Slashdot Mirror


DHS Ponders "Improving" Terrorism Alert System

An anonymous reader writes "The DHS's color-coded terrorism risk warning system has often been criticized on a number of grounds. However, it seems that at last DHS has taken note of these criticisms and is finally planning to fix one of its problems. Which one? Well, since the two lowest levels have never been used in the history of the program, the solution is obvious: just get rid of them! In the new system, the lowest level would be yellow, 'guarded,' representing 'A constant state of vigilance to protect against a terrorist attack.' While it's nice that they're at least no longer maintaining a pretense of it being for anything other than fear-mongering, I don't think this was the kind of change most people were hoping for."

320 comments

  1. Orange Alert! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It worked for the Prisoner. Why scrap it?

    1. Re:Orange Alert! by Philip+K+Dickhead · · Score: 2, Funny

      We'll move from "Orange" to "Grape" then "Tutti-Fruity"

      --
      "Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
    2. Re:Orange Alert! by h4rm0ny · · Score: 5, Funny


      Obligatory Red Dwarf:
      Rimmer: Kryten, take us to Blue Alert. Kryten: Are you sure, sir? It does mean changing the bulb.

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    3. Re:Orange Alert! by Z00L00K · · Score: 2, Insightful

      LOL.

      And the continuous state of alert just causes degradation and ignorance.

      People would just ignore it like they do with some warning lights in the car. "You don't have the seat belt on" is just ignored since they already know it, and know it's illegal in most states to not have the seat belt on but they don't give a crap.

      So an "Elevated" state of alert is in reality "Normal" to "Ignorable". A "Critical" state of alert will be considered "Elevated" and when it's critical all traffic will have a standstill anyway.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    4. Re:Orange Alert! by PitaBred · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'll be really scared when we hit plaid...

    5. Re:Orange Alert! by Reziac · · Score: 1

      I'm reminded of the "tutti-frutti" effect in DOOM, which happens to walls when there's nothing there.

      Ya know, all of a sudden I like your scheme a whole lot!!

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    6. Re:Orange Alert! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Ludicrous Fear! GO!

    7. Re:Orange Alert! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But if they ever go to Orange or Red, that will cause panic. So the top two colors never get used either. Although Orange has been used a couple of times.

      Just scrap the whole stupid thing.

    8. Re:Orange Alert! by ArcCoyote · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It is already orange and has been orange forever as far as air travel goes.

      I chuckle at that every time I fly, because leaving it at one step below the actual attack state means if it ever went to red for good reason, no one will care.

      Boiling frogs works both ways. if you constantly caution people when there is no real danger, they lose the ability to see genuine threats.

    9. Re:Orange Alert! by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Tutti-frutti alert status will be reserved for when aliens teleport in from other dimensions.

    10. Re:Orange Alert! by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      I had a car once where the low-oil indicator light constantly flickered on. I'd top off the oil but the light would still flicker its warning. I soon learned to ignore it. Not long after that there was catastrophic engine failure.

    11. Re:Orange Alert! by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Besides, orange alert is when they send out the big bouncing ball to chase you.

    12. Re:Orange Alert! by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      Ohhh... It's paisley!

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    13. Re:Orange Alert! by Philip+K+Dickhead · · Score: 1

      That was the ELECTRIC Kool-Aid!

      We could go to Jonestown, from here, but it's gettin' late and I gotta be back home...

      --
      "Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
    14. Re:Orange Alert! by thedirektor · · Score: 1

      Please consider that the oil warning light is actually a low oil pressure warning, which can have a wide variety of causes, low oil levels being a common one.

      If your car doesn't have an oil contents sensor in the oil pan, only newer cars tend to have one AFAIK, your engine is operating in damaging/dangerous conditions whenever the light comes on
      Of all the lights on the dashboard it's the worst one to ignore.

      A loss of lubrication will sooner or later result in a piston seizure, which is pretty dangerous. It will block the power wheels...

      Please note that I am not a car mechanic.

    15. Re:Orange Alert! by Kevin108 · · Score: 1

      And cranberry sauce! WHOOOOOOOOOO!

      --

      It's a perfect time for being wasted.
      A perfect time to watch the stars.
      - Burden Brothers, "Beautiful Night"
    16. Re:Orange Alert! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You got that wrong. There was a blue bulb already in there and they were already at Blue Alert. To go to Red Alert requires changing of the bulb.

  2. OMG The Price Of Freedom! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    'A constant state of vigilance to protect against a terrorist attack.'

    But this should make all the Young Libertarians on Slashdot delirious with delight. Isn't the price of freedom supposed to be eternal vigilance?

    1. Re:OMG The Price Of Freedom! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that spending all your work hours looking out through your office window for signs of a terrorist attack doesn't make the country very productive.

    2. Re:OMG The Price Of Freedom! by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But this should make all the Young Libertarians on Slashdot delirious with delight. Isn't the price of freedom supposed to be eternal vigilance?

      Yes. Vigilance against the Government. I'm far more worried about Washington and Albany than I am about a handful of naked savages residing in caves who managed to pull off a single mass casualty attack only through luck and our own incompetence.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    3. Re:OMG The Price Of Freedom! by fwr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How is that racist? As far as I know, people of all races have joined the lunatics who launched the attacks. There's even a "white" american or two who have joined, are gained some prominence for doing so. I think everyone is getting a little tired of the old racist claim.

    4. Re:OMG The Price Of Freedom! by Hal_Porter · · Score: 0, Troll

      The price of freedom will be mainly paid by people who make snarky and unpatriotic comments about vigilance.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    5. Re:OMG The Price Of Freedom! by Runaway1956 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Somehow, I miss the "young libertarian" reference, or slur, or whatever. Libertarians didn't lead this nation into war, that was the doing of NEOCONSERVATIVES. Neocons are seperate and distinct from the more common conservatives, many of whom have been duped into following the neocons.

      Whatever - the price of freedom is indeed eternal vigilance. But, vigilance != paranoia Paranoia is a trait of those aforementioned neoconservatives.

      KTHXBAI

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    6. Re:OMG The Price Of Freedom! by Tuoqui · · Score: 1

      Yes. Vigilance against the Government. I'm far more worried about Washington and Albany than I am about a handful of naked savages residing in caves who managed to pull off a single mass casualty attack only through luck and our own incompetence.

      And our own incompetence isnt going down anytime soon either. As Albert Einstein said... There are only two things that are infinite, the universe and human stupidity and I'm not sure about the universe.

      --
      09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
      +2 Troll is Slashdot's way of saying groupthink is confused
    7. Re:OMG The Price Of Freedom! by Vahokif · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm far more worried about Washington and Albany than I am about a handful of naked savages residing in caves who managed to pull off a single mass casualty attack only through luck and our own incompetence.

      How about your own arrogance?

    8. Re:OMG The Price Of Freedom! by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Libertarians didn't lead this nation into war, that was the doing of NEOCONSERVATIVES. Neocons are seperate and distinct from the more common conservatives, many of whom have been duped into following the neocons.

      Both of these statements are true. It is also true that a great many libertarians and old-school conservatives continue to support the Republican party despite the fact that its agenda has been neocon-dominated for at least fifteen years. If you vote Republican, neocon policies are what you're voting for. So it's kind of hard for us lefties to believe people who say, "Well, here's what real [libertarians|conservatives] believe ..." when they're the exact same people who gave us Gingrich and Bush.

      Actually, I do have some sympathy -- I'm a pro-gun liberal, so when I vote Democratic, I'm aware that I'm voting against a portion of my interests. But I don't try to hide it, or pretend otherwise. I can't say "real liberals support gun rights" when I can look around and see that the vast majority of people who call themselves liberals are, in fact, anti-gun. I just have to deal with it, and hopefully be honest about what I'm doing. It would be refreshing to see some of the same honesty from the other side of the aisle.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    9. Re:OMG The Price Of Freedom! by nightsweat · · Score: 1

      Of course there was also the Cole and the embassies in Africa. And the first WTC attack. No reason to overreact either direction.

      --

      the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
    10. Re:OMG The Price Of Freedom! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, that's what all the Libertards say. But those of us who are capable of critical thinking know that Libertarianism is an ideology for the sociopathic. In fact, there are only two kinds of right-wingers: the sociopathic rich, and the idiots brainwashed by them.

    11. Re:OMG The Price Of Freedom! by Runaway1956 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, Mr. Dvorkin, it appears that you and I could sit and discuss politics, and we could agree and disagree all day long. But, take note of the post following yours. We aren't capable of critical thinking!! That is the province of people who post anonymously!!

      BTW - I don't really fit into any party, but the Libertarians come closest to a fit for me. God, I hate that we are only ever given two choices. Can't we ever get anyone to run for office besides Dumb and Dumber?

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    12. Re:OMG The Price Of Freedom! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. Vigilance against the Government.

      What an amazing blindspot on the radar. After all, today's mere citizen may be tomorrow's government -- or the real power behind the throne.

    13. Re:OMG The Price Of Freedom! by Richard+Steiner · · Score: 1

      BTW - I don't really fit into any party, but the Libertarians come closest to a fit for me. God, I hate that we are only ever given two choices. Can't we ever get anyone to run for office besides Dumb and Dumber?

      It sometimes happens. I voted for Jesse Ventura (he ran as an Independent and won). :-)

      Of course, some might argue that Dumb and Dumber might've been better than a wrestler for governor, but I found him to be refreshing during his term. At least he let you know where he actually stood on issues, something other MN candidates at the time weren't always known for...

      --
      Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
      The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
    14. Re:OMG The Price Of Freedom! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Non-progressive politics. CHECK.
      Heartbeat. CHECK.

      Charges of racism coming.

    15. Re:OMG The Price Of Freedom! by Hatta · · Score: 2, Funny

      Generally the savages aren't naked when they're in their caves, we have to capture them first.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    16. Re:OMG The Price Of Freedom! by moxley · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes. Eternally staying vigilant against government abuses.

      I am tired of government manipulation of the public via fear. There has always been terrorism, there always will be terrorism, and from what I can tell, a very high percentage it is state sponsored, in one way or the other.

      Obviously we need military and intelligence services; they shouldbe the best in the world, and we need security - but what happened on Sept 11th is ridiculous and NEVER should have happened - all of this bullshit about all of these simultaneous coincedences letting this occur, as well as there being drills occurring at the WTC and Pentagon that very morning for THAT exact scenario (that's a fact by the way, not some truther conspiracy bullshit - look into it if you doubt that)...

      I have no idea what really went on - but I just don't think that our country and the security of the people have been in the best hands. There is an article by Michael LeMieux called "Loss of Freedom" which I think sums up how I feel about the how the entire anti-terror laws situation in the US has been handled since 2001 quite well, here is an excerpt:

      "On the Friday prior to voting on the PATRIOT Act, the Judiciary Committee passed a bipartisan version of the bill that did not have the broad sweeping powers wanted by Attorney General Ashcroft and the White House. At 3:45 am on Sunday the bill was printed; but it had been modified to include all the items of the original bill which, according to Rep. DeFazio from Oregon, were a direct challenge to our civil liberties. These same items had been rejected by Congress even before 9/11 occurred.

      According to Rep. Barr, the PATRIOT Act was a device under the guise of fighting terrorism to expand federal police power. When we look at who attacked us, we see no U.S. citizens. Yet when we look at the PATRIOT Act, time and time again it provides the federal government with mechanisms to spy on the citizens of the United States, not on foreign terrorists. If the purpose of the PATRIOT Act is to aid in fighting the enemy, it has to make any rational person think, âoewho do they think is the enemy?â Obviously the government believes it is U. S. citizens. We have met the enemy, and it is us. "

    17. Re:OMG The Price Of Freedom! by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      Obviously we need military and intelligence services; they shouldbe the best in the world, and we need security - but what happened on Sept 11th is ridiculous and NEVER should have happened - all of this bullshit about all of these simultaneous coincedences letting this occur, as well as there being drills occurring at the WTC and Pentagon that very morning for THAT exact scenario (that's a fact by the way, not some truther conspiracy bullshit - look into it if you doubt that)...

      FFS. There is only one reason why the 9/11 attack succeeded, and it is exactly the same reason they will never work again:

      No-one expect the hijackers to fly the planes into buildings.

    18. Re:OMG The Price Of Freedom! by Darkness404 · · Score: 1

      If you vote Republican, neocon policies are what you're voting for.

      We don't have a multi-party system. A vote for the right is just a vote against the left most of the time. I know a lot of people who voted for McCain simply because they knew Obama's policies wouldn't work, similarly, I know people who voted for Obama because they didn't want McCain's policies.

      If we would fix the system to allow for more than two parties, you might have a point. But in most cases people are simply voting against the greater evil. Yeah, I could vote libertarian/green/etc all I want but probably still won't get a single representative in congress.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    19. Re:OMG The Price Of Freedom! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or free.

    20. Re:OMG The Price Of Freedom! by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      I'm far more worried about Washington and Albany than I am about a handful of...

      Maybe you should take a gander at Wall Street. They are the puppeteers that work the marionettes in Washington and Albany.

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    21. Re:OMG The Price Of Freedom! by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Libertarians didn't lead this nation into war, that was the doing of NEOCONSERVATIVES.

      Well, to nitpick, it were the corporate overlords of said neoconservatives. And rule by corporations is very much in line with libertarianism - except the most extreme version, which leads to rule by the biggest thug instead.

      Whatever - the price of freedom is indeed eternal vigilance.

      The price of freedom is getting enough property to live by capital gains rather than as a wage slave.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    22. Re:OMG The Price Of Freedom! by moxley · · Score: 1

      ..I don't want to get into the whole "dabating 9/11" but in my opinion it's ludicrous to suggest that nobody had suspected that could be done. I know that Bush and different people liked to say that, but I find it ridiculous in light of the evidence AND the fact that the people at NORAD and those who are on guard against this sort of thing aren't stupid. A kid can figure out that a plane can be deliberately crashed into something and it's going to make a mess.

      There were several drills occurring that very morning involving hijacked planes used as weapons and other scenarios that boggle the mind when you realize what happened.

      Then there is Operation Bojinka (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bojinka_plot), which never really got off of the ground, but which was an operational plan ....That was from 1995, and those responsible for our security were well aware of that.

      One thing I think everyone can agree on is that it was an awful day - but I think (unfortunately) that violence and terrorism will happen again. Regardless of its source, method, and motives - it's too effective; just like the political use of fear - it gets results.

      What doesn't have to happen is that we don't have to give up who we are to get some supposed (false IMO) sense of "total safety" (which just doesn't exist)...but if you scare people enough for long enough they generally will capitulate.

      I just think the entire notion of a color coded "Terror alert system" for the public is ridiculous.

    23. Re:OMG The Price Of Freedom! by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      ...that was the doing of NEOCONSERVATIVES

      No no no. It was the NEOLIBERALS that put us where we are today.

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    24. Re:OMG The Price Of Freedom! by dave562 · · Score: 1

      No-one expect the hijackers to fly the planes into buildings.

      I really don't want this to devolve into a 9/11 Truth thread where people are hurling insults back and forth. I am going to give you the following link. It gives details about NUMEROUS warnings and STATEMENTS FROM GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS that detail their concerns about planes being used as weapons. It is a PDF and a long read, so I will excerpt one or two quotes that directly address the falsehood that you seem to have accepted as fact. To verify for yourself, you can go to page 8 and read the heading Bojinka

      http://www.freedomforceinternational.org/pdf/futurecalling4.pdf

      In 1996, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was indicted in the United States for a plot to
      blow up airliners and crash one of them into CIA headquarters. It was the Bonjinka plot. The FBI put him on their most-wanted list of terrorists; so someone obviously took the plan seriously, which means the government was fully aware of the plan to use passenger planes as flying bombs at least 5 years before 9-11.2

      During hearings before the Joint House-Senate Intelligence Committee to Investigate 9-11, Eleanor Hill, who was the committee Staff Director, testified that, in August of 1998,
      intelligence agencies learned that a group of Arabs planned to fly an explosive-laden plane into the World Trade Center. A few months later, she said, it was learned that groups connected with bin Ladin would target New York and Washington and seek an event that was "spectacular and traumatic." That was three years before 9-11.3

      In February of 2005, a report of the 9/11 Commission revealed that, in the months before the attack, federal aviation officials had received fifty-two intelligence reports warning of the possibility that Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda would launch terrorist attacks against the U.S., and some of those specifically warned of airline hijackings and suicide operations. According to The New York Times: "The Bush Administration had blocked the public release of the full, classified version of the report for more than five months, officials said, much to the frustration of former commission members."5

    25. Re:OMG The Price Of Freedom! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      I enjoyed this quasi-parallel construction:

      I know a lot of people who voted for McCain simply because they knew Obama's policies wouldn't work, similarly, I know people who voted for Obama because they didn't want McCain's policies.

      Notice that Obama's policies wouldn't work but McCain's policies were simply unwanted. Not particularly fair and balanced.

    26. Re:OMG The Price Of Freedom! by Omestes · · Score: 1

      ut I don't try to hide it, or pretend otherwise. I can't say "real liberals support gun rights" when I can look around and see that the vast majority of people who call themselves liberals are, in fact, anti-gun. I just have to deal with it, and hopefully be honest about what I'm doing. It would be refreshing to see some of the same honesty from the other side of the aisle.

      Welcome to the land of ideological nuance! I really am sick of the Borg-ish politics we have been having lately "I must vote for this because I am a Democrat, and our president is as well" or "I am against this because I am a Republican, but this was thought up by a Democrat", as if people with the opposite affiliation can never come up with a valid point, and people who stick the same letter in parenthesis as you are incapable of blind stupidity. You are not alone though, this is probably why registered Independents are the fastest growing group of voters.

      Actually if anyone agrees 100% with a party line or political ideology (be it Democrat/libral, Republican conservative, or Libertarian) they are probably a complete moron, who has spent no time actually sitting around JUSTIFYING their opinions, and thus they really aren't even worth listening too. Sadly this means that 90% of our elected officials are complete asshats. But we knew this, didn't we?

      But then again I'm a socialist leaning liberal, and a social libertarian. Basically regulate the shit out of industry, but leave real people the hell alone as long as they are not harming others.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    27. Re:OMG The Price Of Freedom! by tmosley · · Score: 1

      I'm not worried about his arrogance, I'm concerned with the arrogance of our government. You know, the one that spent a half a trillion of our dollars on a war we didn't want in Iraq, and spent I-don't-even-know-how many trillions of our money on bailouts that the populace was against at a margin of something like 9:1.

      Our government and both parties have proved that they are incompetent to lead this nation. I think it's time we try the policy that took us from being a backwater colony to the world's largest creditor nation with the greatest industrial capacity the world had ever seen. That is, small government with free markets. A month-long panic here or there is FAR preferable to the three generational depressions that we have been saddled with since the government adopted central planning in the form of the Federal Reserve.

    28. Re:OMG The Price Of Freedom! by tmosley · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Many of us (libertarians) belong to the Republican party, but only because we are trying to take it back from the neoconservatives. I, myself am a member, but I have informed the party leadership on many occasions that, while I do have the ability to support them financially, that I never will until they become more welcoming to libertarian and anti-war views. I, personally, have made a lot of progress in talking to conservatives who are now waking up and realizing that they were betrayed by their leadership, and that Democrats have been betrayed as well (Guantanamo is still open, last I heard, though it doesn't make the news any more, and the Patriot Act is being extended, and there has been little or no accountability for the war crimes of the Bush administration at higher levels). This started with Reagan and his spending binge that started us down the road to national decline, and hopefully ended with the endless atrocities and spending of the Bush Administration. It is strange, it seems like a switch was flipped in every Republican's mind as soon as they lost the election. Where before they supported everything neoconservative, now they scream for libertarianism (except with the war).

      Also strange is the switch that seems to have been flipped in every Democrat's mind. Now Republicans are the whiney, America hating terrorists. They have taken up the exact same rhetoric used up until the election by the Republicans, and indeed, they are continuing ALL of the major policies left in place by the Bush administration, while instituting every program they can think of because they (sincerely, I think) believe that government spending can somehow get us out of this Depression. It can't, of course. If it could, there would never be recessions. The Japanese tried it for twenty years, and only got twenty years of stagnation, and a huge debt to boot. Our debt is already unsustainable. What is going to happen when we double it?

    29. Re:OMG The Price Of Freedom! by tmosley · · Score: 1

      They are equivalent. No-body wanted McCain's policies because he wanted to continue Bush's policies, and it was well known that this happened on his watch. Everyone knew that Obama's policies wouldn't work because they don't make sense. How can you solve too much debt with more debt? How can you maintain high housing prices when people are losing their jobs? You can't. The only thing that will happen if you try is that the misery will be prolonged.

    30. Re:OMG The Price Of Freedom! by tmosley · · Score: 1

      Of course, because it's better to have an unrestrained government full of sociopaths than a society that is free to interact as it pleases, within a few basic rules (no assault, no murder, no fraud, no theft).

      Surely sociopaths in government would never line their own pockets, or those of their friends in the banking industry in exchange for cushy positions that pay tens or hundreds of millions of dollars a year at the end of their terms. Surely they would never sell America down the drain for their own interests.

      In a libertarian society, people have power over themselves, and interact through mutual exchange for mutual benefit. Some might call this exploitation by money. In any other society, people have power over people, which leads to exploitation at the barrel of a gun (if you don't think this is true, try not paying your taxes for a few years and see what the gentlemen that come knocking at your door are carrying). Those are the only two ways people can deal with each other. Money or guns. It's your choice.

    31. Re:OMG The Price Of Freedom! by tmosley · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No, you are wrong there. Libertarianism does not support even the EXISTENCE of corporations, which is an unnatural shield that is granted by the government to shareholders. Articles of incorporation are granted by states, and entitle the owners of said corporation to conduct business and obtain personal profit without liability for their actions. This is the ANTITHESIS of libertarianism.

      If everyone really understood how libertarianism worked, 99% of people would be libertarians. I used to be a liberal myself, until I learned about economics. REAL economics, not the Keynesian crap they teach in macroeconomics.

      If you want to learn about REAL libertarianism, I would suggest going to mises.org and reading some of the articles there. They will open your eyes.

    32. Re:OMG The Price Of Freedom! by Darkness404 · · Score: 1

      Lets see here, McCain wasn't elected, we have no clue what his policies would have been. Obama is elected, his policies aren't working.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    33. Re:OMG The Price Of Freedom! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mass casualty? As in two days of cancer?

    34. Re:OMG The Price Of Freedom! by ajlisows · · Score: 1

      I'm a Libertarian. I actually vote *Gasp* Libertarian unless there is a candidate I really like from another party...which doesn't happen often.

      I try to convince those who have Libertarian ideals to vote Libertarian but alas, the "Throwing your vote away" idea is too ingrained in society. At that point, who do you expect them to vote for? If they are "True" Republicans they certainly don't hold many left leaning ideals. They are kind of screwed.

      Of course for a good deal of the population it doesn't matter what the labels "Democrat" and "Republican" ACTUALLY mean. That is the "Side" that they chose and intend to stick with them....they'll be damned if they will let silly little things like actual facts get in the way.

    35. Re:OMG The Price Of Freedom! by Hubbell · · Score: 1

      We didn't even want? What dream world are you living in? Yea bush lied, but everyone knew that from teh getgo unless they were a fucking retard, but the majority of the US population wanted to go after Saddam prior to the war. It was only after the war started that the numbers started dropping.

    36. Re:OMG The Price Of Freedom! by Bill+Dog · · Score: 1

      The only puppets are the people who actually believe that. The puppeteers that try to manipulate us hail from both Wall St. and Washington.

      --
      Attention zealots and haters: 00100 00100
    37. Re:OMG The Price Of Freedom! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But then again I'm a socialist leaning liberal, and a social libertarian. Basically regulate the shit out of industry, but leave real people the hell alone as long as they are not harming others.

      Ya and I'm a capitalist leaning conservative, and a fiscal libertarian. Basically legislate the shit out of morality, but leave real entrepreneurs the hell alone as long as they are not harming others.

    38. Re:OMG The Price Of Freedom! by tmosley · · Score: 1

      No, the populace wanted to go to war because Bush, rather convincingly, said that Saddam was going to nuke the US (smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud, anyone?). He claimed to have secret intelligence, and the whole population fell for it, including myself, and I was a liberal Democrat at the time). Once word that there were NEVER any WMDs came out, Bush's popularity tanked.

    39. Re:OMG The Price Of Freedom! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a handful of naked savages residing in caves who managed to pull off a single mass casualty attack only through luck and our own incompetence

      Luck would have it incompetence voted in Bush, who ignored the warnings from intelligence which preceded that attack months in advance. That is what you meant, right?

    40. Re:OMG The Price Of Freedom! by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      I am considering a gender change operation so I can carry your children. Thank you, sir!

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
    41. Re:OMG The Price Of Freedom! by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      I don't want to get into the whole "dabating 9/11" but in my opinion it's ludicrous to suggest that nobody had suspected that could be done. I know that Bush and different people liked to say that, but I find it ridiculous in light of the evidence AND the fact that the people at NORAD and those who are on guard against this sort of thing aren't stupid. A kid can figure out that a plane can be deliberately crashed into something and it's going to make a mess.

      "No-one" in the context of my comment was referring to the people on the plane. If they had the slightest inkling of what was going to happen, then the terr'ists would never have even gotten into the cockpit.

      For just that reason, it's not going to happen again. The rules of the game have fundamentally changed, and a couple of hundred people on a hijacked plane are no longer going to sit back and see what happens, as they had always done prior to 9/11.

    42. Re:OMG The Price Of Freedom! by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      I am going to give you the following link. It gives details about NUMEROUS warnings and STATEMENTS FROM GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS that detail their concerns about planes being used as weapons.

      "No-one" in the context of my comment was referring to the people on the plane. If they had the slightest inkling of what was going to happen, then the terr'ists would never have even gotten into the cockpit.

      For just that reason, it's not going to happen again. The rules of the game have fundamentally changed, and a couple of hundred people on a hijacked plane are no longer going to sit back and see what happens, as they had always done prior to 9/11.

  3. Fear-mongering? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It would be "fear-mongering" if there were NO possiblity of a terrorist attack.

    That does NOT mean DHS is less fucked up than a football bat.

    1. Re:Fear-mongering? by Spazztastic · · Score: 2, Funny

      That does NOT mean DHS is less fucked up than a football bat.

      I don't follow. You don't need a bat for footb-- OHH!

      --
      Posts not to be taken literally. Almost everything is sarcasm.
    2. Re:Fear-mongering? by caerwyn · · Score: 1

      That's definitely not true. There are quite a number of nonzero-but-low possibility scenarios that one could legitimately be considered "fear-mongering" over. (Asteroid impacts, etc) Fear-mongering doesn't mean that there's no chance of something happens, it just implies that the rhetoric is out of proportion to the risk.

      --
      The ringing of the division bell has begun... -PF
    3. Re:Fear-mongering? by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Agreed -- mostly. You're right in that just because something is possible doesn't mean it's likely.

      OTOH, there are a number of likely scenarios and we are certainly no better off security-wise than we were before 9/11. Sticking a bunch of rent-a-cops in front of possible terrorist targets and airport terminals and giving them metal detectors and bomb sniffers will stop only the casual terrorist who hasn't thought things through.

      From what we know now, the 9/11 terrorist attacks took years of planning. Do you really think that terrorists who are willing to wait in the wings for years, plotting and scheming the whole time aren't already systematically testing this 'new' security for weaknesses?

      Don't be stupid and above all, do not trust the DHS when they tell you that we are more secure. Because we are certainly not.

    4. Re:Fear-mongering? by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1

      It would be "fear-mongering" if there were NO possiblity of a terrorist attack.

      Since there are lots of things much more likely to kill you and destroy your property, ya it's fear mongering, as in "selling fear". The public really can't use the color of the Terrorist Alert Status to protect themselves, their families, their neighbors, or their property from harm. All one can do is worry more. Who can add an hour to their life by worrying more? Checking your smoke detector batteries is more likely to save your life than knowing the current color code.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    5. Re:Fear-mongering? by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Obviously, neither of you has played football in the 'hood lately. Have you never wondered why those rappers can't sing? It's obvious - they've had their brains beat out with a football bat!!

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    6. Re:Fear-mongering? by caerwyn · · Score: 1

      Sorry- I didn't mean to give the impression that I supported DHS or its idiocy. The alert system is very much complete fear-mongering, and 99% of the changes they have made, especially with respect to air travel, are complete security theater.

      Part of this is really a definition of likely, too. Terrorist attacks just are not very likely, and frankly, they're not terribly scary when they occur in the US simply because of their infrequency and overall low death counts. Looking at the statistics, your chance of being killed or injured in a terror attack in the US is effectively zero.

      The terrorists might be out there (and are probably more numerous given our country's actions in the last decade), but they're not anything approaching the threat that a lot of people would love for you to believe they are.

      --
      The ringing of the division bell has begun... -PF
    7. Re:Fear-mongering? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Half a million Americans die from cancer every year, another half a million die from heart disease every year, 45,000 die on the American highways every year, fewer then 4,000 died from terrorism in this century. More Americans have died in the misbegotten Iraq war than have died on American soil from terrorism.

      I'd like to see some of that Homeland Security money going for some guard rails and other highway improvements.

  4. *sigh* by TrebleJunkie · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Let's just declare martial law and get it over with.

    --

    Ed R.Zahurak

    You know, oblivion keeps looking better every day.

    1. Re:*sigh* by pzs · · Score: 1

      The problem with doing that is that such a sudden change will make their motives clear. They have to use this frog-boiling approach - essentially a very gradual declaration of martial law - so that nobody will notice a sudden change and complain.

      Pedants: Yes, I know the frog boiling thing is a myth.

    2. Re:*sigh* by Abreu · · Score: 1

      Yeah... and institute mandatory daily Two-Minute Hate sessions while we are on it.

      --
      No sig for the moment.
    3. Re:*sigh* by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Let's just declare martial law and get it over with.

      Why do you assume they are acting with nefarious intent when a much simpler explanation is good old fashioned Governmental incompetence?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    4. Re:*sigh* by ArsonSmith · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Thought we already had that:

      for a while we had 15 minutes of hate against insurance execs
      then we had our 15 minutes of hate against auto execs
      then we had our 15 minutes of hate against bankers
      then we had our 15 minutes of hate against tea baggers
      now were going back to having 15 minutes of hate against racists (isn't that hate for haters?)

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    5. Re:*sigh* by techwrench · · Score: 1

      And Witch...err, Terrorist Hunts! At 5 p.m.!

      --
      It's You and I against the World... When do we attack?
    6. Re:*sigh* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Because incompetence would strike randomly, while governments mistakes always hit the common citizen rather than the ruling elite.

    7. Re:*sigh* by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yeah... and institute mandatory daily Two-Minute Hate sessions while we are on it.

      Fox News is already on 24/7.

      --
      Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
    8. Re:*sigh* by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 2, Insightful

      es, I know the frog boiling thing is a myth

      Professors are a funny lot. In all of those debunking claims, nobody actually... you know... tried to boil a frog. Instead, they theorize about it and proclaim their stances quite loudly...

    9. Re:*sigh* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the other hand, we have daily hate against death panels, socialized health, and against an unamerican negro muslim on the white house

      Your point is?

    10. Re:*sigh* by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yeah... and institute mandatory daily Two-Minute Hate sessions while we are on it.

      Fox News is already on 24/7.

      Keith Olbermann is doing his two minute hate sessions on Fox? When did this happen?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    11. Re:*sigh* by h4rm0ny · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why do you assume they are acting with nefarious intent when a much simpler explanation is good old fashioned Governmental incompetence?

      Because the parties responsible benefit from the behaviour, which suggests intent. The USA's military budget is a wonder of the Modern World. Politicians get away with deleting public records in the name of security, those that want to go on military adventures for the benefit of private companies they are associated with get to do so. Laws that make it harder to protest against unpopular actions get passed ("Free Speech Zones" - wtf?) resulting in greater freedom for those in power to act without visible criticism. Surveillance, warranted and unwarranted (literally) is passed with little criticism. And all on the ticket of fear.

      So you tell me, if factions of people have the smarts to gain control of one of the biggest nations on Earth, institute policies that benefit them in myriad ways to your own detriment, why on Earth would you call them incompetent? Cost overruns on various government projects? Ask yourself where the overspend is going. It doesn't just vanish - it goes into someone's pocket.

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    12. Re:*sigh* by QuantumRiff · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Isn't it funny how an entire office goes crazy with word about *possible* layoffs coming, but somehow "Someone" (which always seems to be the other major political party than the person telling you) has this hugely elaborate plan, involving ridiculous amounts of logistics and pre-planning, involving thousands of people.. And nothing is leaked? I mean really, Not a single whistleblower in the government? I mean hell, an executive can't even buy a Corporate Jet, or $30,000 wastebasket and keep it from the media.. but "they" are building mass concentration camps, and planning an elaborate means at turning this country into a puppet controlled by the Illuminatti. Or that they reaaaalllly want to force everyone to depend on the government for health care so that .... Yeah. that makes much more sense then just stupid committee decisions by government employees, who are constantly having to cover their ass..

      They don't drop the terrorism alert level, because IF they dropped it to its lowest, THEN an attack happened, they would be dragged in front of congress, and be forced to testify about why they are so stupid, then be fired..

      --

      What are we going to do tonight Brain?
    13. Re:*sigh* by Josejx · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think you need to read a bit more closely. A quote from the Article:
      "He described how the critical thermal maximum for many frog species has been determined by contemporary research experiments: as the water is heated by about 2F per minute, the frog becomes increasingly active as it tries to escape, and eventually jumps out if the container allows it."

      Seems to indicate that they tried it.

    14. Re:*sigh* by fracai · · Score: 1

      I find this bit incredibly appropriate.

      The story is thought to have originated with the work of German physiologist Friedrich Goltz, who demonstrated that a frog will indeed remain in slowly heated water, but only if its brain is removed.

      --
      -- i am jack's amusing sig file
    15. Re:*sigh* by CheeseTroll · · Score: 1

      Indeed, it would be political suicide for anyone to lower the alert level now. Just look at the hysterics over the recent changes to missile defense strategy in Europe, and that's just a shift in priorities, not an actual lowering of the guard.

      And of course, Murphy's Law indicates that the next attack will take place right after they reduce the alert level.

      --
      A post a day keeps productivity at bay.
    16. Re:*sigh* by Shakrai · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Fox is only "hate on demand" if you think opposition to leftist ideas qualifies as "hate". I haven't seen much "hate" on Fox. They certainly don't like Obama very much and aren't inclined to give him a fair shake but then MSNBC treated GWB in exactly the same manner, didn't they?

      Personally I regard Fox more as a tabloid network than a politically biased one. I spent a few hours in the ER earlier this month where the only channel worth watching was Fox News. I wasn't paying that much attention but about 80% of the coverage consisted of stories and discussion about the Dugard kidnapping. Apparently they had found a bone in the neighbors yard. Nobody knew at that time if it was human or not but apparently this fact was worth three hours of prime time coverage and a few discussion panels.

      Fox is a tabloid network first, an echo chamber second.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    17. Re:*sigh* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      I have modded you down with an "over-rated" because the system doesn't have a "-1 Nowhere Near as Funny as He Thinks He Is. Kind of Pathetic, Actually."

      I guess it will have to do...

    18. Re:*sigh* by shentino · · Score: 2, Informative

      As long as the death panels are staffed by competent doctors I wouldn't mind.

      I just think it's a practical move that people rail against emotionally.

    19. Re:*sigh* by The+Moof · · Score: 1

      Well, maybe they have been exposed, but we just write it off as crazy-ass conspiracy theories... (No, I don't believe what Mr. Jones actually says, but he seems to).

    20. Re:*sigh* by konigstein · · Score: 1

      Or maybe all that leakage is just a huuuuuuuge false front of information? maybe they generate all that traffic and nonsense so that if something about this WAS leaked, no one would pay attention to it because everyone would be busy thinking "OUR inept and incompetent government, pull off a scheme like THAT? naaaaah"

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    21. Re:*sigh* by misexistentialist · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Partial suspension of habeas corpus, increased surveillance, paramilitary "police", restrictive border controls, property seizure, etc. mean we almost have de facto martial law. An oppressive government would never declare martial law anyway, but would disguise its actions under a layer of propaganda.

    22. Re:*sigh* by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      "they" are building mass concentration camps, and planning an elaborate means at turning this country into a puppet controlled by the Illuminatti.

      You're acting like these two theories are equally ridiculous, but in fact the US has a history of stuffing citizens into prison camps.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    23. Re:*sigh* by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Well there are two razors at play here: Hienlein's razor (also called Hanlon's razor) that states "never assume malice when stupidity will suffice", then there's mcgrew's razor that states "never assume incompetence when pure greedy self-interest will suffice".

      I don't think power grabs are the result of incompetence.

    24. Re:*sigh* by Insightfill · · Score: 1

      And nothing is leaked? I mean really, Not a single whistleblower in the government?

      Terry Pratchet had said the same in a footnote in "The Hogfather". Don't have my copy handy, but he said it was amazing that the same government that people ascribed great incompetence to could also be responsible for hiding aliens, thought-control experiments, and all other sorts of weird, nefarious stuff. He closed the same footnote with this line: "The truth is out there - the lies are in your head."

    25. Re:*sigh* by BitHive · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure the teabaggers were hating on us for electing a Kenyan-born muslim stalinist. We've just been trying to give them access to education and health care (who needs that?).

      Also, it's "15 minutes of fame" and "two-minutes' hate".

    26. Re:*sigh* by conspirator57 · · Score: 1

      cool. we're glad you agree that we need to exist, but that doesn't change the fact that we've decided you need to die.

      --
      "If still these truths be held to be
      Self evident."
      -Edna St. Vincent Millay
    27. Re:*sigh* by jahudabudy · · Score: 1

      Isn't it funny how an entire office goes crazy with word about *possible* layoffs coming, but somehow "Someone" (which always seems to be the other major political party than the person telling you) has this hugely elaborate plan, involving ridiculous amounts of logistics and pre-planning, involving thousands of people.. And nothing is leaked?

      This isn't nearly as far-fetched as it at first appears. For one, those thousands of people involved in the execution of Government Conspiracy #567 are all just doing one tiny piece that they have no way of relating to the whole. The number of people in on the overall picture would be much smaller. Also, a small cabal of highly placed government (or military) officials has many more resources for squelching rumors than does a corporate mid to high level manager. When you can make discussing anything related to your secret illegal and arrest people for even speculating on what the bigger picture may look like, it discourages gossip. It is easier to motivate people to shady actions "as a true patriot" than it is to motivate people "as an IBMer". Etcetera etcetera.

      Just as it is ludicrous to believe every stupid thing that comes out of government is some conspiracy, it is ludicrous to believe that highly motivated people with their hands on the reins of a tremendously powerful bureaucracy never abuse that position and try to do so in a secretive manner. I believe it is a certainty that some conspiracy theories are correct; it's just impossible to differentiate them from the batshit insane ones.

      --
      ...sometimes, in order to hurt someone very badly, you have to tell that person terrible lies. - PA
    28. Re:*sigh* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They certainly don't like Obama very much and aren't inclined to give him a fair shake but then MSNBC treated GWB in exactly the same manner, didn't they?

      To be fair, MSNBC didn't have people on to tell everyone that they are unpatriotic if they don't support the President. I'd say I'm not sure where that opinion went, but I'd be lying.

    29. Re:*sigh* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shit, O'Reilly was putting down that anti-war college kid who's dad died in the war. He's a totally hateful motherfucker.

    30. Re:*sigh* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And nothing is leaked? I mean really, Not a single whistleblower in the government?

      Nobody cares about whistleblowers. Nobody seems to notice. Nobody seems to care.

      They don't drop the terrorism alert level, because IF they dropped it to its lowest, THEN an attack happened, they would be dragged in front of congress, and be forced to testify about why they are so stupid, then be fired..

      Yeah, because committees of inquiry have worked so great in the past three centuries.

      I can see how some people get ridiculed for assuming malice for what can be adequately explained by stupidity, but what you're doing here is ruling out malice for a naively idealistic optimism.

    31. Re:*sigh* by Duradin · · Score: 1

      Hanlon's razor is one of the best tools for deception ever invented.

      Never attribute to incompetence that which can profit from malice.

      At some level it may actually be incompetence, but someone at some point is likely to be letting/making that happen.

    32. Re:*sigh* by dave562 · · Score: 1

      The reality of the situation is that there isn't a conspiracy because the plan is right out there in the open. "The conspiracy" is woven into the fabric of our society and we are indoctrinated into it as soon as we pop out of the womb. In case you missed it, it goes something like this... Capitalism is the be all, end all system that will benefit the human race more so than any other system out there. Republican Democracy is the ultimate form of government and should be used as a template for countries all over the world. One world government is inevitable. As a race we need a large, central governing body to align the peoples of the world toward one common good. Nationalism is a relic, the 20th century equivalent of tribalism and inferior to globalized interconnectedness. There are more memes out there but those are the majority of the over arching ones that shape the world that we live in.

      At this late stage of the game, "patriots" are a problem because they are nationalistic and aren't with the globalization program. American patriots are to one world government what al Qaeda and the Taliban are to Western socio/economic dominance of Central Asia and the Middle East.

      The end game is to distribute what America has to the rest of the world (in terms of technology, business practices, government, etc.) The American people aren't going to like that. After all, when you're on top of the world, who wants to get knocked down to the level of everyone else? The institutions that control the underpinnings of American society don't care about the American people beyond keeping them happy enough that they don't outright revolt. It isn't conspiratorial to say that the end game results in an America with significantly diminished stature in the world. That is the way of things. An equilibrium will be achieved one way or another. The world won't tolerate millions of people starving in one part of it, while obese slobs throw half eaten cheese burgers out of gas guzzling SUVs in another part of it.

    33. Re:*sigh* by zonker · · Score: 0

      Let's just declare martial law and get it over with.

      So which color would that be? Red? I'm confused.

    34. Re:*sigh* by WNight · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And this is different from your insurance company deciding that they don't need to pay for your cancer drugs? How?

      I'd rather have an impartial panel that set standards (ie, drugs costing more $x are used where the person has more than y years of life ahead of them) than insurance companies cheating everyone.

      Insurance companies lie and claim they'll help you until the critical time when they don't. The "death panels" would set standards that you'd know about beforehand. If you don't like your insurance company's decision you can try, at the last minute while sick and broke, to go to Mexico. If you don't like the panel's decision you'd know the minute they made it and you could lobby to change it, or go shopping around for overseas help/home while healthy.

      There are many credible things you could dislike in Obama's proposal, and many things you could dislike about how he's proposing/pushing it. But you don't, you focus on the republitard 'death panels' nonsense. You're a fucking imbecile. Fox news, brought to Slashdot.

    35. Re:*sigh* by WNight · · Score: 1

      What if someone's famous because we hate them? Are they short-changed on the fame, or do they get it in two-minute chunks?

    36. Re:*sigh* by selven · · Score: 1

      It's like diffusion, there is no controlling force but it just naturally happens out of the actions of individual molecules.

    37. Re:*sigh* by shentino · · Score: 1

      I agree.

      Martial law may mean fewer rights, but it's a damned sight more reasonable than the constant bullshit stream of hypocritical uncertainty we have these days.

    38. Re:*sigh* by conspirator57 · · Score: 1

      glad to be a catharsis for you. you needed to get that bile out. actually, i'm not a, how did you put it? "fucking imbecile". i'm a snarky sob, though. you apparently needed to vent your disgust more than get a laugh though.

      you should thank me, i probably added a year to your life.

      and for the record, the thing i'm most against w.r.t. any government program is its implementation at the federal level. when you don't think that panel is impartial or have some other beef, if it's federal the government has to let you sue. if it's state/county you always have the next higher level's courts. plus federal programs are centrally located for easier subversion by monied interests. not that that's ever happened before or anything...

      --
      "If still these truths be held to be
      Self evident."
      -Edna St. Vincent Millay
    39. Re:*sigh* by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Compare the current attempt with what Nixon attempted to do to fix the runaway costs and the primary role of healthcare becoming a way to make insurance companies rich and doctors less effective. It should be a bipartisan issue with bipartisan support carried out for the good of the country and not for the good of whoever hands over the largest bribe. Forget the "death panel" bullshit from a corrupt idiot and look at how expensive it is to be sick in the USA. There's no point quibbling about medical standards, those third world doctors are already working in the USA (and are usually just as good) and the standards are poorer in the USA than most other places due to far too many people making profit from the sick and the taxpayer. If nothing is done it will just get worse to the point where even the richest cannot escape from the epidemics among the poor.

    40. Re:*sigh* by Atario · · Score: 1

      So now articulately and accurately pointing out when people do unconscionable things is "two minutes hate"? Funny, the description I remember from 1984 was groups of people, gathered in theaters, vying to scream the loudest.

      Come to think of it, sounds a lot more like the orchestrated August Town Hall debacle.

      --
      "A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
    41. Re:*sigh* by Mjec · · Score: 1

      ...we almost have de facto martial law...

      Sigh. Martial law is where the military is in control. The military is not in control. The executive is in control and uses the domestic enforcement agency (police).

      Excessive use of executive power (which we DO see) is not the same as martial law (which we DON'T see).

      --
      "But everyone should know everything." -markab
    42. Re:*sigh* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would definitely take an imbecile to not have noticed that you said you'd rather have government denying you care than insurance companies because you can always leave the country. When you could do that already with the system the way it is right now.

      Unfortunately what is brought to us by Slashdot is real imbeciles, who actually use terms like "republitard".

    43. Re:*sigh* by WNight · · Score: 1

      No, I said I'd like the advance notice that a government panel setting a blanket rule would provide, unlike an HMO denying me specifically when sick.

      Learn to read.

      Btw the whole world uses the term republitard, it's just so accurate. As I said, some people have real problems with real issues, some people scream "Death Panels!".

    44. Re:*sigh* by WNight · · Score: 1

      That's just standard anti-federal government crap. Sure, it's true, but then just say (to begin with) "I'm against all programs implemented at the federal level".

      That's what I mean, there are rational complaints (and you showed you could come up with one when poked) and there are republitard complaints about death panels.

    45. Re:*sigh* by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      For some reason, greed for money is more trustworthy than lust for dominating power. Those are the two negatives to evaluate when deciding between private industry and government control. Monetary gain is easy to understand and plan for. Lust for power, especially over life and death, scares the crap out of me. I'm no fan of George Bush and I definitely don't want the next GWB administration making these kinds of decisions for me.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    46. Re:*sigh* by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      Yea, I can't wait until the next George Bush picks those Death Panel Doctors. I'm sure they'll be competent and have the best interest of the republicans at heart.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    47. Re:*sigh* by WNight · · Score: 1

      But are they making these decisions for YOU, or for a class of people your age/etc? From what I've seen these panels will choose a level of support that will be provided, instead of promising support (like an HMO) and then removing it later based on technicalities in your paperwork or circumstances.

      While that does leave it open to a GWB changing it all at least he should have a hard time targeting anyone specifically. He'd just deny all care by throwing you into Guantanamo, HMO or otherwise.

      I think government spending like this should be outsourced, even the administration of it, but not with long-term contracts. Whenever we reward a long-term contract or sell a public resource the company that gets it immediately becomes a cesspool of inefficiency (as if they know the easy money will never dry up) and does a crappy job at what they were hired to do. If they had to keep winning the customer-satisfaction survey or the other businesses in the field would get their slice of the market they'd stay (more) responsive.

  5. They won by Naatach · · Score: 1

    If we let down our guard then the terrorists win.

    --
    There may be no "I" in team, but there's also no "F" in way.
    1. Re:They won by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No... fairly sure that's not how it works.

    2. Re:They won by DavidTC · · Score: 2, Informative

      If that's not how it works then the terrorists win.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    3. Re:They won by MrMr · · Score: 1

      No, if your entire nation is in an official constant state of fear, the terrorists have achieved their stated objective.

  6. New Alert System by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Green - Dangerous minorities in the area. Lock the doors.
    Yellow - asians are messing with our computers again. Use Linux.
    Orange - Mexican drug gang wars are spilling over in to the United States. Wear Kevlar.
    Red - Socialist President. Abandon the country.

    These terror alert levels write themselves.

    1. Re:New Alert System by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Red - Socialist President. Abandon the country.

      No: Red Socialist President. Go to a town hall, scream a lot, wave your automatic weapons in the air, and scream, YOU LIE!!!!!!!!

    2. Re:New Alert System by Shakrai · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Go to a town hall, exercise your 1st amendment right of free speech. Stand outside the town hall and exercise your 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms. Sit in Congress and exercise your 1st amendment right to be a jackass.

      Fixed that for you. Sorry if you find the political opposition speaking out to be inconvenient for you.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    3. Re:New Alert System by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      "A symbolic clock is as nourishing to the intellect as a photo of oxygen to drowning man"

      -Dr. Manhattan

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    4. Re:New Alert System by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      No one has a Constitutional right, 2nd Amendment or otherwise, to threaten someone else.

      Also, Sen. Wilson was lying himself. Yes, he has a Constitutional right to do that, but that doesn't make it a good thing.

    5. Re:New Alert System by techwrench · · Score: 1
      Political opposition speaking out is not so much an issue, as the proper time to do it.

      During a speech with both Houses is not the proper time.

      --
      It's You and I against the World... When do we attack?
    6. Re:New Alert System by Shakrai · · Score: 1, Informative

      No one has a Constitutional right, 2nd Amendment or otherwise, to threaten someone else.

      Carrying a gun != threatening someone else. A holstered/slung firearm represents no threat to anyone except hoplophobes that pass out at the mere sight of weaponry. If you have evidence that someone threatened another human being at a town hall meeting then I suggest you call the authorities and report it.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    7. Re:New Alert System by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      That's why I said he's a jackass. But I'm rather sick of hearing Democrats and their supporters condemning the people who show up at Town Hall meetings. I didn't hear any of this condemnation from them when left-wing groups exercised their 1st amendment rights while Bush was in office.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    8. Re:New Alert System by CannonballHead · · Score: 1

      Also, Sen. Wilson was lying himself.

      That depends on who you ask. I suggest not asking a liberal democrat that already wants to prove him wrong. Also, it's not Senator... he's in the House of Representatives...

    9. Re:New Alert System by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry if you find the political opposition speaking out to be inconvenient for you.

      Sorry if you're naive enough to think that this is genuine grassroots political opposition. Follow the money. Look at who is actually organizing these things. Health insurance companies pressure employees to attend. Former congressmen Dick Armey's lobbying group is also active in this area. You're not being cynical enough.

      And also sorry to hear that to you, "speaking out" seems to mean "shouting loud enough so no one else can be heard".

    10. Re:New Alert System by amplt1337 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      A holstered/slung firearm represents no threat to anyone except hoplophobes that pass out at the mere sight of weaponry.

      A holstered/slung firearm that represents no threat to anyone is a piece of jewelry.
      The only way a weapon (of any kind) represents no threat is if there is a certainty that it will never be used. There's no reason to carry a weapon that won't be used, but if it might be used, then its very purpose is to be a threat that others take seriously. Possibly a legitimate threat (a deterrent against attacks to your person, perhaps), but a threat nonetheless.
      (Even if you guarantee you will never use your weapon, it represents a threat to yourself, because it encourages everyone around you to treat you as more dangerous than you are and respond to you more aggressively than otherwise).

      --
      Freedom isn't free; its price is the well-being of others.
    11. Re:New Alert System by tverbeek · · Score: 1

      The colors currently in use are ambiguous and arbitrary. To make it clearer, they should replace them with flavors.

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    12. Re:New Alert System by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1

      Carrying a gun != threatening someone else. A holstered/slung firearm represents no threat to anyone except hoplophobes that pass out at the mere sight of weaponry. If you have evidence that someone threatened another human being at a town hall meeting then I suggest you call the authorities and report it.

      That's pretty context sensitive. When you're carrying a gun somewhere that guns are not usually carried, other people think something's up. Some for instances: Out in the woods hunting -- not threatening. While at skeet shooting range -- not threatening. On a commercial airplane -- threatening. While standing guard over a big pile of cash -- not threatening. While carrying signs about bloodshed -- threatening. While doing shots in a bar -- threatening. While being part of a riled up mob -- threatening.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    13. Re:New Alert System by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

      Green - Dangerous minorities in the area. Lock the doors.

      But does this include the president?

    14. Re:New Alert System by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      Really? Because the left did, indeed, condemn Code Pink for disrupting events.

      And notable did not show up at events and start yelling.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    15. Re:New Alert System by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      That's because during Bush's occupation of the White House, the left-wing groups were stuck away in "Free Speech Zones" so no one noticed they were there.

    16. Re:New Alert System by Kozz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Carrying a gun != threatening someone else. A holstered/slung firearm represents no threat to anyone except hoplophobes that pass out at the mere sight of weaponry.

      I'm a gun owner. I don't have phobias. And yet if I were taking a walk around my state's capital square and witnessed an apparent civilian with a rifle "safely slung" over their shoulder, you'd better fucking believe I'd wonder about intent. And then I'd quickly guide my family away in the opposite direction (.

      In certain contexts, the only purpose to openly carry in this manner would be to make some kind of political statement.

      --
      I only post comments when someone on the internet is wrong.
    17. Re:New Alert System by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 2, Informative

      I didn't hear any of this condemnation from them when left-wing groups exercised their 1st amendment rights while Bush was in office.

      That's because left-wingers who tried to get into Bush rallies were denied entry, and/or promptly thrown out if they did manage to get in. Even wearing a patriotic t-shirt was enough, as long as it was the kind of patriotism (i.e., the real kind) that the right-wingers didn't like.

      Also, none of them were armed. Seriously, what do you think would have happened to someone carrying a gun and an anti-Bush sign anywhere within a mile of where Bush, or any Republican politician, was speaking?

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    18. Re:New Alert System by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By that logic, should they ban martial arts training? Some disciplines exist solely for making people more effective in violent situations. And some of those techniques can only be used to attack somebody or defend yourself. You know... Kind of like carrying a gun...

    19. Re:New Alert System by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Informative

      Seriously, what do you think would have happened to someone carrying a gun and an anti-Bush sign anywhere within a mile of where Bush, or any Republican politician, was speaking?

      The same thing that happened here: Nothing, provided it's legal to do so under the laws of that State. Sorry if that doesn't fit into your paranoia regarding the previous administration.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    20. Re:New Alert System by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What's wrong with a political statement?

      Personally I wouldn't openly carry under any circumstance other than hunting or competition (mainly because I don't want to give away the fact that I'm armed and become a target) but I'm not afraid of those that do.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    21. Re:New Alert System by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      When you're carrying a gun somewhere that guns are not usually carried, other people think something's up.

      Sounds like those people have a problem. Guns are "usually" carried almost everywhere in the United States. Grocery stores, public streets, shopping malls, restaurants, etc, etc.

      While being part of a riled up mob -- threatening.

      Do you have a single example of that "riled up" mob using guns to commit violence?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    22. Re:New Alert System by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 0

      The same thing that happened here: Nothing, provided it's legal to do so under the laws of that State.

      Your faith in our glorious leaders and the wise laws they have created to protect the workers and peasants is noted and appreciated, Comrade. Keep up the good work.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    23. Re:New Alert System by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      How insightful. Did you have to think real hard to come up with such a gem?

      BTW, I didn't say I had any faith whatsoever. Find me a single case of someone being arrested under Bush for carrying a gun near one of his events and I'll shut up. Otherwise you are just blowing smoke and trying to distract from current events by beating the anti-Bush drum.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    24. Re:New Alert System by Kozz · · Score: 1

      Just because one's behavior is well within their legal rights does NOT mean people around you will treat you the same.

      Personally I can't distinguish between someone with a political chip on their shoulder vs a complete nutjob.

      --
      I only post comments when someone on the internet is wrong.
    25. Re:New Alert System by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Look at who is actually organizing these things.

      Who gives a damn who is organizing it? Why was "organizing" such a great thing just a few months ago when Obama was doing it but is suddenly a bad thing because the political opposition is doing it?

      You're not being cynical enough.

      I'm plenty cynical. I'm cynical enough to doubt that throwing a tens of millions of people into a broken health care system is going to magically fix it. If the Democrats had a single idea on the table that actually fixed our health care system then I'd be supporting them. But they aren't interested in fixing the health care system. That would require them to take on too much entrenched interests. Instead they are only interested in creating a new government program to fix the problem of uninsured Americans. That's a laudable enough goal but it simply isn't sustainable unless you fix the underlying problems in the entire system -- but as I said, they have no desire to do this. Hence my support of the opposition on this particular issue.

      And also sorry to hear that to you, "speaking out" seems to mean "shouting loud enough so no one else can be heard".

      Shouting is part of our political process. If you don't like it go somewhere else. Shouting is about the only way to get a gerrymandered Congress-critter who is guaranteed re-election to hear what you have to say. You got a better idea?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    26. Re:New Alert System by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Personally I can't distinguish between someone with a political chip on their shoulder vs a complete nutjob.

      Hint: The guy with the sign at the political protest is likely someone with a chip on his shoulder. The guy who asks you for directions to the book depositary is likely a nutjob ;)

      I do understand what you are saying but what do you purpose doing about it? Outlawing open carry? Good luck with that in states like New Hampshire or Arizona.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    27. Re:New Alert System by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look at who is actually organizing these things.

      Who gives a damn who is organizing it?

      Glad to hear you don't mind being a pawn of entrenched corporate interests and lobbying organizations.

      Shouting is part of our political process. If you don't like it go somewhere else.

      That's fine, if you want to be a bully. I think it's better, though, to have civil discourse, where the merits of your argument and the number of people feeling the same way stand for itself. The bully tactics at these town halls were trying to amplify and give false legitimacy to a viewpoint that is not held by a majority of people, if you check the polls. It amounts to a very small percentage of people saying exactly what you're saying: This is my country, I want it to work this way, and if you don't like it you can go somewhere else. What they don't understand is that a majority of people are not with them. Shouting matches, corporate money and phony outrage can't compensate for that.

      Shouting is about the only way to get a gerrymandered Congress-critter who is guaranteed re-election to hear what you have to say.

      I don't know what the fuck you're talking about here. A lot of the more conservative dems who are most "concerned" about health care reform and who were being trolled at these town halls got where they are today because they beat a Republican in 2006 or 2008. So uh... How's that gerrymandering theory working out for you? Believe it or not some congressional seats do change hands, especially over hot-button issues such as Iraq and the economy (as it did in favor of dems) and potentially over health care (as it did in '94 for the republicans). This is the reason the dems are having so much trouble in the first place -- precisely the opposite of what your theory posits.

    28. Re:New Alert System by berbo · · Score: 1

      Go to a town hall, exercise your 1st amendment right to be offensive and stupid and loud. Stand outside the town hall and misinterpret your 2nd amendment right to threaten people.

      Fixed that for you. Sorry if you find the political opposition speaking out to be inconvenient for you.

      Fixed.

    29. Re:New Alert System by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1

      Sounds like those people have a problem. Guns are "usually" carried almost everywhere in the United States. Grocery stores, public streets, shopping malls, restaurants, etc, etc.

      Call it a problem, call it a phobia, call it pumpkin pie. I don't care. Apparently, I'm not the only one, considering the number of places I see "no guns" stickers on the doors. If I see a person carrying a gun where I don't think they should be, I think "I oughta tell him that it makes me nervous for him to bring a gun here". And then I remember that the whole reason that I'm nervous is he's got a gun, and I just move away. Cause my daddy, like many people's daddys, told me not to argue with guys carrying guns.

      Do you have a single example of that "riled up" mob using guns to commit violence?

      You're kidding, right?

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    30. Re:New Alert System by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course displaying a lethal weapon is a threat. You're telling everyone around you that you're ready to kill them if they mess with you. That is a very clear and unambiguous signal. It doesn't matter if it's a gun, a sword, a pike, or a set of very sharp claws. I really don't see how you can claim that's not true with a straight face.

    31. Re:New Alert System by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No reasonable person has an issue with someone having their freedom of speech. But it is a bit unreasonable for someone to bring a weapon to a town hall meeting. This isn't the old west, what is the purpose? Just because you have the right to do something doesn't make it a good thing to do. I don't recall hearing any reports of people with the weapons being treated unfairly. If you think they were just exercising their 1st amendment rights you are only partially correct. They were trying to send a message and/or intimidate others. Not very helpful at a town hall meeting huh? I am "rather sick" of people that disagree with others politically always making it out like they are being persecuted.

    32. Re:New Alert System by mjeffers · · Score: 1

      Taking a gun to a political rally sends the message "agree with me or I shoot you". While you have the right to do it in America, the rest of us have the 1st amendment right to call armed thugs and bullies out when we see them and a person who takes a gun to a political rally is just a thug.

    33. Re:New Alert System by amplt1337 · · Score: 1

      Actually, by that logic, you shouldn't go to a town hall and challenge your congressman to a cage fight.
      Yes, real martial arts training is focused on how to fight effectively (any discipline that isn't, is a combination of meditation and dance--and yes, I've studied all three). But why ban that? For that matter, where did I say we should ban guns? I just don't think they're appropriate in all social contexts, particularly when the abundant police presence ensures you have no need to worry about personal safety.

      --
      Freedom isn't free; its price is the well-being of others.
    34. Re:New Alert System by conspirator57 · · Score: 1

      actually, i feel safer when among people openly carrying weapons. the crime statistics for legal gun owners are lower than for the general population. so, one of those gun owners might just save my ass.

      why does a blue uniform change your judgement so that you feel safe with that person carrying a gun? in the cities i've lived in cops have a history of brutality and other criminal behavior, including selling seized guns in DC (when it was illegal to own a gun there). Philly, PG county MD, DC.

      --
      "If still these truths be held to be
      Self evident."
      -Edna St. Vincent Millay
    35. Re:New Alert System by Kozz · · Score: 1

      I'm not proposing anything at all. Really what I'm saying is that many (most?) of us live in places where inexplicable open carry will garner you strange looks, avoidance, and so on. Just because it's legal doesn't mean I'd treat you the same as everybody else. Hold it against me if you like, but it's my prerogative.

      --
      I only post comments when someone on the internet is wrong.
    36. Re:New Alert System by amplt1337 · · Score: 1

      You're confusing "being a threat" with "feeling safe." Your feelings are not a suitable yardstick for describing the nature of your environment. A threat is something that can cause harm. Whether or not you trust the person who's holding it right now is entirely irrelevant to whether it's a threat (although it can substantially alter your response).

      actually, i feel safer when among people openly carrying weapons. the crime statistics for legal gun owners are lower than for the general population. so, one of those gun owners might just save my ass.

      This actually proves my point. The gun, if it stops crime (which I've not seen convincing evidence for*), does so because it's a threat to the bad guy. Or are you telling me that non-threatening guns magically stop people from doing bad things?

      why does a blue uniform change your judgement so that you feel safe with that person carrying a gun?

      Why do you assume it does?

      *(I forget the link I was shown most recently, but I stopped reading when I realized the comparison being made was between number of crimes committed in which a gun is fired, and crimes prevented by the presence of a gun, including as a deterrent. Because how many crimes are committed where the bad guy has a gun that he doesn't fire, but uses only as a deterrent? Oh right, lots.)

      --
      Freedom isn't free; its price is the well-being of others.
    37. Re:New Alert System by d474 · · Score: 1

      if I were taking a walk around my state's capital square and witnessed an apparent civilian with a rifle "safely slung" over their shoulder, you'd better fucking believe I'd wonder about intent. And then I'd quickly guide my family away in the opposite direction (.

      In certain contexts, the only purpose to openly carry in this manner would be to make some kind of political statement. [emphasis is mine]

      So you would quickly guide your family away from someone making "some kind of political statement"? Why would you do that? Are you afraid your family might learn something about the 2nd Amendment?

      I'm just trying to understand why you would be afraid of someone making a political statement, as you put it.

      --
      Authority questions you. Return the favor.
    38. Re:New Alert System by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you have black friends, too? :P

      Where I grew up, and where I currently live, seeing someone with a rifle slung over their shoulder means they either have, or are about to have, fewer gophers, coyotes, or deer on their property. I holstered gun is exactly as threatening as _you imagine it to be_.

    39. Re:New Alert System by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh bullshit!
      They abused the fuck out of people when they had a Republican convention in NYC and nobody even had a gun there.

    40. Re:New Alert System by AkiraRoberts · · Score: 1

      I doubt one could come up with a single such example. And that raises an interesting question: are there no such examples because there were scads of people exercising their 2nd Amendment rights outside of Bush events? Or are there no such examples because there were simply no cases in which anyone happened to openly tote a gun about near such an event?

      I'd be inclined to go with the latter, raising a further question: if no one, at any point, decided to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights within shouting distance of a Bush event, why was that so? And furthermore, why might it be the case that so many have decided to now, under a new president, exercise these rights? Is it simply that they didn't feel like doing so earlier, or are they trying to make a further point? If so, what is that point, and how is it served by accompanying it with a weapon?

      --
      words, words, words, lemur, words, words words
    41. Re:New Alert System by Omestes · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because unlike a nutter with a picture of Obama with a Hitler mustache (killing all chance of political discourse FTW), the person making a political statement with a gun can kill me.

      Are you afraid your family might learn something about the 2nd Amendment?

      In a sense, yes. I'm frightened they might get an intimate lesson in it.

      I hate these loonies taking their guns to what used to be CIVIL discussions, sure, they have the RIGHT, but they obviously have no idea what RESPONSIBILITY is. Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should. These gun nuts (as opposed to normal gun owners) are just a symptom of the problem, our ability to sit down and discuss issues is completely, and totally dead. As is all of our belief in democracy, these people are generally people searching for a dictatorship, even if they won't admit it. Democracy is a right, until my fellow country men vote for someone who I don't like.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    42. Re:New Alert System by Omestes · · Score: 1

      Of course displaying a lethal weapon is a threat. You're telling everyone around you that you're ready to kill them if they mess with you.

      Not always. I have worn a pistol in public several times, with no intent to use it on people (as a matter of fact it is generally loaded with snake shot). Sometimes I forget to take it off after going to the boonies prospecting. Its just part of my gear, like nasty old boots, and crappy pants, and a rock hammer shoved in my pocket.

      Obviously, though, these gun nuts (again as opposed to responsible gun owners) don't have that as an excuse. They just want to short circuit democracy because their flavor of moron wasn't elected.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    43. Re:New Alert System by Omestes · · Score: 1

      But I'm rather sick of hearing Democrats and their supporters condemning the people who show up at Town Hall meetings.

      I'm a registered Democrat, and I have nothing against people showing up to town hall meetings, AS LONG AS THEY ARE CIVIL. If they show up just to scream and holler like insane morons, just to make a political point, then yes, I have something against them.

      Though I do love them, in a sense, they are basically doing a VERY good job of discrediting themselves, and the whole Republican party. Though it makes me sad, since they also are discrediting valid criticisms of Obama's policies. I sometimes wish the Democrats had real opposition these days, and not just a bunch of lunatics screaming and holding up signs with Obama as Hitler, or screaming "SOCIALIST!", as if that was a thing that was bad in-itself. Personally I wish he WAS a socialist.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    44. Re:New Alert System by Avalain · · Score: 1

      Green - Dangerous minorities in the area. Lock the doors.

      No, no. Green - Dangerous Global Warming Alarmists in the area. Lock the doors.

    45. Re:New Alert System by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That guy was black. What are you, some kind of racist?

    46. Re:New Alert System by zonker · · Score: 0

      Well I guess that's better than smells...

    47. Re:New Alert System by WNight · · Score: 1

      Or, they're showing that thousands of people can have open guns and nobody will get shot.

      I recently got threatened (in a group) by a big guy who had talked about his martial arts training. If a majority of the group was potentially armed he probably wouldn't have even threatened us, let alone been a credible threat. As was, against a bunch of disarmed geeks, he was a very credible threat.

      Any place with a "no guns" sticker just said that they'd like my wife to be as helpless as her size indicates. Thanks, but no. Guns are scary, like cars and table-saws, but far scarier is the person who desires to hurt you - they'll manage without any "weapons".

    48. Re:New Alert System by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess it depends where you live, but when I see a gun in a grocery store it makes me very nervous. I honestly don't trust that kid in a poorly fitting security uniform to not hurt an innocent bystander if a robber shows up. I'd rather the robber just did his stuff and left with no risk of a shoot out.

    49. Re:New Alert System by dbIII · · Score: 1

      What's wrong with a political statement?

      I think they should do it on a f*ing tshirt instead or a banner instead.
      Guns are useful tools that are very dangerous if mishandled or if the wielder has ill intent towards you. This symbolic bullshit belongs in a third world country with an AK47 on it's flag and is best handled by waving that flag and not a real AK47. I think it's coming from the creation myth of a few civilians with rusty muskets freezing in the woods winning a country instead of the reality of a core of professional military getting help from the French navy to do it.

    50. Re:New Alert System by Bill+Dog · · Score: 1

      This actually proves my point. The gun, if it stops crime (which I've not seen convincing evidence for*), does so because it's a threat to the bad guy.

      You may have just proved another point, that only bad guys consider the mere existence of a gun as being a threat.

      --
      Attention zealots and haters: 00100 00100
    51. Re:New Alert System by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Taking a gun to a political rally sends the message "agree with me or I shoot you".

      It only sends that message if you are paranoid enough to regard anyone carrying a gun as violent enough to want to murder you for disagreeing with them. I've gotten into my share of arguments with people with guns (usually over their selection of firearm ;) and I haven't been shot yet. Amazing, isn't it?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    52. Re:New Alert System by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Taking a gun to a political rally sends the message "agree with me or I shoot you".

      It only sends that message if you are paranoid enough to regard anyone carrying a gun as violent enough to want to murder you for disagreeing with them. I've gotten into my share of arguments with people with guns (usually over their selection of firearm ;) and I haven't been shot yet. Amazing, isn't it?

      First I'd like to ask you, were you also armed when in these arguements?;) Seriously though, the situation you use for an example is probably not as heated as some of the political town hall meetings have gotten lately. People talking about a shared hobby or interest can get into heated arguements, but the nutjobs on both sides of the politics are coming out in force. It's so bad that slashdot is by comparison a center of calm, logical, dispassionate, discourse!

  7. Which colours? by gbjbaanb · · Score: 2, Funny

    "Purple alert! Purple alert!"
    "What's a purple alert?"
    "Well, it's like not as bad as a red alert, but a bit worse than a blue alert -- sort of a mauve alert."

                - Lister and Holly

    1. Re:Which colours? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 3, Funny

      Brock: Magenta? Your battle mode is magenta?
      The Monarch: Eat a dick.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    2. Re:Which colours? by ledow · · Score: 2, Funny

      A better Dwarf quote is:

      "Go to Red Alert!"
      "Are you absolutely sure, sir? It does mean changing the bulb."

    3. Re:Which colours? by Vintermann · · Score: 1

      "Rude alert! Rude alert! An electrical fire has knocked out my voice-recognition unicycle! Many Wurlitzers are missing from my database! Abandon shop! This is not a daffodil! Repeat: This is not a daffodil!"

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    4. Re:Which colours? by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      well, the DoHS can't get green or blue bulbs now tungsten ones have been banned :)

      Cat: Forget Red -- let's go all the way up to Brown Alert!
              Kryten: There's no such thing as a Brown Alert, sir.
              Cat: You won't be saying that in a minute! And don't say I didn't alert you!

    5. Re:Which colours? by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      Mauve is the universally recognized color for danger. Red is just you humans.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    6. Re:Which colours? by elfprince13 · · Score: 0

      Mauve alert is damn scary. Or didn't you know? Mauve is the universally recognized color for danger.

  8. it kinda works though, just not how they intended. by Em+Emalb · · Score: 1

    Yeah, yellow is pretty much the constant. So, people are typically going "okay, it's a normal day, carry on then". If it's orange (I've flown once during orange) then there's a bit of tension in the air. Makes for a more unpleasant airport experience, but it also tends to make people more aware of their surroundings.

    So sure, this isn't necessarily a bad thing. You SHOULD always be aware of what's around you and remain alert. It's not rocket science.

    --
    Sent from your iPad.
  9. I thought that ... by neonprimetime · · Score: 1

    ... Obama would just get rid of the alert system entirely. It was developed by GW Bush, and therefore is just fundamentally wrong. It just creates panic anyways ... it servers no real purpose ... nobody is going to hide in their bunkers or join a local militia if we go to the highest terrorist alert level, are they?

    1. Re:I thought that ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Obama provides money to build a bunker, I will. I need the extra storage space.

    2. Re:I thought that ... by neonprimetime · · Score: 1

      true ... i guess that's where i'd keep my disaster recovery servers ... there gotta me some money in the stimulus bill for that, right? :-)

    3. Re:I thought that ... by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      Obama has no money. All he can do is take out a loan from China and give it to you. Do we really want that?

    4. Re:I thought that ... by multipartmixed · · Score: 1

      > It was developed by GW Bush, and therefore is just fundamentally wrong

      Correlation does not imply causation.

      Or, maybe in this case it does. Hmm.

      --

      Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
    5. Re:I thought that ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... Obama would just get rid of the alert system entirely. It was developed by GW Bush, and therefore is just fundamentally wrong. It just creates panic anyways ... it servers no real purpose ... nobody is going to hide in their bunkers or join a local militia if we go to the highest terrorist alert level, are they?

      If it had truly been developed by GW Bush it would've been:

      RED
      Arnj
      Yeller
      #5
      Bluishnessitude

    6. Re:I thought that ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was developed by GW Bush, and therefore is just fundamentally wrong.

      And that about sums up all the critical thinking your typical left-winger ever does.

  10. This System is mostly worthless by LitelySalted · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This system provides no real benefit to the American populace other than to instill fear.

    I don't stop what I'm doing because for some reason or another, the day has been ranked a "red" terrorist day.

    Really, all it does (besides instilling fear) is give news sources something to talk about briefly.

    1. Re:This System is mostly worthless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Yes, because your sample size of 1 should be the basis of all goverment decisions.

      The fact is, there are quite a few people that these levels truly affect (mostly security - people who I'd prefer to be informed of this). It was not "simply fear-mongering", and I suspect you know that but won't admit it. Besides, I agree with the argument that terrorism is everybody's problem, and we all should chip in to help. If it means being more aware of your surroundings every once in a while then that's a pretty small inconvenience.

    2. Re:This System is mostly worthless by arthurpaliden · · Score: 1

      Don't you mean "give news sources something to talk about ad nauseum".

    3. Re:This System is mostly worthless by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      Well the left has global warming and economic depression to use as an excuse for bigger and worse government, it's only fair the right has terrorism.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    4. Re:This System is mostly worthless by AP31R0N · · Score: 1, Troll

      My parents did the same with me. Always making sure i was home before dark, that i didn't reach for boiling pots of water on the stove, trading my lunch money for toys, telling me to not get in cars with strangers. i was far more likely to be hurt playing tag than to be kidnapped if i got in a car with a stranger. What the hell did my parents know? It wasn't any of their business anyway where i was or who was holding me for ransom. Fascist fear mongering assholes.

      And don't get me started about "locking" the doors to my house. Like someone is gonna steal my TV while i'm at work or on vacation. That would be totally rude.

      Then there are the cops, telling me to "slow down" because i'm going "die in a ball of fire and steel". What do the cops know?

      My doctor invented something he called "cholesterol", to scare me away from all the eggs and cheese. i bet he has stock in cereal companies. More of W's trying to pad the pockets of his cronies. If there really was any threat from this "cholesterol" someone would tell me, right? Maybe warn me about the "risks" or tell me how to "control" it. But they just want to control me! Well screw them!

      --
      Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
    5. Re:This System is mostly worthless by PitaBred · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If it were "every once in a while", I'd agree. The problem is that the terrorist threat is overstated and overrated in the first place, and is only a mechanism to exert more control by the government over the population. Terrorists have killed fewer people in the US over the last 10 years than auto accidents have in one. Yet where does the money go?

    6. Re:This System is mostly worthless by amplt1337 · · Score: 1

      More to the point, your parents cautioned you against talking to strangers. They didn't wake you up in the morning and say, "Be especially vigilant today, little Timmy, it's a RED ALERT kidnappers day!"

      Awareness and sane response to threats is the path of a mature, informed citizen. Spreading some kind of terrorist tea-leaf weather report is fear-mongering, plain and simple. (And just what are American citizens supposed to do in response to "threat levels," anyway?)

      --
      Freedom isn't free; its price is the well-being of others.
    7. Re:This System is mostly worthless by Kozz · · Score: 1

      You're right -- the system is mostly worthless to the civilian. The original intent of the color-coded scheme was to provide guidance to law enforcement agencies. Each color actually corresponds to specific guidelines for them.

      I'm not defending the program as such -- just clarifying the DHS's original intent as best I understand it.

      --
      I only post comments when someone on the internet is wrong.
    8. Re:This System is mostly worthless by ArcCoyote · · Score: 1

      This system provides no real benefit to the American populace other than to instill fear.

      No, it doesn't even do that, and eliminating two "low-threatening" levels that were never used changes nothing. The alert level has been at Orange for what, years now? That's crying wolf. If it ever goes to Red because of an actual attack, no one will pay any attention to it.

      Make it like a traffic signal, everyone knows what that means:

      Current yellow -> new green : Guarded but no specific threat
      Current orange -> new yellow : Genuine threat but no attack.
      Red stays red : Actual attack.

      Now that makes sense, doesn't it?

    9. Re:This System is mostly worthless by AP31R0N · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Terrorists have chatter... we have people investigating and listening in. There's also OpSec. When a cell changes behavior it can be an indicator that they're up to something. Militaries and gov'ts do the same. When the Pentagon starts ordering more pizza all the sudden... something's up. Kidnappers generally don't give such signals. Nor do we have the CIA/FBI tailing them or the NSA listening to them.

      If there was a string of robberies in your neighborhood and the cops stopped by to inform you of this... would that be fear mongering?

      To me fear mongering would be:

      "You're going to be robbed if you don't vote for me and let me double the police force"
      "Your soul will burn in hell forever if you don't send me money or if you love someone of the same sex"

      Indications suggest likely attack + No warning given to public + *boom* = Why didn't you warn us?
      No warning + *boom* = Why weren't you looking into this?
      Warning given + no *boom* = FEAR MONGERING!1! FASCISMS! LoL!
      Money spent on CIA and NSA + No terrorist attack = Why are we spending all this money?
      Give warning + *boom* = You didn't do enough to prevent it.

      There is no winning in security, just managing the value of the asset against the likelihood of attack to determine the level/cost of securing it. The money you spent on Schlage locks was a waste... unless someone tries to break in and FAILS. If they succeed or no one tries, the lock was a waste, right?

      i suppose the CIA and NSA *could* reveal their sources and methods and give us a break down of why they think an attack is more likely today than yesterday. "Jeff, our agent in Kabul overhead a conversation between Abdul and Habeeb. Jeff will be staying at the Kuwait Marriott for the rest of the week, his family lives in Arlington. Abdul and Habeeb, please change your target or time table, enjoy the head start." Great idea.

      The lack of "what we're supposed to do" is a fault in the system (which can be changed). But calling it tea-leaf weather report assumes a great deal of incompetence or malice in the gov't... or indicates a great deal of paranoia.

      Having lived with and worked with the people who do this kind of work for my entire life and having been an intel analyst with a clearance i can't name here... i think you're either very uninformed (which isn't entirely your fault), or you're letting paranoia/partisanship do your thinking. Yeah, W was an evil idiot, but he wasn't an all powerful mastermind nor as bad as we wish him to be.

      --
      Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
    10. Re:This System is mostly worthless by Deosyne · · Score: 1

      But partisans are already told what to think by the wealthy folk that wouldn't even piss on their ardent followers to extinguish a fire. What difference does changing the color on a vague chart add to that?

    11. Re:This System is mostly worthless by amplt1337 · · Score: 1

      You're missing the point.
      Of course the investigations of terrorism should proceed apace. Yes, enforcement agencies should keep an eye out to know when something seems to be about to go down; that's their job. None of this points to any need to inform the public of "increased suspicion of terrorist attack" or any such thing. The public is already too worried about terrorism, phoning in all kinds of false leads that do nothing but waste enforcement time and harass innocent people; telling them to be even more vigilant will just add noise to the signal (and, if the threat level is measured accurately, it will do so at the worst possible time)*. There is basically nothing that any average civilian can do that can increase the effectiveness of anti-terrorist law enforcement or increase that individual civilian's likelihood of surviving a terrorist attack (short of general disaster preparedness training, which ought to include a lot of things other than terrorism). And as you point out, if a terrorist attack goes off, people will be angry regardless of whether there was a color-coded safety level indicator published on the evening news, so why do it? Having a sense within enforcement agencies of when terrorist attacks are imminent is useful; telling the public about it is cynical manipulation. It needn't be; it could be a sincere, if misguided, desire to offer public warning. But when you have an entire party within American politics running on a platform of offering security against a fear that its own public relations stoke, then yes, that is cynical manipulation.

      *(I'd also contend that the instances where civilian vigilance matters--"oh, hey, that guy in the exit row is trying to set his shoe on fire"--you don't need signage and threat level indicators to know you ought to tell someone.)

      --
      Freedom isn't free; its price is the well-being of others.
    12. Re:This System is mostly worthless by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      This system provides no real benefit to the American populace other than to instill fear.

      Instilling fear isn't a benefit to the populace, it benefits the politician's lust for power. So in effect, it worked as designed for the purpose it was designed for.

    13. Re:This System is mostly worthless by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      Not entirely sure what you're trying to get at, but all the things you listed are FAR more likely to have affected you then a terrorist attack. As far as "slowing down" goes, speed really isn't really ever the cause of accidents.. so that one is at least correct.

    14. Re:This System is mostly worthless by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      You're makig the mistake in assuming that what the FBI or NSA or whatever is actually effective, as if they do know of every cell in the country.

    15. Re:This System is mostly worthless by gruhnj · · Score: 1

      This system is worthless because there are no actions associated with the different levels. Strange that DHS has always been at yellow or orange but the military's FPCON has always been at Alpha+ or Bravo. What we really need to do is replace the system with DoDs FPCON and be done with it.

    16. Re:This System is mostly worthless by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      This system provides no real benefit to the American populace other than to instill fear.

      It doesn't even do that. Most people don't know or care what the "Threat Level" is, and wouldn't be terribly worried if they did happen to hear.

      It's mostly for the benefit of Law Enforcement and Government anyway, not for private citizens.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    17. Re:This System is mostly worthless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People who say the terror warning system was meant to 'cause fear' to 'control people' are generally the 9/11 'truther' types and can be safely ignored. They don't understand that in the real world, outside of their mommy's and daddy's house, real people want to kill us.

    18. Re:This System is mostly worthless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After 8 years of this BS... one would think that any "productive" organization could give a high level descriptions of a set of successes that members of both parties could acknowledge was true.

      What have they prevented? Lack of claims should imply lack of results.

      9 years ago 3000 people died in NYC. Every month 3000 people die on the road. Since 9/11, at least 200,000 people have died on the road. Over 2,000,000 people die a year in the US from just living a normal life.

      The US Government and stupid voters are more concerned about spending billions to save 3K people than 2000K people.

      Focus!!!!

    19. Re:This System is mostly worthless by dbIII · · Score: 1

      i suppose the CIA and NSA *could* reveal their sources

      That will never work.
      "This announcement to the UN General Assembly was brought to you by the ravings of a drowning pathalogical lair" isn't paticularly convincing. Even if methods used in North Korea to prepare prisoners for show trials have been abandoned there is not much credibility left.

    20. Re:This System is mostly worthless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To me fear mongering would be:

      "You're going to be robbed if you don't vote for me and let me double the police force"
      "Your soul will burn in hell forever if you don't send me money or if you love someone of the same sex"

      Hardly. It would play out more like this:

      "Terror Alert has hit Red! There have been reports of a large group, known to be involved in terrorist acts, currently occupying the US. Their whereabouts are unclear. Be sure to keep an eye out for any suspicious characters and report them immediately to your local police department."

      Followed by a significant amount of praise for those in charge and how everyone should be thankful they're out there defending us all from ____ (where _____ = whatever group a significant portion of people currently fear, likely due to conditioning through propaganda).

      Though it looks more like hatemongering these days, not fear.

    21. Re:This System is mostly worthless by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      You don't get it, do you? That IS the point!

      How can humans still be so cowardly to believe otherwise? I mean WTF?

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  11. Why 3 levels by pehrs · · Score: 1

    Why not take it all the way and reduce it to one level:

    "Be afraid, be very afraid. There will soon be a terrorist attack. Support your masters in whatever they want to do."

    For historical reasons I recommend a brownish-grey as the colour.

  12. Ancient Roman equivalent by Kupfernigk · · Score: 5, Insightful
    At times of no war, the doors of the Temple of Janus were closed. This happened several times during the reign of Augustus. Since then, this rarely happened, often because the Persians were being a nuisance.

    In this respect, not much seems to have changed.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
    1. Re:Ancient Roman equivalent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wish I could give you a "+1 literate" mod point.

    2. Re:Ancient Roman equivalent by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 2, Funny

      I wish I could give you a "+1 literate" mod point.

      I wish I could give myself a +1 I read wikipedia too mod.

    3. Re:Ancient Roman equivalent by Samgilljoy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, actually, the Parthians were the nuissance. The Persian Empire had long since fallen.

      That said, the surname of the family that gave us the now deposed (and deceased) Shah of Iran, Pahlavi, is the Old Persian word for "Parthia."

    4. Re:Ancient Roman equivalent by religious+freak · · Score: 1

      Sigh... When I think of all the old, ruined or completely disappeared places on this earth, if I could magically choose to have one come back in a more whole form, I'd choose the Roman forum. Such a place of importance to Western history and there's barely anything left of it today - mostly grass.

      That's an interesting anecdote btw, never heard that before.

      --
      If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
  13. From TFA... by Epsilon+Moonshade · · Score: 1

    Take note that if they go to three colors, the current Blue would be the new Yellow - that is to say "A general risk of terrorist attack". Methinks the summary's a bit off.

    1. Re:From TFA... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't have any idea where you're getting that from. TFS, TFA, and the proposal itself all provide "A constant state of vigilance to protect against a terrorist attack" as the description of the new yellow level.

    2. Re:From TFA... by Epsilon+Moonshade · · Score: 1
      From TFA:

      The nation has been at Yellow, "an elevated significant risk of terrorist attacks" for three years. International and domestic flights have been at an Orange "high risk of terrorist attacks" for the same period.
      A proposal by the Homeland Security Advisory Council, unveiled late Tuesday, recommends removing two of the five colors, with a standard state of affairs being a "guarded" Yellow. The Green "low risk of terrorist attacks" might get removed altogether, meaning stay prepared for your morning subway commute to turn deadly at any moment.

      I'll grant, I might be missing^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hsuck and apparently missed something in the whole mess, but calling it a "guarded" yellow implied that they were going to use the current blue "guarded" definition for the new "yellow".

      So yes, ignore me. I'ma go back to sleep now.

  14. No Point by rotide · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ignoring the fear that it was probably _designed_ to instill in the population and potentially the global population... It's just a pointless system.

    If this system is at all meant for the general population, it's failed. When I go out on vacation, or planning on visiting a major city and/or landmark, I never even think of the Alert colors.

    I understand that it may potentially only be for government agencies, especially law enforcement, but even then does saying we're at yellow, or orange, or even red _really_ give them direction? I'm assuming even if there are general rules in place to "do x and y when at color z" they only get rudimentary things done. Say, bringing in more personnel or putting more people on standby status. Even the agencies need to know _what_ to look for and in what fashion the event is predicted to take place.

    Really, beyond fear, I can't see the point in the system at all. If there is something to report to the public, report it. If there is something to report to government agencies, I bet there are a bunch of better ways, already in use, to alert the proper acronyms of the who, what, when, where, and why.

    1. Re:No Point by S77IM · · Score: 1

      The problem is: What decisions are we supposed to make based on these codes? Nobody knows.

      For example, here is a system that at least means something:

      Green: Follow normal security procedures. Go on about your business. These are not the droids you are looking for.
      Yellow: Be extra-strict with security procedures. Make no exceptions; feel free to be an asshole about it. Report suspicious behavior.
      Red: Stay at home. Lock your doors. Don't trust anyone you don't know. Double-check your ammo levels.

      So, things would be Green most of the time, and if they went to Yellow you would know something was afoot. Red would be reserved for really serious shit (like, planes are actually crashing into towers). The very vagueness of the levels would be a strength, since they don't convey enough information -- people would hear about the Yellow alert and need to actually find out what was going on.

        -- 77IM

      --
      Student: Is it true that the foundation of the universe is paradox?
      Master: Well, yes and no.
    2. Re:No Point by Haxzaw · · Score: 1

      I agree, no point. Especially no point in having the same alert level throughout the entire US. I'm sure the threat level in Middle of Nowhere, Kansas should be green while Major City, US could be orange. Furthermore, leaving the alert level at one color for eternity means nothing, it cheapens the value of the whole system. If, IF mind you, something happens, or a threat is received, or "chatter" indicates something, then raise it for that area, otherwise keep it green.

    3. Re:No Point by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Ignoring the fear that it was probably _designed_ to instill in the population and potentially the global population... It's just a pointless system.

      Governments that really defend against terrorism don't have kindergarten-themed alert systems and they actually try to downplay their anti-terrorism efforts.

      One of these things is not like the other.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    4. Re:No Point by maxume · · Score: 1

      I prefer:

      Green: Your government is protecting you.
      Yellow: Your government has stopped protecting you.
      Red: Duct tape.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  15. How about this ... by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Government WANK alert system. Whereby the wankiness of a government is scaled by public opinions, and if the scale hits a certain point, everyone in public office at that time is tossed out at once, and we elect a whole new batch?

    We can have a National Referendum day in 60 days from the time the WANK alert is triggered. 15 days to register to run, 15 days to organize campaigns, and 30 days to run. If people campaign before the official campaign limit, they are automatically excluded from the ballot.

    And nobody can run if they have ever held elected office before.

    I'm sick to death of Damned Professional Politicians. Lets get some amateurs in and see if they can do better.

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    1. Re:How about this ... by Idiomatick · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm sick to death of Damned Professional Politicians. Lets get some amateurs in and see if they can do better.

      I always thought this was a good idea. Ok not a good idea clearly but it points out how poor our election system really is. To make it to the top in politics you have to be a corrupt fast talker who is willing to do w/e it takes. This is exactly what you DON'T want in politics.

      Then we actually got to take it to the test. California elected a bodybuilder that knew nothing of politics, hadnt gotten the necessary education and spent most of his life covered in oil flexing. Clearly this man has many disadvantages as a politician. And came to power through being the ultimate victor of the popularity contest so he was never forced to be a 'politician'.

      Considering he was given a state with many referendums which is a huge disadvantage. I think he has done quite well. He even used his weight as a state to push various issues country wide. And since he did it as a republican he has done much to tie the sides together, working in a non-partisan way. This has been a great healing effect on the state and you don't see the same fervent partisan attacks you do in other big states.

      Now imagine if we chose someone uncorrupted by politician but also someone who was well educated, spent their life learning political theory and philosophy. And better yet not forced to kowtow to the pubic opinion. People often say democracy isn't the best system it's the best we've had so far. I don't know if that is true, looking at the current state of politics I often wonder if returning to a monarchy system or other ancient system would be that bad. The only real advantage democracy has is that people are less likely to rebel since they are given the illusion of control through the election process.

    2. Re:How about this ... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Government WANK alert system. Whereby the wankiness of a government

      Lame. This should have been about the government warning us of an imminent need to wank.

      See, the problem with the current Terror Alert is that there is basically nothing you or I can or should do differently in response to its changing level. So what good does it do other than make us nervous and stressed? But that's no good, stress is bad and leads to people making stupid mistakes that could let a terrorist attack in. So the warning should basically be "DHS has set the current Wank Level to Orange, meaning you're probably tense and stressed and should probably go have a nice wank to let some steam off." Now that would be useful. Though on the other hand, it already gets crowded enough in airport bathrooms; can you imagine the line to the men's room after the TSA announcement?

      Okay, so here's a better idea: Just like today, the TSA guy recording is played over the intercom "The DHS Terror Threat Level is orange!" but he says it in a reeeally sarcastic voice. That's the signal that everyone in the airport should stand up and make exaggerated wanking motions with their hands, optionally while sticking their tongue out to the side or making monkey noises.

      That'll show the terrorists what we think of them!

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    3. Re:How about this ... by pentalive · · Score: 1
      How about being Senator, Representative or even President for a 6 months.

      People to hold these positions are randomly selected. The service is voluntary, you can opt out for the next instance or opt out completely for hardship reasons.

      Each month a sixth of each office are replaced.

      The lottery for each office is held on TV to ensure randomness.

    4. Re:How about this ... by Reziac · · Score: 1

      That bodybuilder is also a very successful businessman, who built most of his wealth through study and hard work.

      And... first you ask for amateurs to run for office, then you want people who've spent their lives studying politics. Isn't that what "professional politicians" ARE?? Make up my mind!!

      Fact is, if we had more successful BUSINESSMEN (the kind who've built a business from the ground up) in office, maybe the country would be run in a more businesslike fashion and we wouldn't waste taxpayer dollars on makework bullshit like the DHS threat level thing.

      And politics needs fewer lawyers (people who make their living arguing over *the problems of others*) and journalists (people who make their living reporting *the problems of others*) ... do you notice the common theme, "the problems of others"?? Is it any wonder that gov't talks a lot about solving our problems, but in the long run generally makes things worse? If things got better, or if gods forbid we could fend for ourselves, we wouldn't "need" so much gov't to "solve our problems", and a lot of lawyers and journalists would be out of a political job!

      Elect more backhoe operators, restaurant owners, truck drivers, and the like, and maybe problems would get SOLVED rather than perpetuated.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    5. Re:How about this ... by Virak · · Score: 1

      I'm quite capable of figuring out when to wank on my own ("all the time", roughly), I don't think the government can offer any assistance on this front. In particular, being under stress due to believing my life is at risk tends to not be the best time for such a thing. The feminists would never let it stand either. They'd be complaining that women masturbate too, so using a word like "wank" is sexist. Also I'm pretty sure that "showing the terrorists what we think of them" in that way would just make them want to kill us even more. Overall, your plan is rather poor and unlikely to help things.

    6. Re:How about this ... by Idiomatick · · Score: 1

      I don't think learning political theory is damaging, i think it is valuable. I think moving up the ranks of politics is damaging. 'Experience' is bad for politicians it seems.

      Btw backhoe operators and truck drivers are on average woefully uneducated. The governator was decently aware of the world around him. I'm sure the average not to say all backhoe operators would be unqualified to govern because of their ignorance. I think education is a good thing. I'm just pointing out how sad it is that our election system doesn't seem to beat out average joe by that much. I'm not arguing we set thing up like the jury system (which frankly scares me) and put the least qualified people in power.

    7. Re:How about this ... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      To make it to the top in politics you have to be a corrupt fast talker who is willing to do w/e it takes

      Politics is like police work, in that nobody who would be fit for the job would ever want it.

      And since he did it as a republican he has done much to tie the sides together

      When he was on This Week a few months ago he said "there's no difference between Republicans and Democrats". I have to agree with him.

    8. Re:How about this ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm quite capable of figuring out when to wank on my own ("all the time", roughly), I don't think the government can offer any assistance on this front.

      I disagree. For example, I was completely unaware of the recent Erin Andrews Peephole Video, and am now having trouble finding it as it has been taken down from most websites. If the government had changed the WANK level to Red - Severe Need to Wank I would have been more vigilant and would have found the video more quickly. Similarly the WANK level could remain at orange all the time, since there is always an Elevated Need to Wank.

    9. Re:How about this ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

    10. Re:How about this ... by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Actually I am not a fan of democracy anymore... because in its pure form it is rule of mobs and snake-oil salesmen at the expense of average folks. I'm not sure 'educated' is a good criterion anymore either, given the education level of our congresscritters (look how many have degrees). Trouble is there's no good filter for common sense, at least not for politics. :(

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    11. Re:How about this ... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      I'm quite capable of figuring out when to wank on my own ("all the time", roughly)

      Well, then when they announce it's time you can just say "Way ahead of you, DHS!" as you sit in the airport bathroom stall.

      Oh but you probably shouldn't be doing it roughly, at least not all the time, or you can get callouses and reduced sensitivity. Just fyi.

      They'd be complaining that women masturbate too, so using a word like "wank" is sexist.

      I've heard "wank" used as a term for female masturbation as well. But that's fine, we could just say "wank or -" and add in an appropriate term. I like "pet the bunny".

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    12. Re:How about this ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like you could have your own wank level. As in, if your weiner is:
      Red - You've been wanking way too much, stop immediately or your personal wank level will wrap around to the other end of this scale.
      Orange - You've wanked some, you're okay.
      Yellow - You haven't wanked in a while, you're overdue. (And you're evidently asian, so how could you find your weiner in the first place?)
      Gangreen - You ignored the advice to stop at red, and now it's about to fall off.

  16. Honestly, do you really think? by iCantSpell · · Score: 1

    Regardless of the color code you only have three security modes, oppressed, more oppressed, and tyranny. Anyone else who tells you otherwise is a martyr.

  17. A useful system should be predictive by neurogeneticist · · Score: 5, Funny

    Green = "Go ahead, let your guard down, see what happens" Yellow = "There is a new budget up for vote, and if you don't give DHS more money the terrorists win" Red = "Imminent threat, only direct intervention by Steven Segal can prevent global disaster" Black = "We told you this would happen if you didn't give DHS more money"

  18. Just use RGB/hex by Dr.+Impossible · · Score: 1

    You wouldn't be locked to any predefined colors and you could be as specific as you wanted to be.

    1. Re:Just use RGB/hex by rwv · · Score: 1

      But then somebody smart will hack the DHS website and replace it with this:

      <center><h1><font color="#FF00FF">Everybody panic. OMG! Ponies!</font></h1></center>

    2. Re:Just use RGB/hex by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      You forgot the <blink> tags ;)

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  19. Illusion of security by Zantac69 · · Score: 1, Troll

    Those "threat levels" dont mean anything anymore because we are numb to them. The harassment that you get through security is really just an illusion: if you feel like you are inconvenienced and your stuff is being searched, then you feel safe. I remember going through security 3 times on one trip...getting to my hotel and pulling out the power brick from my briefcase only to have my pocket knife come out with it. I didnt intentionally bring it...but...holy crap on a crap cracker...I made it through security with that! There are other stories as well, but its all about the illusion - people feeling safe and people feeling like the govt is doing something. Truth is that if one of these jackholes really wants to do something terroristy - then they will find a way. I hate that it will happen...but it will...and I am sure we will get more inconvenienced over it.

    --
    1331461 is only semiprime *sigh* Alas - I am just short of 1337.
    1. Re:Illusion of security by schon · · Score: 1

      The harassment that you get through security is really just an illusion

      No, the harassment is real. It's the security that's the illusion. :) (But I think that's what you meant :)

    2. Re:Illusion of security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      only to have my pocket knife come out with it. I didnt intentionally bring it...but...holy crap on a crap cracker...I made it through security with that!

      Crazy! You could have overthrown all of Western Civilization with that!

  20. Just get rid of them by RazorSharp · · Score: 1

    Having a childish, Star Trek based "Terror Alert System" only plays into the hands of terrorists by giving them goals. Furthermore, it lets them know if we're on to something. I'm not big on government secrecy, but if they're investigating an attack on the country I'd prefer that they take care of the problem and then tell everyone. Letting the terrorists know we're on to them by raising the "terror level" is just absurd.

    --
    "From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
    1. Re:Just get rid of them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or maybe the "terror level" has little if nothing to do with the actual threat level.

  21. I think the Onion had the best idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sirens and klaxons on every corner that run continuously during times of safety to remind us to remain ever vigilant.

    The sirens will only be turned off during times of actual attacks.

  22. I always liked Dave Barry's take by wiredog · · Score: 3, Funny

    Here

    Color Code Fuchsia Security Status ("Relatively High").

    Color Code Magenta Security Status ("A Tad Higher Than Relatively High, but Not Totally High.")

    Color Code Security Status Mauve ("Calm, but Tense").

    Color Code Security Status Key Lime ("Partly Cloudy").

    Color Code Security Status Maroon ("Dark Brownish Red").

    Color Code Security Status Peach ("Viewer Discretion Advised").

    Color Code Security Status Burnt Umber ("Medium Rare").

    Color Code Security Status Tangerine ("Uh-Oh").

    Color Code Security Status Jalapeno ("Everyone Down!").

    Color Code Security Status Traffic Cone Orange ("Yipes!").

    1. Re:I always liked Dave Barry's take by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2, Funny

      "So we urge all citizens to continue leading normal lives, while remaining in a state of stark, butt-puckering terror."

      Hehe. I love Dave Barry.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    2. Re:I always liked Dave Barry's take by Ceseuron · · Score: 1

      I preferred Lewis Black's 3-level system he talked about in one of his comedy shows:

      Level 1: "Jesus Christ!"
      Level 2: "God dammit!"
      Level 3: "Fuck me!"

  23. Stuck on Orange by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    By keeping the threat level at Orange (High) for as long as they have DHS has done two things:

    1) Desensitized the rating system to the point that it's meaningless.

    2) Left a lot of people thinking, "You mean after all these years and billions of $s we haven't been able to reduce the threat?"

  24. Never been used? by theIsovist · · Score: 5, Funny
  25. Shade my eyes please. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think it's pretty telling how most people now call the warning system just a 'fear-mongering device'. Who would have thunk it... the sheep actually don't want to know when the wolf is coming, they just want the sheppard to protect them so they can go about their merry way.

    I always thought the public should be the last to know about actual threats to them because telling them will just incite fear and panic, but it astonishes me that even the public seems to agree now.

  26. Re:it kinda works though, just not how they intend by plague3106 · · Score: 1

    When was your flight? I don't think anyone even pays attention to this anymore, do they?

    I think they should rename yellow to "lets face it, the world never WAS safe, and never will be. Learn to accept it."

  27. Re:it kinda works though, just not how they intend by Chris+Burke · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If it's orange (I've flown once during orange) then there's a bit of tension in the air. Makes for a more unpleasant airport experience, but it also tends to make people more aware of their surroundings.

    I've never flown in not-orange ever since they came up with the system. I'm not some business traveler, but I fly between three and six times a year round-trip to various places around the country, and I always hear the same recording of some guy saying "The current threat level is orange". And I don't think anyone has so much as batted an eye. From San Francisco to Denver to freaking JFK Intl., I've never seen people act more alert and suspicious after that announcement.

    Like this B.S. threat level is so well correlated with actual terrorist plotting that, if you're worried about terrorists, it's safe to lower your guard during a "yellow" threat level. Please! People are going to react the same way to "suspicious" things they see in an airport, and they're going to pay just as much attention either way. Nobody cares about the threat level, for one because it never changes, for two because it doesn't make any sense to do anything different -- if you're paranoid about terrorists and care to be alert on the 1-in-a-billion chance you personally spot terrorist activity, you will be just as much so during "yellow" as "orange". And if you're like me, and not worried much at all about terrorists, you're going to keep a vague eye out but you're still not going to give a shit how scared TSA says you should be.

    The Terror Alert is useless bullshit.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  28. Get Rid of... by AthleteMusicianNerd · · Score: 1

    Dept. of *

  29. Re:it kinda works though, just not how they intend by inviolet · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I've never flown in not-orange ever since they came up with the system. I'm not some business traveler, but I fly between three and six times a year round-trip to various places around the country, and I always hear the same recording of some guy saying "The current threat level is orange". And I don't think anyone has so much as batted an eye. From San Francisco to Denver to freaking JFK Intl., I've never seen people act more alert and suspicious after that announcement.

    Yep yep. I interpret the terror alert color to only indicate one thing: how long the line will be at the security checkpoint. And it's for purely psychological reasons: higher danger levels make us desire a greater inconvenience in order to feel safe.

    To wit: if the color was green, nobody would care if they just whisked everybody through without searching purses, confiscating water bottles, and making us take off our shoes.

    --
    FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
  30. One reason for color codes below "Guarded" by TechnologyResource · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Law enforcement use a similar color code system. Officers must always maintain the "always alert" (on guard) awareness level of vigilance. The only reason to have codes below this is for training and discipline purposes. If an officer lets their guard down and drops below the "always alert" level, the safety of the officer and/or citizens can be jeopardized. So, on a public spectrum, I agree with the change that the public only need to know our code awareness level from "Guarded" on up.

    1. Re:One reason for color codes below "Guarded" by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      So, on a public spectrum, I agree with the change that the public only need to know our code awareness level from "Guarded" on up.

      Actually RTFAing, I see the proposed levels and while still almost certainly useless bullshit, they seem less like useless bullshit than the current system. They aren't just scrapping the lowest two levels, they're changing their meaning.

      # Yellow = Guarded - "A constant state of vigilance to protect against a terrorist attack."
      # Orange = Elevated - "Increased protective measures based on specific threat information regarding a known or suspected terrorist plot."
      # Red = High Alert - "Maximum protective measures to protect against an imminent or ongoing terrorist attack."

      Okay, that makes a little sense. Yellow would be the default state and it'd basically never change. Then, rather than scaling it based on vague "high risk" criterion, they only elevate it when they (claim to but hey) have specific knowledge of a potential attack. And it only hits red when the shit has basically hit the fan.

      Still not sure what the average citizen would do with a Yellow alert vs Orange -- I assume law enforcement has specific procedures/behaviors they are trained for when their own personal 'threat level' goes up, but nothing other than "be more alert, frightened, and obedient" gets taught to us civies. :P

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    2. Re:One reason for color codes below "Guarded" by TechnologyResource · · Score: 1

      I definitely agree. This system will probably work well for people who are trained in it on a regular basis, such as, airport staff. However, I seriously doubt the average citizen will remember what each color means.

    3. Re:One reason for color codes below "Guarded" by Nethead · · Score: 1

      No one knows. I've been taking emergency management classes and one instructor, a former commander of a large navy base (Everett, WA) couldn't even tell us what to do when the code changes. He agreed that it was bullshit.

      --
      -- I have a private email server in my basement.
  31. Opposite? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let's just get rid of authoritarian government and get it over with.

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

      Then the terrorists win!

    2. Re:Opposite? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Authoritarians are usually opposed to getting rid of authoritarian government. Undercuts their authority. Can open source really take them out from the bottom up?

  32. DHS? by Thundarr+Trollgrim · · Score: 1

    You may want to expand these obscure acronyms before plastering them all over the place.

    I thought you were referring to a furniture store of some kind.

    1. Re:DHS? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Isn't it a shipping company? Oh, yeah, that's DHL...or is it the Department of Human Services? What are they doing adjusting the threat level anyways?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    2. Re:DHS? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Have you been living under a rock since 9-11 or are you just trolling? I can't imagine that anyone in the world wouldn't know that the US DHS is the Department of Homeland Security.

  33. The Onion by snarfies · · Score: 1, Redundant

    That's funny, The Onion just ran a story on this very topic: http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/dhs_sets_security_alert?utm_source=b-section

  34. Re:it kinda works though, just not how they intend by SnapShot · · Score: 1

    Maybe the only proper way to run these alert levels is to take a clue from the efficiency experts. This is from memory since I can't find a good link but the story is something like this:
    a. A factory wanted to determine the effect of lighting on productivity
    b. They increased lighting and productivity increased. Yay!
    c. Just to be sure, though, they decreased the lighting level and were surprised when productivity increased. Qua?
    d. Conclusion sometime people change their behavior just because something changed.

    If actually know there's a potential threat raise the threat level and announce "The threat level was raised to orange". If the threat continues then lower the threat level for a day or so and then raise it again. Etc. etc. Once the threat has passed revert to a baseline threat level and leave it there.

    --
    Waltz, nymph, for quick jigs vex Bud.
  35. Re:it kinda works though, just not how they intend by PitaBred · · Score: 1

    It's not useless. It's simply a symbol of control, and a way to keep people cowed. They haven't taken it to red, they're reserving that for when they need a shot of mindless patriotism to get something illegal taken care of, so they can claim it was done to "prevent terrorism".

  36. Fear mongering? Please. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Look, it's a department whose sole purpose is defending the homeland. How is it fear mongering to stay on "a constant state of vigilance". And when would they ever go less than that, realistically? Do we want a Department of Homeland Defense whose alertness to terrorism status is "Not paying attention.", which is what is less than "vigilant".

    To claim their stupid status level is fear mongering is similar to claiming that your local police department is fear mongering by warning that you should stay "constantly vigilant against crime". Fear mongering belongs to the media, who broadcast it as some sort of earth shattering news. The level is just a CYA for DHS so that if something gets blown up they can tell congress how vigilant they were, ... 'and the baddies must have been really clever cause gosh we've been staying alert. See how red the meter was?'

    Anyone who is reduced to an active state of fear because the silly meter changes colors is not suited for public life and should probably retreat to some manner of convent where they get no news from the outside world.

    1. Re:Fear mongering? Please. by Tuoqui · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No the DHS can act as if it's always yellow or orange or whatever color they keep it locked to. The rating system is supposed to be FOR THE PUBLIC. I don't think since oh what was it Sept 11, 2001 that we should collectively be on a state of constant panic and alert looking for terrorists. Now if they get some credible threats and/or chatter that something is imminent then yes it would make sense to raise it from Blue or Green or whatever to yellow or orange to get the public involved in helping them. However, the presumed constant state of alert as others have said will only lead to people just flat out ignoring the system unless it comes out to 'WE ARE UNDER ATTACK!' and some jackass flies a few more planes into some buildings.

      --
      09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
      +2 Troll is Slashdot's way of saying groupthink is confused
    2. Re:Fear mongering? Please. by petrus4 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Look, it's a department whose sole purpose is defending the homeland. How is it fear mongering to stay on "a constant state of vigilance". And when would they ever go less than that, realistically? Do we want a Department of Homeland Defense whose alertness to terrorism status is "Not paying attention.", which is what is less than "vigilant".

      What we want is a population with sufficient intelligence and maturity to be able to recognise the War on Terror for exactly what it is; a sham, and Orwell's "war without end," which exists for the express purpose of enabling the gradual, overt introduction of total fascism.

      The GWOT has no legitimacy, and the DHS doesn't either. They are both instruments of fascism, and absolutely nothing more.

      If you're having trouble believing that every single terrorist incident which has occurred in the last ten years, has been orchestrated by governments, it's very simple to figure out the underlying logic.

      Simply ask yourself who the overwhelming beneficiary of the attacks has been.

  37. Stupid government is by xednieht · · Score: 1

    more dangerous than cunning terrorists.

    --

    Hope is the currency of fools
  38. The Ron White Heightened-State-Of-Awareness system by RevWaldo · · Score: 1
    It has only two levels:
    • Go Find A Helmet
    • Put On The Damn Helmet
  39. Re:it kinda works though, just not how they intend by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

    It's not useless. It's simply a symbol of control, and a way to keep people cowed.

    Yeah, I meant useless from our point of view (which the OP seemed to suggest wasn't the case), not useless from its creator's point of view. I think we all know the use of the Be Scared Alert for them, long before Tom Ridge spilled the beans.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  40. A better color code by davidwr · · Score: 1

    Green/"Normal" - no particular reason to be antsy, equivalent to a normal day on a military starship. Still, don't be complacent.
    Yellow/"Elevated" - equivalent to Yellow Alert
    Red/"High" - equivalent to Red Alert, one step short of martial law

    Of course, all 3 levels should be used in a per-industry or per-location basis. For example, if there is a specific threat on a specific seaport, then that seaport might to elevated or high for the duration of the threat and the rest of the country remain at normal.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    1. Re:A better color code by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Are we talking about Red Alert, Red Alert 2, or Red Alert 3?

      Red Alert was awesome, though it was basically C&C: What If...? in terms of gameplay. (Actually Red Alert is the direct prequel to the original C&C) The expansions (Counterstrike and Aftermath) added a ton of new units and maps, but nothing story-wise.

      Red Alert 2 was awesome. This time we even got a whole new graphics style and presentation. This is where Red Alert got it's identity. Sadly, this was the last game with Westwood's direct involvement. The story was shit. This is where they tried to create to separate universes (C&C and RA) despite the fact that they are the same universe. The gameplay was significantly improved over the original.

      The expansion (Yuri's Revenge) added Yuri's faction as playable and continued the story, but there were two problems: Yuri's storyline was utter shit, and the faction was horribly overpowered. It took ages for EA to fix exploits regarding all of Yuri's Gatling units (such as them being able to fire through structures) and they never really balanced the faction (the Gatling units could be made to always keep their guns spinning at full speed, the naval units were extremely overpowered, and Yuri's superweapon was in a class of it's own). It was common to see people want to play Yuri's Revenge online (because of the other things it added), only to find "NO YURI" in the title of all the game lobbies.

      Red Alert 3 was utter shit story-wise.
      In terms of gameplay, it's okay, though it's extremely dumbed down from previous C&C entries.
      In terms of balance, it's the absolute worst piece of shit ever. EA blatantly fucked with the balance in order to achieve their desired ranking of the factions: Allies, the Empire, and then a mile behind, Soviets.
      Rampant cheating and a terrible online infrastructure make the online experience a fucking joke.

      It's got a pretty shitty DRM system too, where you're damned game has to authorize against their servers. You're limited to 5 installs. They finally caved and gave people a button in the game to deauthorize their installation, but it's not a part of the normal uninstall routine.

      There's been one expansion pack - something about Yuriko. I don't know, it's single player, digital distribution only. It's shit. In fact, it's the only C&C game I do not own. (Hell, I didn't even bother to pirate this shit.)

      In short:
      Red Alert: Two thumbs up.
      Red Alert 2: Two thumbs up, fuck you if you play Yuri.
      Red Alert 3: Two thumbs straight down your fucking throat, EA.

  41. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  42. But wait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We've always been at War with EastEurasia

  43. Pointless by SirAstral · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The DHS was/is not even necessary, and is just another bureaucracy clogging up things even more.

    Those who trade freedom for security get neither. The more you allow government to protect you the more power you allow them to throw you in a dungeon and throw away the key. No Trial, No Rights, No more Liberty.

    You either put the handcuffs on the government or they put them on you.

  44. Utterly Useless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I work at an airport, and they pipe a "The Homeland Security Advisory System is Level Orange. Please be aware of the increased threat and report any unattended baggage or suspicious behavior to the nearest airport employee, law enforcement officer, or TSA personnel." message through the PA system every 10 minutes or so.

    They've been doing it ever since I started working there 3 years ago, and it hasn't changed once. Everyone knows it's a joke; what's the point of a system that always remains at a high alert level all the time?

    I'm tempted to start asking security folks if they're being more alert due to the increased threat.

  45. Oh Noes! I was unpatriotic!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You know what? Among conservatives, "Patriotic" has lost its original meaning of loving one's country. It has become the codeword for their own type of "Politically Correct."

  46. Ron White by Nidi62 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I preferred Ron White's system. It's simple, self-descriptive, and has only 2 levels. Level 1: Find a helmet. Level 2: Put on the damn helmet.

    --
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
  47. Defcon Levels Above 1 Determined Unneeded by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In a highly anticipated move, Congress today determined that all DEFCON levels above 1 are unneeded and will be scrapped.

    "Well, we're at war 24/7 as it is, the system should reflect that," stated a representative.

    Defence contractors were unable to comment, though one did make a side remark that he was too busy counting his money.

  48. i like the system by nimbius · · Score: 1

    they have so far! its informative and effectively communicates the urgency of the matter.

    if they build a new one, maybe they can make it one that changes states/colors? so that way we know when there isn't alot of terrorism threat.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
  49. Improvement by sexconker · · Score: 1

    Get rid of the DHS.
    They have done NOTHING but shit on America.

  50. Why ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Should we as people should be made aware of the status anyway? That in itself instigate fear among people. With fear come crime, hate crime, stress, disease, etc..

  51. Idiocy Level ORANGE by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

    There is an ELEVATED risk of the Department of Homeland Security being morons. A constant state of vigilance is advised to guard against erosion of civil liberties and constitutional rights.

  52. Dyslexic Rainbow by Valdrax · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Personally, I'm just happy to see the change because it means no more putting blue in between yellow and green. That always bugged me, as a slightly OCD person who used to sort things in rainbow order, from crayons to the Skittles I was eating.

    --
    If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
  53. LOL by davidwr · · Score: 1

    Actually, I was talking about the terms as used in the Star Trek tv-show universe.

    I wish I could give you +5 for the use of humor to derail a subthread.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  54. Try this instead Re:New Alert System by davidwr · · Score: 1

    I like this version better:

    Green - Dangerous minorities which are little and from Zatox in the area. Lock the doors.
    Yellow (Dog) - asians^H^H^H^H^H^H Democrats are messing with our computers again. Use Linux.
    Orange - Mexican drug gang^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Ukranian political wars are spilling over in to the United States. Wear Kevlar.
    Red - Socialist President. Abandon the country.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  55. ALERT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This alert system was a joke from the time is was developed. It's not funny anymore. Plesae stop it. We've been tickled so much we're going to throw up.

  56. Oh you sweet Onion you by davidwr · · Score: 1

    Put a smile on my face every time.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  57. Reforms I'd like to see... by mcgrew · · Score: 1
    1. You can't contribute to any candidate you're not eligible to vote for. Corporations couldn't contribute, unions couldn't contribute, charities couldn't contribute, convicted felons couldn't contribute and I couldn't contribute to someone running for Senator of Massachusettes. If it's not legal for me to influence an election by voting, why is it legal for me to be able to influence an election with cash?
    2. It would be a felony punishable by time in federal prison to attempt to contribute to more than one candidate in any given race. After all, bribery is a felony, and this is a most thinly disguised bibe.
    3. No federal bill passed by both houses and signed by the President (or let pass without the time period prescribed by the Constitution) shall become law untill voted for by a majority of the citizens. There would be a yearly referendum for all laws
    4. After ten years, any law shall expire, but can be reinstated by being voted up by both houses, the President, and the citizens.
    1. Re:Reforms I'd like to see... by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      I'm not completely sold on #3 and #4, but the first two are pure genius.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    2. Re:Reforms I'd like to see... by chihowa · · Score: 1

      WRT #2, how about all contributions are anonymized before they get to the candidate's fund? You can give money to any and all candidates, but you can't claim credit for it. A bribe can't carry any weight if you can't prove you made it.
       
        As for #4, I'm all for that. I have extensive notes on how the mechanics of that would work and I think it would do wonders for keeping our legal system simple and up-to-date, while conveniently keeping Congress nice and busy.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
  58. Read fail. by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 1

    D'oh. Yep, that'd be a read fail on my part.

  59. Re:it kinda works though, just not how they intend by 2short · · Score: 1

    You've flown once in the last three years then?

    All flights have been Orange since August 10, 2006. The suspects in the plot that caused it to be raised to orange have been apprehended, tried for non-terrorism crimes, tried for terrorist plotting (hung jury), and retried (convicted). The alert level has remained unchanged.

    You should not be any more alert than normal, because Orange is normal. You can remain "alert" (for what?) if you like, but it's silly to say you should do anything different because of an alert level that isn't ever different.

  60. MORON! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He didn't say "out in the country where there are varmints." He said, "...if I were taking a walk around my state's capital square." Under normal circumstances there is no reason for an "apparent civilian," as he said, to be carrying a rifle around in the middle of a city.

    But you couldn't read that far. You saw that something was being said that wasn't quite ardently gun-worshipping, you saw red and your knee started jerking violently, and you had to spew your self-righteous propoganda. MORON!

  61. get rid of the whole stupid paranoid system by toby · · Score: 1

    Hint: The biggest dangers to Americans have nothing to do with terrorism.

    --
    you had me at #!
  62. Hanlon's Bane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Never admit to malice when stupidity could explain.

    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=949467&cid=24827149

  63. Congratulations, you've got shitty government... by jameskojiro · · Score: 1

    "While it's nice that they're at least no longer maintaining a pretense of it being for anything other than fear-mongering, I don't think this was the kind of change most people were hoping for."

    Congratulations, you just discovered that we live in an oligarchy!!!

    Guess it doesn't matter one hill of bean or another WHO you vote for because whatever choice you choose it is either a Turd Sandwich or a Giant Douche.

    --
    Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
  64. Intelligence maxim : Judge capability, not intent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seems sensible to be over-cautious with gov power.

    Governments in the 20th century were a leading cause of non-natural deaths: 150-200M intentional deaths of their own citizens. Add in the deaths caused by starting wars, e.g. 25M in WWI and 50M in WWII, big numbers.

    If anyone thinks their own country couldn't start putting people in a gulag, recall that Germany in 1925 was one of the most civilized countries in the world, and that rabbis were concerned that the Jewish religion would die out because 25% of all Jews were marrying outside of the religion. Jews were completely integrated into the society, dominated law, medicine and universities.

    There are lots of psychology studies showing how easy it is to convert ordinary people into torturers, no ideology required.

  65. Re:it kinda works though, just not how they intend by Avalain · · Score: 1

    And maybe they should rename orange to "Still not as dangerous as your drive to the airport is going to be."

  66. Terror alert colors? Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't remember having a terror alert color syst...oh, yeeaahhhhhh... The media got bored of it, so I forgot.

  67. Oceania by mysidia · · Score: 1

    It's caled Perpetual war

    Oceania (commonly called the US and Britain) is at war with Terrorism. Oceania has always been at war with Terrorism.

  68. Not bad, more specific by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This system is at least more specific than the original scale (What's the difference between "General" and "Elevated", anyway?). While "A state of constant vigilance" is probably the worst wording you could use, making me think of Beneath a Steel Sky and its mantra of "Be vigilant", the rest of the scale is specific about what it means. Here's my take on what the wording means.

    Yellow: Normal. Don't panic, just look for suspicious guys leaving boxes with wires sticking out around the airport.
    Orange: There's some credible evidence of a terrorist attack. Expect tighter screening.
    Red: We are under attack or are about to be attacked. Expect a spontaneous celebration of "No-liquids day" at the airport.

  69. Nigel Tufnel told me: by ahow628 · · Score: 1

    This terror scale goes up to eleven...

  70. My suggested improvements: by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

    Green - "whew, republicans control every branch of government"
    Yellow - "so called 'hackers' are posting documents proving government corruption to wikileaks"
    orange - "anonymous is posting on 4chan"
    red - "you have been killed by a government death panel"

    --
    VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
  71. 3 color system... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OK I invented a three color system that will be self obvious to citizens:

    The underwear code

    1. WHITE - Everything is cool, nothing to worry about.
    2. YELLOW - Mild threat, possible fear. Light panic.
    3. BROWN - Uh Oh! Something gonna blow up!!!

  72. War is perpetual. by Johann+Lau · · Score: 1

    Ignorance is peace. Freedom is hell. Control is love.

  73. Yes, fruits! by twoHats · · Score: 1
    I suggest blueberry, raspberry, loganberry, and blackberry.

    not sure which is the really scary one - but that is the whole idea isn't it?

  74. The best commentary on the DHS terror warnings... by JasonBee · · Score: 1

    http://www.zefrank.com/redalert/index_better.html

    My favourite.

    "...the colors corresponded to the skin colour taht the terrorists would most likely be on a given day."
    "And I remember an intern at the time that said "wouldn't it be problem if you printed it out on a piece of paper and it was a white terrorist?"
    " A white terrorist...'"

    JB

  75. Realistic Risk Assessment by jecblackpepper · · Score: 1

    Forgetting about the Security Theatre side of the threat level for a moment. I always thought it would be best if the threat level was related to something that people could get a real grasp of. For example:

    Risk of being injured or killed today by terrorists is the same as:

    • Socks - you have about as much chance of being injured by a terrorist today as by being injured putting on your socks.
    • Slippery Floor - a little higher than "Socks".
    • Crossing the Road - clearly higher than "Slippery Floor".
    • ... etc.

    And we know we really need to be on guard when the terror threat reaches: "Automobile Accident" or "Smoking". Fortunately, I think we'll probably find we haven't actually reached "Socks" level yet. Of course we'll never have such a system since it was clearly inform the public.