everyone who watches the show to "get it" and everyone who doesn't to go "what the..?". It's meant to generate what the marketing weasles call "buzz".

    But let's put aside the massive overreaction for a moment. Based on where these things were placed, they were essentially designed to cause a lot of rubbernecking. They're only a foot by a foot and a half, so you have to slow down and take a few seconds to figure out what this thing is... and wait... is that thing GIVING ME THE FINGER? Doh! (har de har) Only in the meantime, the rubberneck effect is rippling its way back.

    Now if these were punk kids pulling a stunt and raising a little hell, that's one thing. But these are marketing weasles getting paid a chunk of money to make me late for dinner.

    So, while I think the whole mess was much ado about nothing, I also think that corporate ad campaigns pretending to be cool and rebellious are a load of crap.

  154. question from outside by Jacek+Poplawski · · Score: 1

    Are you aware of fact how it looks from Europe?
    If blinking advert can stop whole city, how can you just live there?
    I just can't believe that's true. This is too ridiculous.

  155. Re:Which one? Bizarro World? :] by pipingguy · · Score: 1

    I live in Boston. The city screwed up, badly.

    Got any tea handy?

  156. Fire Boston's mayor by JasonEngel · · Score: 1

    I applaud Jim Sample's prime example of responsible leadership. He understands that his company pulled this stunt, he is in charge of his company, therefore he should take responsibility for it. However, I think his resignation also displays a level of weakness. The mayor of Boston is a belligerent imbecile. Because his own stupidity led to his embarrassment and that of an entire city, he chose to respond like a typical pigheaded schoolyard bully. And Jim caved.

    Yes, CN put signs up in Boston. It did so in several cities. It advised all of the cities in advance. Bostonians and their leaders ignored the notice, overreacted, look stupid (are stupid) for it, and now are lashing out, becoming ever more idiotic. Jim should have accepted responsibility AND told Boston to grow a sense of humor.

  157. 24 hour news channels for the win... by bigbigbison · · Score: 1

    The people in charge in Boston totally overreacted. But the news outlets are the ones the ran with it and kept bringing it up. If I were the head of the Cartoon Network, I would go over to my my fellow Time Warner employee the head of CNN and give that person a black eye. Boston made the mistake but CNN and company made it news.

    Of course if this had happened in someplace besides the East or West coast it probably wouldn't have even made the national news...

    --
    http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players
  158. Popup Hypocrisy by zeda · · Score: 1
    Here is a metaphor for you: ATHF signs -> Popup Ads.


    Even if ATHF is popular with you kiddies, it doesn't change the fact that this was guerilla advertising, aka unsolicited commercial speech, you know, the kind that the Supreme court erroneously believes is covered by the First Amendment.

    I mean the signs didn't even have a copyright notice or some other clear form of commercial labeling. Thus proving that the signs were trying to bypass our regexes. OMG haxors!

    Everyone saying that "they don't look like bombs." Quit trying to excuse their subterfuge. They purposefully hid commercial speech to get at your eyeballs. We hate that when spam does it, why don't we hate it here.

    Boston over-reacting is akin to /. freaking out and having an adbusters jihad when a new popup technique is found in the wild, because hey, it could be a new javascript exploit. Not really the same degree, but maybe the same dislike of attempting to subvert the system.

    I mean hell, they were even using the [blink]blink[/blink] tag! It's like Minority Report all over again!!!!

  159. Completely psychotic reality disconnect by oDDmON+oUT · · Score: 1

    When a blinking *toy* fergawhdzfuggin' sake can be construed as a security threat, how is it that we keep missing the most glaringly obvious one in the nation, the occupant of the Oval Office?

    --
    Some days it's just not worth
    chewing through my restraints.
  160. Pathetic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All I can say is that while the USA was frothing at the mouth over a harmless advertising stunt, Britain has been facing a campaign of real bombs sent through the post, while simultaneously coping with allegations of a seperate major terrorist plot - and the only thing that has threatened to stop life continuing totally normally has been the weather.

    It's called having a sense of perspective. Stopping all postal deliveries might possibly save lives, but it would certainly cause untold damage in other ways - and it would mean the terrorists had won. And the targets of the bomb campaign are, frankly, sensible adults who are capable of taking care of themselves by not touching suspicious packages. Britain is often accused of being a "nanny state", while Americans pride themselves on their ideals of independence and personal responsibility... but today it seems those roles have been reversed.

  161. Mod Parent Up by drewzhrodague · · Score: 1

    I read this too -- they found two fake pipe bombs, they knew who made 'em, and didn't go after the guy. Boston's Police are fucked-up with their priorities.

    --
    Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.
  162. Simply put... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Aren't there any electronics hobbyists left? One look at the pictures of the "devices" and it was clear to me that it was just a simple "blinky light" board. It shouldn't have taken an expert ten seconds to tell the devices were benign. If our "authorities" are so ill educated, how do we know they'd even recognize a real bomb?

    I can understand them responding to the calls from the public but after seeing one of the devices, I cannot for the life of me figure out how poorly educated you have to be to think those things were bombs. Go look through any electronics catalog. Hell, go to Fry's. These kinds of circuit are sold as kits for KIDS.

  163. Quoting Sun Tzu by Migraineman · · Score: 1

    If you know yourself and know your enemy, you will be victorious.
    If you know yourself and do not know your enemy, you will sometimes be victorious.
    If you know neither yourself nor your enemy, you will be defeated.
    - Sun Tzu

    Many folks think than studying your enemy's tactics makes you a "bad guy." I believe it makes you more prepared (and a better warrior.)
  164. Little Known Fact by kraada · · Score: 1

    It's a little known fact that bombs only hide under the clothing of really attractive people

    Join with me in the call to BAN clothing on ATTRACTIVE PEOPLE.

    If attractive people aren't naked all the time, the terrorists will win.

    1. Re:Little Known Fact by Patrik_AKA_RedX · · Score: 1

      That makes the issue of the 120Kg bald guy who thinks he's attractive a matter of national security.

  165. I could understand ... by BearSquirrel · · Score: 1

    Assuming that someone is trying to be The Joker by advertising their bombs with a Light Bright, I could understand them detonating a single device to see what's up with them. But after that, it should have been very obvious to them that the devices were NOT bombs but rather, just a lightbright board with a two dimensional figure making a lewd jesture "as much as he can". I don't think that Boston officials were stupid. I think they saw this as an opportunity to show how "vigilant" they were. They intentionally wasted city resources for their own political profit. In essence, they were just emulating Washington DC and the master of the house at 1700 Pennsylvania.

  166. the new dark ages by Skridge · · Score: 1

    we have entered the new dark ages. freedom is replaced by state control. science is replaced with fundamentalist religion and the state makes sure we are terrified of everything so they may restrict us more. mass panic exercises like boston's athf episode are just part of it. every time they can roll out the heavy equipment they will. and eventually you will be used to having troops on the street checking your papers. there are plans for internal us passports and troops locking down the large cities in america. i hope it doesn't come to pass, but im fairly certain no one going to stop it. the american inquisition should be along soon, sadly, no one will expect it.

    --
    -=] M3 Heavy industries - Download Free Game Tools
  167. Re:Which one? Bizarro World? :] by Garse+Janacek · · Score: 1

    Always!

    --

    I am the man with no sig!

  168. "The illusion of due diligence" by braintartare · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That line from Syriana has rung true again. The reason that Boston's response seems stupid is that you are mistaking it for what Boston authorities have claimed it to be; a response to maintain public safety. They didn't make a response to maintain public safety. They made a response to maintain the illusion that they are protecting public safety. They are not paying attention to anything more than how they appear. It's the nature of corrupt officials to seek first and foremost to protect themselves, and usually to stop when they feel they appear to have done their jobs. Whether or not they actually have done their jobs is usually unimportant to the corrupt, and in most cases is repugnant to them, in that they are then no more cagey or clever than the audience that they seek to fool.

  169. Well... by Xenographic · · Score: 1

    Another city in California found *real* pipe bombs when draining an aqueduct. And they didn't panic, either. There's a difference between taking the threat seriously and shutting down the city out of fear. They should take it seriously, but calm down once they know they're fake.

    Like I said, every time you panic, the terrorists win.

  170. Who scared whom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These devices were, as I understand, placed in other major cities across the US, including NYC.

    Now, after 9/11, you'd think that New Yorkers (irregardless of their renowned toughness) would be more "sensitive" to this sort of "prank" than would be Bostonians.

    I think it was a bad idea, given the political climate. As I understand, however, these were just little "Lightbright" (remember those!?) boxes, relatively harmless. It still would have been a good idea to let the local government in on the campaign.

    But let there be a lesson here, in case some idiot wants to promote his product in a similar way.

    I think the CEO losing his job (having to resign) is a bit harsh here. Unless he was directly responsible (CEO's rarely are, read: plausible deniability). Maybe a suspension would have been more appropriate. There's a bigger picture to consider (the company's success).

    Have we all gone blind, and mad?

  171. OT Boston tunnels by jbengt · · Score: 1

    No, it's possible to install the epoxied hanger inserts safely, but, especially with the working conditions in the tunnel, it was a very risky thing to try. These have been prone to failure. Their use was initiated by the contractor as a change to the original design in order to save cost and time.

  172. I have learned a lesson by Oz0ne · · Score: 1

    And that lesson is, Boston is run by idiots.

    This is really unbelievable. What on earth could possibly constitute that large a fine? At worst I'd say the marketing campaign is guilty of littering.

  173. The goal of terrorism. . . by Hamoohead · · Score: 1

    . . . is not as much one of destruction as it is to disorient, confuse, and otherwise cause paranoia. In this respect (IMHO), Mr. Samples and all of the paranoids in Boston handed would-be terrorists a victory by their overreaction and Mr. Samples resignation. While it may seem noble that Mr. Samples would take the fall for those that worked under him, I think the situation would have been better served by using this incident as an example of just how ludicrous our reactions to perceived threats have become. The only interests served by knee-jerk reactions like these are those of terrorism.

    That being said, I believe Cartoon Network dropped the ball by not facing this issue head on and giving this outrageous reaction to mere flashing lights the ridicule it deserves.

    --
    "If your parents never had children, chances are you wonât either." -Dick Cavett
  174. How A City by Deliveranc3 · · Score: 1

    Which isn't quite so paranoid dealt with something similar.

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=bgsqOVSrVFU

    Note the final words are "Serve and Protect" without sarcasm, something I haven't seen in American media in ages.

  175. Boston did not overreact by thepriceisright · · Score: 1

    Many slashdoters have said Boston grossly overreacted to the ATHF mini-billboards. As a long time resident of Massachusetts, I'm happy the agencies' reacted as they did. Keep in mind the authorities who work as public servants care about their communities and fellow citizens. They are informed about strange looking devices located on sites, such as, bridges, and other important sites (Hospital, Fenway, etc.) For one moment let's suppose you were the public official dealing with this situation. What do you do? The public, your community, and your friends and family, depends on you to keep them safe.

    You have minimal information and have devices on bridges and other locations. Do you treat it lightly (it's just some misconstrued marketing program)? Or do you treat it seriously until you have more information? If you treat it lightly it might turn out not to be a marketing program gone amuck but something more sinister. All reasonable people, i think, would verge on a more conservative approach and treat this event as potentially lethal. Frankly the public officials are dammed regardless of their actions. If they did not take this serious it would have been all over the news, "Boston indifferent to suspicious devices."

    I have the utmost respect for the public officials who deal with public safety every day, it's an important job that is stressful, and has real consequences. The men and woman who responded to this event did what they thought would be in the best public interest of Massachusetts. Once more I ask everyone to put yourself into their position, the responsibility they are in charge of, the balancing act they must attempt, to make sure everyone can go home safely every night.

    I'm 26 and love ATHF but the show isn't really the issue. The real issue is the company who decided to have this marketing program. For some reason, i bet if Cartoon Network contacted the proper officials, obtained the proper permits, and acted in a responsible manner we would not be talking about this sad event. Instead we would be talking about how crafty the marketing program was and how bad we wanted to have our own moonanites (bright light?) displays.

    People who argue Boston's response was overkill have a valid point. However, I think we unfortunately cast aside the enormity of public safety. I don't know how many people would relish being responsible for such a task. I imagine if I was a public official dealing with public safety even a backpack left next to a subway entrance would cause me to react a lot differently then I would now.

    Best,

    Thepriceisright

  176. I am disheartened by peektwice · · Score: 1

    by the fact that efforts of the Government and Corporations and the Defense Complex at keeping the populace scared of their own fucking shadows has apparently succeeded.
    Charles Shulz saw it coming -> http://www.trexfiles.com/peanuts_mooninite_large.j pg

    --
    Other than this text, there is no discernible information contained in this sig.
  177. Both are right, there's a 3rd choice that's wrong by OldSoldier · · Score: 1
    I believe that the guys who put up the lite-brite signs had every right do to so, in line with the same right people have and use to put up letter sized advertisments on telephone poles. Sure, in some places that's illegal, but it's illegal for littering reasons, not for possible terrorist reasons.


    I also believe the Boston authorities have the right to react the way they did. Goofy as it may seem, especially in light that they were the only major city to react this way, and goofy that they thought terrorists would go out of their way to draw attention to a bomb, they can react that way if they want to.

    The problem is that now that Boston has egg on its face they're looking for someone to take responsibility. And the right people who should take responsibility are the Boston authorities. This incident should be no more unusual than one where a mysterious briefcase is found at an airport and has that place shut down while the authorities deal with it. If/when that case is determined to not be a threat, do you see the authorities going after the absent minded person who left it behind as a possible terrorist? No... you see the authorities realize that sometimes they get it wrong and the only harm done is that a suit case was destroyed and an airport was shutdown for a few hours. No other personal liberties were abused in this hypothetical case, and in the ideal world that I want to live in, it'd be the same way here. These guys could put up those signs fearing only possible littering/vandalism charges and the Boston authorities could react the way they did to the signs, but otherwise not accuse the sign-hangers as terrorit immitators.

    And no, it's not like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. It's more like yelling "hey" in a crowded theater.

  178. Plan of attack by potat0man · · Score: 1

    Right now, with Boston's reaction the way it was it seems to me the absolute best plan of attack for a terrorist cell would be to drop off literally thousands of empty boxes all over the city; on buses, trains, street corners, bridges. Everywhere. And watch the city go nuts. Your only risk would be being talked to by the police because you happen to be carrying a box with something like a teddy bear inside. Good luck prosecuting that guy.

    The goal of terrorism is to terrorize, not to blow people up.

  179. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  180. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  181. Re:There is such a thing as bad publicity (sort of by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I figure that's the real reason why he's been told to go. If your advertising goes overbudget by $2 million with NO positive results, you've royally screwed up.

  182. A good police department would have done this.... by ShaunC1000 · · Score: 1

    Gee.. those lite brites look like a character from Aqua Teen Hunger Force (someone in the department must have known that) maby we should call up cartoon network to see if they know anything about this. *ring* *ring* Cartoon Network: Hello? Boston Police: Hi, this is the Boston Police did you put up lite brites around out city? Cartoon Network: Yes we did.. its a part of our advertising campaign for Aqua Teen Hunger Force. Boston Police: Oh ok, we were just making sure they weren't bombs. Cartoon Network: No no.. nothing explosive about them. Boston Police: Thanks a lot, we didn't want to shutdown transportation all over the city over some stupid lite brites. Cartoon Network: Yeah, that would have made you look like dumb pieces of shit. Boston Police: Yes it would have.

  183. Re: Oh come on you can't be serious. by X-treme-LLama · · Score: 1

    Quick comment on your sig. Might want to change it slightly.

    We only RE-elected him once. He was ELECTED twice.. (Well technically one could argue we didn't elect him either time, what with the florida and ohio scandals, but that is neither here nor there..)

    Just trying to grammar nazi in a nice way :)

  184. Globalization forced him to resign by James+F.+Cooper · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Jim Samples should not have resigned. He did nothing wrong. His company did nothing wrong. The lawsuit and its result were unjust. But Samples rightly perceived that the public, as willing victims of globalization, had identified his company as "tur'rists", and decided that it wasn't worth himself or his employees going to a torture chamber.

    The U.S.A. is full of hysterical ninnies whose sense of being American does not extend beyond cheap slogans invented by our British imperial enemy. That's why they can't see the enemy within: they have nothing left in their minds that is truly American that they can compare with Cheney, to reveal that he is totally un-American, and Bush, too, by implication, because he does everything Cheney tells him to do.

    9-11 was orchestrated by the enemy within, and that enemy's agenda is globalization, the new imperialism. The Economist magazine, based in London, just released a special, boasting of the revival of the British Empire through globalization! Where is the spirit of 1776? Where is the rigorous scientific method of Benjamin Franklin, not just in his electrical experiments, but in his political intelligence and political leadership. Never satisfied with judgements based on appearances, he always sought to uncover the principles governing all the action.

    Apply Franklin's method to "terrorism". Look at the vote fraud in 2000, the bigger vote fraud in 2004, the pre-inaugural rush in late 2000- early 2001 to nominate John Ashcroft for Attorney General. What is the more probable motive for 9-11: to make the U.S. submit to the rule of Osama bin Laden, or to establish a police state under Bush and Cheney, or to allow Bush and Cheney to loot the U.S. until the U.S. Treasury is no longer able to sell bonds, putting our government totally in the hands of the financial circle behind Cheney & Bush?

    1. Re:Globalization forced him to resign by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looks like the oxygen is thin up there in the stratosphere. Perhaps you should reduce the height of that soap box you're standing on by a couple of miles.

  185. Perfect, except for one thing. by Presence1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "Gee.. those lite brites look like a character from Aqua Teen Hunger Force (someone in the department must have known that) maby we should call up cartoon network to see if they know anything about this. *ring* *ring* Cartoon Network: Hello? Boston Police: Hi, this is the Boston Police did you put up lite brites around out city? Cartoon Network: Yes we did.. its a part of our advertising campaign for Aqua Teen Hunger Force. Boston Police: Oh ok, we were just making sure they weren't bombs. Cartoon Network: No no.. nothing explosive about them. Boston Police: Thanks a lot, we didn't want to shutdown transportation all over the city over some stupid lite brites. Cartoon Network: Yeah, that would have made you look like dumb pieces of shit. Boston Police: Yes it would have."

    The scenario you describe is perfect, EXCEPT for one thing. The marketing geniuses who put it up did not bother to include on the devices ANY kind of identifyng information. If they had, I would agree with you completely.

    But, as it actually happened, what were the cops on the ground supposed to to with four 911 calls within an hour and finding 3 of these devices on the most strategically located bridges (and fiber-optic conduits) in Boston and the other near a hospital? Maybe the thing itself doesn't look like a bomb, but why couldn't it just be one component of a wireless trigger system?

    Perhaps report back that "it might be suspicious, or it might look a bit like some character in some show my teenaager watched once, so you better send out the marketing analysis experts before we call the bomb squad.".

    Remember this was a very low-res pixel graphic with no identifying info meant to be obscure for a targeted audience. It wasn't like it flashed letters for national brands like "Coke" or even a local one like "Joe's Pizza".

    While I usually find myself very much on the anti-authority side of the argument, in this case, they were doing their jobs exactly right. Call the bemb experts, clear the area, let them figure out what it is, and call the "All Clear" when it is ok.

    1. Re:Perfect, except for one thing. by ShaunC1000 · · Score: 1

      oh come on... like NO ONE in the Boston Police has seen Aqua Teen Hunger Force? Remember.. these were in a few different cities and only Boston's Police department were dumb enough to confuse them for bombs.

    2. Re:Perfect, except for one thing. by Presence1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "oh come on... like NO ONE in the Boston Police has seen Aqua Teen Hunger Force? Remember.. these were in a few different cities and only Boston's Police department were dumb enough to confuse them for bombs."

      I'm sure someone in the force probably had seen it, but the entire force didn't go out and inspect them - probably only four did. The entire force isn't in on that call, and they certinly don't have all the info at that minute.

      Consider how it actually plays out. Several hours after a half-dozen people were arrested in London on a terrorist plot, they get a series of four 911 calls within an hour about devices on bridges and near a hospital. They send a few officers out to the site to see what is up. Now, the officers all call in that they see some device with LEDs, batteries, wires, and circuit boards. They don't take them down and inspect them in detail, both out of common sense (don't mess with stuff when you don't know what it is), and probably SOP to not screw up potential evidence, and to leave it for the specialists.

      Now, given that situaion, as the officer on site, or the supervisor hearing all four reports confirmed, of unrecognized electronic devices placed in key strategic locations around the city, -- ARE YOU REALLY going to make the call that "nah, nevermind, it's just junk". You potentially only have minutes to react; you may already be too late. Think for a second how you'd be rightly pilloried if someting did blow up and you had called "nevermind". You do not have the luxury of time to figure out who might have put it up there and why, what product might be being marketed, verify their story, etc. -- you need to figure out NOW whether or not it is a threat.

      The only thing to do is to send in an expert to find out WTF those things ACTUALLY are, even if they look like they could be innocuous. Even if one of the officers had recognized it as looking like some kind of marketing, what's to say that it isn't just a cover for a wireless relay/trigger for something further under the bridges?

      Now, I'd say exactly exactly the opposite if they marketers had put ANY identifying marks on there. Just a tiny sticker with "Interference marketing / 123 main street/ anytown MA / 617-345-6789" would do.

      With that, and 10 (hectic) minutes, the cops could verify that they were actually put there by a marketing firm, that it was a bona fide firm with a lease for X years, their clients were Turner, ABC, Etc., and that their clients could verify that they were who they said they were, etc. But, there was no such info to even start such an investigation, and no time to guess.

      I also consider that these so-called marketers are supposed to be professionals at anticipating people's reactions to their actions. The entire purpose of the device is to generate a reaction. It seems that they could also have anticipated that security people would react to a set of *unknown* devices in key strategic locations as a threat, and done something simple to mitigate that, such as putting on a tag, or calling in a notice. But they didn't. If they had, and the cops ignored it, then, I'd be in the front of the line berating them for not doing their job, but in this case, they did the right thing.

  186. Overgeneralization by Jerf · · Score: 1

    That's right kids - we're one step away from failing to have the ability to sort by color and shape.
    As it has been pointed out, many other cities (including New York) had these installations, and completely correctly handled them.

    Yet you focus on the one example that was handled incorrectly, and generalize from that to "we're one step away from failing to have the ability to sort by color and shape".

    The fashionable cynicism on Slashdot gets more repulsive to me every year, because this process isn't just the primary fuel for that cynicism, it's almost the sole fuel. Look, dumb things happen, but if all you look at is the dumb stuff, you'll get an almost unspeakably skewed view of things.

    There are six billion people in this world. If even only .1% of them are evil and stupid (hopelessly optimistic!), those six million people would keep us in Darwin awards, stupid overreactions, and other bad news aplenty. But that doesn't show the real nature of the world, which is that every day, 99.9% of the other people were just getting along, maybe even doing some good. That is, even if 99.9% of the world were perfect angels, you'd still have as much evidence as you do now that the world is going to hell in a handbasket, because it'd still be getting pumped out 24/7 on CNN.

    You're just allowing yourself to be manipulated by a sensationalistic media if you think this is representative of all humanity, along with all the other pointless bad news you see on the news. Ultimately, if you do this, you are no different than the PEAR group at Princeton featured today on Slashdot, combing through mounds and mounds of data for the small nuggets that confirm your negative worldview, the only difference being that somebody else is doing the combing for you.

    Are you sure we have a problem? Because what I see is a number of cities handling this perfectly capably, and one group of people in Boston that may very well have contained no more than three or four people that overreacted just long enough for the media to become involved, at which point even if they recanted it would have been too late.

    All it takes is one person calling the police saying "I see a bomb!" without giving a description, and the police being a little too credulous. It's easy to construct the Boston scenario with only a small number of idiots involved and everybody else correctly doing their jobs with the information they had; with just a bit of bad luck all you needed was that initial phone caller being stupid.

    I hardly think that a mere handful of stupid people getting unlucky and making national news constitutes proof of government conspiracies to scare people. We don't need government conspiracies, we have a news media that gets paid by the number of people watching them. That's plenty of motivation to be as sensationalistic as possible, and if people get scared as a side effect, well, who cares?
  187. Miscommunication or bad timing? ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about both?

    Let's not forget that in Boston, not only were there two pipe bomb scares, but to boot, the local authorities were never properly informed about the ATHF's ad campaign! It's a very important point, because it would explain a major part of the confusion which lead to the overreaction that so many here are griping about. To be clear, I'm not defending Boston's reaction, quite the contrary. For instance, a little improvement on Boston's communication with other major city authorities would have probably gave them a head's up on the devious ad-campaign and prevented much of the brouhaha. On the flip side, a simple call from Cartoon Network to Boston's authority (beforehand) would've saved CN CEO, Sample, his job and prevented millions of dollars in damages caused to the city of Boston.

    And speaking of knee-jerk reactions, a lot of people were crying foul on the Boston authorities despite the obvious public misconduct of the two individuals involved. That was long before all the facts were known, so it's interesting to see that some people still aren't willing to concede to all the facts.

  188. That's what you think! by MacDork · · Score: 1

    It was Cartoon Network, not Comedy Central.

    He didn't resign due to a feeling of responsibility for his actions. He resigned from Cartoon Network because Comedy Central recognized his marketing brilliance and offered him more money. Coming soon to a city near you: blinkin' Cartman flipping you the bird terrorist signage. The new CEO of Comedy Central would appreciate it if you would all flip out completely... again. ;-)

  189. Totally Ridiculous by stick_figure_of_doom · · Score: 1

    Against the backdrop of a tradition of hacking over here at MIT, this reaction looks like a ton of bull. Boston totally overreacted, and the strength of the connection between the graffiti artists and Cartoon Network is tenuous at best. Why should a CEO resign because some renegade avant-guard artists messed up a slick hack?

    --
    If someone drops a fort on Will, he makes a reflex save.
  190. Re:There is such a thing as bad publicity (sort of by aetherion · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The lower ratings might have something to do with the fact that the show is in its off-season right now. My guess is that these ads were in fact for the upcoming movie. I find it odd that Forbes didn't mention either fact.

  191. Re:Which one? Bizarro World? :] by waveclaw · · Score: 1

    What the hell is the bomb squad for?


    Apparently for corralling many of the explosives-happy people in your community into a single, easily controlled group instead of letting them run wild and blow up cars, trash cans, beer cans and light brights.

    Oh, wait. Those were all blown up by bomb squads. Never mind.
    --

    "You cannot have a General Will unless you have shared experiences. You cannot be fair to people you don't know."
  192. Plenty of Stupid to Go Around by SQL+Error · · Score: 1

    Yes, the reaction by Boston authorities was absurdly overblown. But it was a retarded idea to start with.

    Ideally, this resignation should by matched by one at a similar level in Boston, but I don't see that happening.

  193. The reaction to the first one was excusable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can understand why they would have reacted that way to the first one. It was found during the day so not easy to tell that it was light-up. If you've never seen older 8 bit video games it wouldn't necessarily look like a cartoon character to you. Given that the police force that discovered the first one was the Somerville police force which has a generally older and frumpier force than Boston, I find this to be entirely plausible. So what you have is a circuit board with batteries duct taped to it (and you couldn't see that they were batteries, the tape covered them) attached to a girder that suspends up the very congested 8 lane interstate 93 above another elevated bridge carrying electric trains going underground into a major subway station and immediately outside of that subway station, directly under the highway is a major bus terminal.

    The fact that this continued all afternoon is inexcusable... and the fact that they had cops who were no doubt getting paid $60/hr-$100/hr overtime to remove them after they found out that they were benign, and not some sanitation worker is also completely inexcusable. I saw hoards of police choppers hovering around until well after 6 that evening. It's almost like they were purposefully making it expensive to prove that it was a big deal so they could justify how expensive it was.

    And as much those 2 kids that did it were compete condescending art-school douche bags on the news... the fact that they were vilified for some job they probably got off of craigslist (for which they each got paid $300) is absolutely absurd (I'm looking at you too Boston Herald)

    However, to completely disregard even the initial concern is completely faulty.

  194. Terrorism is the New Billie Club by wingfinger · · Score: 1

    Some people didnt like the signs -- didnt like them at all -- but they didnt want the expense, probable failure, negative PR, lack of bite, an straightforward-ness of some sort of an indecency or illegal advertising suit. (or no suit at all because of they, themselves, had no claim).

    The government is a perfect front.

    Turner didnt fight the suit. Terrorism wasnt one of the reasons -- too easy to show a lack of intent (of terrorism or a hoax terrorism). Similar advertising campains can probably be shown. With precedence, there would be a lack of uniqueness and unexpectedness for a professional organization such as the City of Boston. Companies are well known for fighing all manner of lawsuits with vigor. It is reasonable to assume that Turner had other reasons for not fighing the suit.

    Note, Turner also dropped a dime on their CEO. Once Turner decided to roll-over, the bomb stare stunt now becomes the perfect reason for such an action. The club was passed to them and willingly used it.

  195. Re:Which one? Bizarro World? :] by abb3w · · Score: 1

    Literally, physically, something that looks like those devices could not possibly be an explosive device of any serious power, nothing that poses any danger to any structure or even any human who wasn't essentially holding them in his hands.

    I wouldn't go quite that far. It looks like a motivated lunatic might be able to pack on the rough order of a quart of C-4 into the one I saw on E-bay; that would get you something on the very vague ballpark of ten kilograms TNT yield -- or about ten millitons. Not enough to do more than cause a (slightly more justified) panic, evacuate the associated buildings, and probably force some pretty expensive repairs. And, yeah, with all of the moon-units they had scattered about the country, terrorists might have been lucky to kill half a dozen people with shrapnel, and maybe give minor injuries to five times that. But if you set one off in the middle of the road, I doubt anyone in Boston would notice the extra pothole.

    Yes, Boston, your mayor has had his sense of humor surgically removed. I hope whoever buys the ones appearing on E-bay mail ship them to him.

    --
    //Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
  196. Welcome to anarchy by ElectricRook · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Have some perspective. On September 11, one well funded terrorist organization succeeded in making an attack. 3,000 people died, about the number of people that die in traffic accidents every two weeks. I'm just not seeing the demonstrations over outlawing cars. At Columbine, about 20 people were killed on one day, but thats about how many kids hang themselves accidentally in mini blinds every day, did you take down your mini-blinds. Terrorism relies on the press to sensationalize an item. The politicians volley the fear back and forth, making more and more laws for the sake of making laws to look effective. The result is that a few good laws are enforced and obeyed. Many silly laws are ignored. This leads to anarchy. Welcome to Iraq.

    --
    - High Tech workers, please say NO to Union Carpenters, their Union sees fit to control our compensation.
    1. Re:Welcome to anarchy by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      "Have some perspective. On September 11, one well funded terrorist organization succeeded in making an attack. 3,000 people died, about the number of people that die in traffic accidents every two weeks. I'm just not seeing the demonstrations over outlawing cars."

      Since we're talking about having some perspective:

      a.) 9-11 did a lot more damage than just killing 3,000 people. The economy took a severe hit and lots of people went unemployed so long that the benefits had to be extended in several states.

      b.) Accidents != violence. There is risk in driving a car, this is understood before anybody gets behind the wheel. The risk of being accidentally killed by a commercial airliner while you're 100 floors up in a building is astronomically low. The risk goes up when it becomes intention, even if it is only percieved risk.

      c.) Lots of the individual causes for car crashes have been demonstrated against. You cannot fix drunk driving by changing the design of the car. Hence laws are needed. In the case of mini-blinds, when they cause a serious risk, they're recalled and redesigned.

      d.) 3,000 people died in one day, not two weeks. (Not to mention the unexpected nature of terrorism.) If things had gone a little differently, it could have been over 50,000.

      e.) If 9-11 could have been trivialized down to simply a kill-count, it wouldn't have become such an important event in history. (Have some perspective.)

      "Terrorism relies on the press to sensationalize an item. The politicians volley the fear back and forth, making more and more laws for the sake of making laws to look effective. The result is that a few good laws are enforced and obeyed."

      Go back and re-read my post, that's exactly what I was saying. The difference is that I added to the point. People are getting bombarded with terrorist sensationalism. When something bad happens, it will be over-investigated, and something silly like the kid pointing a piece of chicken at a teacher and saying 'bang bang' will be brought up and people were ask "why didn't you do something then?"

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    2. Re:Welcome to anarchy by ElectricRook · · Score: 1

      Over-reacting to terrorism, makes terrorism more successful.

      Osama bin Laden set out to destroy America. He did just that. He didn't have to knock down all the buildings, only two. He didn't have to kill everyone, he only had to make them afraid. The constant stream of calls to "BE AFRAID" are repeated every day in the press.

      He believes that the American constitutional freedoms are an affront to God. Our response to terrorism is to dismantle the constitution out of fear. This makes terrorism successful. Every call to restrict freedom makes terrorist acts successful.

      The proper reaction to terrorism, is a well funded dirty tricks intelligence agency, who's job is to make potential problems quietly go away.

      Of course, how does one measure their effectiveness? It's one of those thankless jobs, where the only way, to measure effectiveness, is for them to be ineffective, then we see what they could-have or should-have been doing.

      --
      - High Tech workers, please say NO to Union Carpenters, their Union sees fit to control our compensation.
    3. Re:Welcome to anarchy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you reading the posts before hitting reply?

  197. It has to be said by The+Last+Gunslinger · · Score: 1

    The people involved in the city of Boston are fucking retards. The only thing about this "incident" that I fail to understand is how these retards seem to lack a sense of shame...shame for being so immeasurably stupid in the first place, and shame for overreacting in an equally immeasurably stupid manner, and shame for then turning and pointing the blame at others.

    WHY IS EVERYONE BUYING INTO THIS?!?!

    The people in Boston are fucking morons...why is everyone capitulating in the face of their idiocy? Why is everyone tripping over themselves to appease the sense of outrage coming from these redfaced buffoons? Why are people being prosecuted, sued, and resigning? Why is money being paid to the city?

    Has the world absolutely lost all sense of reason and perspective? This incident makes me *so* embarassed to share citizenship with such fucktards who seem so determined to legitimize this bullshit culture of alarmist overreaction to anything they haven't seen before.

  198. This was just "real world spam" by hadaso · · Score: 1

    > The marketing company really needs to learn to think through
    > the possible consequences of their actions ...
    > ... say, a label saying who placed the device ...

    Perhaps mark it "Adv:"?

    You identified the real problem here, and this makes this incident quite like spam: this marketing method indirectly abused public resources and caused indirect costs to 3rd parties. Another spammy attribute of this marketing campaign is an attempt to disguise itself as something else (not looking like an an ad but as something that requires attention to determine what it is). It relied on the public handling of the strange "devices" that suddenly appeared everywhere, thus creating cost for 3rd parties was planned by whoever ran this campaign.

    A lot of words are wasted trying to "define spam" as opt-in vs. opt-out, commercial or not etc. I think the real characteristic that includes spam and lots of other nuisanses we have nowadays, including the one discussed here, is the transfering of costs to third parties.

    Boston authorities might have over reacted, but they certainly had to react. Nobody that's posting here knows what kind of other inteligence they had about terrorist activity in Boston that were irrelevant in other cities.

  199. Just goes to show... by milette · · Score: 1

    This whole incident just goes to show what the President's spreading of FUD has done to American society.

    Terrorists and child pornographers behind every tree ready to spring out and attack the 'homeland'.

    Maybe people should ask themselves a few simple questions?

    1. What is the 'homeland' -- unless you are a Native American Indian, you and/or your familar originated elsewhere. There is a new joke going around in Russia -- "Look! The Americans have found ANOTHER country that built itself right on top of THEIR oil reserves!"

    2. If terrorists were everywhere, why haven't they struck since 9/11? One would assume that if they WERE around, they would have been doing things like poisoning the water supply, sniping from buildings and thousands of other fun and interesting acts of terror by now -- so WHERE ARE THEY? THINK ABOUT IT -- If YOU wanted to create havoc and terror -- all you'd have to do is go to the local hardware store, buy a nice hunting rifle and a few thousand rounds of ammunition and park yourself on the top of some building and start shooting people. Why hasn't this happened yet??? Why hasn't anyone bombed a New York subway line? (Like they have in Russia.) It seems that NOTHING is happening. So WHERE are all these terrorists???

    3. Instead of focusing on (and hassling endlessly) 'honest' travellers (like Canadians spending the weekend shopping in the USA who are subjected to fingerprints and retina scans) -- wouldn't terrorists find it much easier to enter the USA in the good old fashioned way -- like, say, the Mexicans? Instead of making life hell for honest travellers, if there WERE people entering the country illegally, why not stop them instead? Is it really so hard? And again, if it is so EASY to enter the US illegally -- go back to point 2 -- where the hell ARE all the terrorists?

    Truth be known -- there ARE NO major terrorist cells in the USA -- the whole thing is bullshit that has been used as an excuse to subjugate the entire population of the USA to an ever increasing series of violations of rights, freedoms and personal privacy. Wait for it -- pretty soon there will be cameras monitoring every aspect of your life (just like in the UK, where the cameras also TALK BACK to you -- "pick up that trash!", "stop fighting or we will arrest you!"...)

    And "we the people seem" to LOVE IT! We suck it right up and let the government do this and more! :)

    SURE, Let's implant everyone's passport with RFID chips -- (ignore the fact that they have been hacked with $20 worth of equipment) Next, implant the people. Most Americans would have a problem accepting the requirement to carry a passport all the time (like other countries already do), but seem to have no problem with the concept of a Universal ID Card.

    Link the implants to that Universal ID Card -- It will keep the terrorists off the airplanes and as an added benefit be able to track honest people from the moment they are born to the moment they die -- and don't forget to link that to the bank cards and credit cards -- need to be able to see every purchase people make. Maybe that hydrogen peroxide they use to bleach out a bit of hair could be used to make a bomb.

    With the right computer system monitoring all your purchases, I'll be there are ten thousand seemingly innocent purchases that, when linked together, could show YOU as being a criminal mastermind terrorist.

    Oh, and don't worry about evidence or anything like that -- by the time you have spent a few months in Cuba on the all-American permenant vacation plan -- you'll be confessing to everything you've ever done since you were born. Try standing on one leg for 24 hours or so -- or lie naked on the concrete floor of a 4x6 cell for a couple of weeks and you'll start to talk up a storm. (It is amazing how much talking someone can do when you deprive them of sleep for a couple of weeks.)

    Of course, the Geneva convention doesn't protect you because you are not a 'prisoner of war' -- but instead, an "enemy comb

  200. I, for one... by Tapd260 · · Score: 1

    I, for one, welcome our new lite-brite bomb-wielding overlords.

    --
    Q: How many slashdot users does it take to change a lightbulb? A: 155. One to change the lightbulb and post that the li
  201. The ad campaign was a turkey by herbierobinson · · Score: 1

    Another reason the guy may have been canned was for agreeing to do such lame ad campaign in the first place. For starters, the show has been around for a long time. The reason very few people watch it probably has more to do with how bad it is (my TiVo recorded it by accident once) than any sort of awareness.

    Also, the ads themselves were pretty bad.

    1. I had seen the show once and I did not recognize the character (the LEDs were arranged in straight lines, not curved like the character, and LEDs aren't exactly a great artistic medium).

    2. If the signs managed to attract attention, there was no way for the curious person to figure out what it was or where to find it (the show). In contrast, the underground marketeers that hand out free cigarette samples don't hand out samples with no brands on them!

    --
    An engineer who ran for Congress. http://herbrobinson.us
  202. Are you (*@&#@& kidding me? by CyberdogOSX · · Score: 0

    Thinking that these LiteBrite cartoon characters were bombs is the ultimate in conservative paranoid stupidity. Why would you see a glowing cartoon, under a bridge or otherwise, and think it was a bomb? Unless you are learning impaired or retarded, or Republican, you would just think it was an strange place to put a sign. I am so sick of these people. Can't we just ship them back to the 1950s that they think was such a paradise and be done with them? AAAAAAARGGGHH!!!!

  203. Pics of the Boston bomb squad by elrous0 · · Score: 1

    I was surprised too, until I saw pictures of the Boston bomb squad.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  204. I'm non-military by Xenographic · · Score: 1

    My chemistry teacher, not the military, taught me most of what I know about explosives. Most of the theory on how to kill with explosives is the simple, direct opposite of how you keep yourself safe from them, after all, but I admit to watching too much MacGyver as a kid.

    Of course, there wasn't so much paranoia then. Back then I was having fun with my teacher and learning about chemistry. Nowadays, they'd probably freak out and think of it as some kind of suspicious, "terrorist" activity even though we never synthesized more than a small, safe amount of anything and followed all the safety guidelines to make sure no one could possibly get hurt. We were doing science, after all, not just trying to blow things up.

    It's too bad I doubt they'll let cool teachers like him do fun things to get kids interested in chemistry any more, though, thanks to paranoia like this.