Slashdot Mirror


Don't Fly During Ramadan

An anonymous reader sends in a harrowing story from Aditya Mukerjee about his recent attempt to fly from New York to Los Angeles. After being pulled aside in the security line, he faced hours of interrogation by uncommunicative officials from several different agencies. When he was finally cleared, his airline, Jet Blue, wouldn't let him on the plane anyway. When he got home, he found evidence that it had been searched. He writes, "It was 2:20PM by the time I was finally released from custody. My entire body was shaking uncontrollably, as if I were extremely cold, even though I wasn’t. I couldn’t identify the emotion I was feeling. Surprisingly, as far as I could tell, I was shaking out of neither fear nor anger - I felt neither of those emotions at the time. The shaking motion was entirely involuntary, and I couldn’t force my limbs to be still, no matter how hard I concentrated. In the end, JetBlue did refund my flight, but they cancelled my entire round-trip ticket. Because I had to rebook on another airline that same day, it ended up costing me about $700 more for the entire trip. .. But no matter how I’ve tried to rationalize this in the last week and a half, nothing can block out the memory of the chilling sensation I felt that first morning, lying on my air mattress, trying to forget the image of large, uniformed men invading the sanctuary of my home in my absence, wondering when they had done it, wondering why they had done it."

165 of 1,233 comments (clear)

  1. Don't fly period. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Don't travel by plane.
    And don't travel at all.
    Built a bomb shelter basement
    With titanium walls.

    1. Re:Don't fly period. by inject_hotmail.com · · Score: 5, Funny

      You said "bomb"! Arrest him!

    2. Re:Don't fly period. by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You're so cute.

      I get the feeling these so-called random searches are from an NSA-built profile. Someone with a similar name or nearby location made some references online, and this guy's getting gloveloved because some computer flagged him as a "possible".

      I got flagged once as a "possible" back when I was in school. Some guy robbed a bank and escaped by bike. I happened to be wearing a blue vest, same ass the suspect.

      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
    3. Re:Don't fly period. by JTsyo · · Score: 5, Funny

      Didn't realize LE went from using face recognition to ass recognition. Makes sense since you usually will see criminals running away from you so it's helpful to be able to ID them from behind. Though from your experience it seems the technology still has a ways to go.

    4. Re:Don't fly period. by OakDragon · · Score: 5, Funny

      You blue-vesties never learn.

    5. Re:Don't fly period. by Phreakiture · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I agree about their randomness. I suspect that they mean random in the same sense as "random access memory". What the computer does with RAM is not random.

      I got "randomly selected" for five legs of a six-leg trip once. Then I stopped flying if I could avoid it.

      --
      www.wavefront-av.com
    6. Re:Don't fly period. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Funny

      I have this image of a group of security specialists standing over a table with a crockpot, package of frozen chicken legs, carrots, onions and bullion cubes saying, "Put out a BOLO for an elderly lady with an apron. Approach with caution."

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    7. Re:Don't fly period. by Richy_T · · Score: 5, Funny

      Man, Paula Dean just can't get a break.

    8. Re:Don't fly period. by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      He confessed! Put him in the comfy chair!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    9. Re:Don't fly period. by chill · · Score: 2

      You've obviously never seen the movie Grease, or you'd know the FBI has been doing that sort of thing since the 50s.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
  2. Proud? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Hey, America,
    Are you proud of yourself yet? Proud of what you've become to yourself, your citizens and to the rest of the world? I can't imagine that this is what any of our founding fathers envisioned when they risked everything in order to found this country. And now look what you've made of it.

    Ashamed,
    A Disappointed Citizen

    1. Re:Proud? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Hey, America,
      Are you proud of yourself yet? Proud of what you've become to yourself, your citizens and to the rest of the world?

      no.

    2. Re:Proud? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yes, a huge percentage of Americans are actually quite proud of the version of the USA that exists in their heads. Just letting you know.

    3. Re:Proud? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Good appeal, but please tone down the idealistic stuff about the forefathers and such - it's a bit like quoting the bible. Gets attention, but is nowhere near infallible and therefore not suited for a proper argument. That's one of the other things that are wrong with America, too much hype about ideals that have long ceased to be relevant. You need to look forward, look to improvements, shape new ideals that are worth aiming for.

    4. Re:Proud? by gnasher719 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, a huge percentage of Americans are actually quite proud of the version of the USA that exists in their heads. Just letting you know.

      And elsewhere, people laugh hysterically when they hear an American blathering about the "freest country in the world".

    5. Re:Proud? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Good appeal, but please tone down the idealistic stuff about the forefathers and such - it's a bit like quoting the bible. Gets attention, but is nowhere near infallible and therefore not suited for a proper argument.

      Don't compare a document crafted by a number of real people who had been-there-seen-that to a religious work widely regarded as ancient history of even fiction. Principles are the foundation of all good and effective constructs - they should never be abandoned.

    6. Re:Proud? by 0111+1110 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's one of the other things that are wrong with America, too much hype about ideals that have long ceased to be relevant.

      This story shows just how relevant they still are and they are only going to get more and more relevant as our society descends into a police state in every way possible. This sort of thing is precisely why some of us dislike government in general and large governments in particular. Power corrupts. Always. And eventually you end up with a fascist tyranny like we currently have in the US. The ideals of people like John Locke and Thomas Jefferson have never been more relevant than they are today.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    7. Re:Proud? by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 5, Informative

      If you had actually read the article, you would have noticed that he's not Islamic, and not an Arab.

      --
      http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    8. Re:Proud? by gmuslera · · Score: 2

      They cry. Other people only monitor, opress, indiscriminately kills or violate human rights on their own population. US, in the other hand, does that as the invasion army of their banks and biggest corporations.

    9. Re:Proud? by CMYKjunkie · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But he's BROWN, which is close enough for most of the US' security apparatus, isn't it?

    10. Re:Proud? by khallow · · Score: 2

      You say this as if there are not terrorists running around who would blow up an airliner.

      And he is saying this as if there were. One can't distinguish the number and quality of the terrorists blowing up stuff by his words. I think that is quite appropriate because while there's always excuses for tyranny, such as terrorists who blow up airliners, there isn't always this degree of tyranny. The US is in much greater danger now than if it had merely terrorists who killed people.

    11. Re:Proud? by interval1066 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I would say less than 30 years ago this was true. Now, not so much.

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    12. Re:Proud? by Askmum · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So true. America is not the land of the free and the home of the brave anymore. It is the land of the opressors and the home of the frightened.

    13. Re:Proud? by h4rr4r · · Score: 4, Informative

      What the heck are you one about?
      The bible is a collection of stories, what stories go in it is decided by each branch of christianity. They vary quite a bit. The constitution is one document written at one time and not a collection of oral traditions only written down centuries later.

    14. Re:Proud? by Timex · · Score: 5, Informative

      I would say less than 30 years ago this was true. Now, not so much.

      I was thinking the same thing. The country as it is today is, in my opinion, not much of something to be proud of. The government is blatantly corrupt, people that are woefully uninformed are electing the wrong people into government (or electing anyone at all for the wrong reasons), and one cannot travel quickly within the country without having basic rights violated.

      It's pretty sad when the American government makes likes of Vladimir Putin look like a "good guy".

      --
      When politicians are involved, everyone loses.
    15. Re:Proud? by canadian_right · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If your government is corrupt it is because the generally apathetic USA voters are quite happy with it that way. If they weren't happy they would stop voting in the same people.

      In Canada the voters completely wipe out political parties that existed for generations if the politicians piss us off. There is no Social Credit in BC now, there is no Conservative party federally (well the PC is sort of their bastard offspring with the Reform party).

      Stop voting for just the Republicans and Democrats. Put a stop to Gerrymandering. Put a stop to ear marks. Get better informed. Actually get off your butt and vote.

      --
      Anarchists never rule
    16. Re:Proud? by runeghost · · Score: 5, Informative

      The terrorists exist, and you've probably seen them already (on the news or in other media). They're a small fringe group whose members are, by and large, not particularly competent or capable. They got extremely lucky once, but even counting that, they're about as much of a threat to individuals, the United States, or civilization in general as home accidents and bad weather.

      One of the best descriptions I can recall reading of terrorists was along the lines of, "criminals who want to be warriors". Terror is probably best handled in a low-key manner by law enforcement. The "War on Terra" has given them exactly what they want, and was probably the worst possible response. America's over-reaction to 9/11 and the terrorism "threat" in general is doing far, far more damage than any terrorist could directly do in their wildest dreams.

    17. Re: Proud? by Wovel · · Score: 5, Funny

      I own a passport and have traveled to 38 countries on 5 continents. I can't think of any place that offers more freedom than the US. Is our government more invasive than in the past? Yes. Should we change that? Absolutely. Is there someplace with both the same level of security and a less invasive government? No. I am hard pressed to even identify a less invasive government.

      We have our problems, but it certainly can be worse. The only place I might consider less intrusive is Canada, but even then it is close and they make up for it with an absurd pile of regulations.

      Get rid of the TSA? Absolutely
      Reign in the NSA? Should be our top priority.
      There is someplace better? Get real.

    18. Re:Proud? by NatasRevol · · Score: 2

      We can be not happy about it AND apathetic.

      We're 'Mericans after all!

      But it would be nice if the alternate choices didn't always have a large dose of crazy with them.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    19. Re: Proud? by RaceProUK · · Score: 2

      Is there someplace with both the same level of security and a less invasive government?

      I was going to say the UK, but based on the last couple of months, now I'm not so sure.

      I think Germany may just be the answer to the question. Any Germans (or non-German residents of Germany) willing to confirm/deny?

      --
      No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
    20. Re: Proud? by Swampash · · Score: 3, Funny

      There are lots of places better. But, speaking on behalf of the rest of the world, we actually like you being this ignorant. Because then you don't leave the USA because you think there are no places better.

      Please, stay where you are. We like it that way.

    21. Re:Proud? by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Don't you know all the terrorists are currently residing in Washington D.C. and regularly appear on TV

      All kidding aside I figure there must be very few actual terrorists of which 99.9999% don't reside within the US given how soft many targets are in the US. The few "real" ones out there seem to like to make videos and send them to foreign news outlets. These frequently feature the leader yammering about The Great Satan (tm) and have a couple of masked men behind him with AKs or rocket launchers. Given that these individuals are far off in some other country and couldn't get to the US the pose no real direct threat. They do however serve as great propaganda piece to allow the massive erosion of rights and expansion of government. So I guess they do pose a pretty good indirect threat to the citizenry of the US.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    22. Re: Proud? by Idimmu+Xul · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Bullshit, I did around 26 countries (started to lose track) across 4 continents last year alone and the most invasive country I visited was Bosnia, the second most invasive country was the USA, all the others were amazing.

      Sure America has freedoms to do some stuff you can't else where (like own an assault rifle) but if owning an assault rifle is actually the most important thing in the world to you, you're doing it wrong.

      Note. Australian drinking laws are pretty shit

      --
      The problem with slashdot is that most of its users were bullied and stuffed into lockers as kids!
    23. Re:Proud? by C0R1D4N · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Dissolution is the solution. Democracy, like Communism, works best at small to medium sized populations and regions. 50 staes must become 50 nations.

    24. Re:Proud? by gh0st1nth3mach1n3 · · Score: 2

      Unfortunately, I think it's a nervous and fearful laughter that they hope will somehow make them feel a little safer. As for nobody trying to leave, people renouncing their US citizenship is up 800% since 2008.

    25. Re:Proud? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm considering leaving the country.

      Betcha won't though. Posting "I'm considering leaving" on Slashdot is the internet equivalent of a passive-aggressive note on an office fridge. You won't do anything and we all know it.

      Not to mention, being a pussy and fleeing doesn't fix anything. Look at how the US and NZ governments colluded to spy on and share information about Kim Dotcom, for allegedly violating copyright. If you think that running and hiding will somehow free you from the authoritarian grip of the terrorist organization known as the US government, you're a fucking imbecile.

      There's only one way to fix this, and that's to fight it, any and every way we can think of.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    26. Re: Proud? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Depends on who you are and what you care about. Want to freely insult people? Germany's the wrong place. Want to have an abortion without being harassed? Germany is a good place. Want to harass, intimidate and lie to make people not have an abortion? Wrong place. Want to start a business and hire and fire people depending on your needs? Wrong place. Want to have children without being afraid of losing your job etc.? Slightly better place than the US but not comparable with e.g. Sweden. Want to have judges that care about justice and sanity, and a constitutional court with teeth that takes your freedoms seriously? Mostly a good place. Want courts that follow the letter of the law to the dot, no matter what was meant? Mostly wrong place. Want to have the freedom to own and use a gun? Really wrong place.
      A lot of "freedoms" are one person's right to do one thing vs. one person's right to either do another thing or have a chance at a good life. Which counts more in which cases differs a lot between Germany and the US.

    27. Re: Proud? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 5, Informative

      Minor bitch:

      Reign in the NSA? Should be our top priority.

      Rein, not Reign (w/ the g it means "to rule over")

      That's all, have a great weekend - hope it doesn't rain.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    28. Re:Proud? by neonmonk · · Score: 2

      Might help if you didn't have to be a gazillionaire to run.

    29. Re:Proud? by NatasRevol · · Score: 2

      Yeah, but the didn't start attacking the US until we got our military fully involved in defending our oil supplies. Even though they weren't ours.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    30. Re:Proud? by Githaron · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That is why states need to have a majority of the power. It essentially makes them 50 counties with unifying treaties. The closer the government is to the people, the more likely that those people are under a rule that they agree with.

    31. Re:Proud? by no-body · · Score: 2

      I would say less than 30 years ago this was true. Now, not so much.

      I was thinking the same thing. The country as it is today is, in my opinion, not much of something to be proud of.

      Take a poll and you'll see what the majority thinks. Flags are all up and high all over!

    32. Re:Proud? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 4, Informative

      Oh, then we can have the southern 20 nations re-implement Jim Crow. Face facts: localized government has done even worse by most measures than the federal government.

    33. Re: Proud? by Uberbah · · Score: 5, Informative

      I own a passport and have traveled to 38 countries on 5 continents. I can't think of any place that offers more freedom than the US. Is our government more invasive than in the past? Yes. Should we change that? Absolutely. Is there someplace with both the same level of security and a less invasive government? No. I am hard pressed to even identify a less invasive government.

      How many of those countries have an NDAA and allow their citizens to be militarily imprisoned without a trial?

      How many of those countries have a "constitution free" zone that covers most of their population?

      How many of those countries have continue to hold innocent prisoners cleared for release a la Gitmo?

      How many of those countries have openly assassinated one of their citizens for engaging in protected speech?

      You're either snarking the shit out of us, have limited to your travels to places like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, or have a terminal case of American Exceptionalism.

    34. Re:Proud? by C0R1D4N · · Score: 2

      I live in a civilized state, I am a bit tired of the those southern and midwestern senators holding us back from any real progress while they blow my money on overpriced defense projects and military bases. I could not care less about what happens to them if the US were to disband.

    35. Re:Proud? by Applekid · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I would say less than 30 years ago this was true. Now, not so much.

      I was thinking the same thing. The country as it is today is, in my opinion, not much of something to be proud of.

      Take a poll and you'll see what the majority thinks. Flags are all up and high all over!

      Depends on the poll. When you start seeing polls about how "the majority of Americans xyz" where xyz is something controversial, it's to manipulate us into thinking we stand alone in the minority. The questions are asked several different ways until they get the numbers they want, and those numbers are then used to isolate and discourage the outraged.

      --
      More Twoson than Cupertino
    36. Re:Proud? by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 2, Informative

      Democracy, like Communism, works best at small to medium sized populations and regions. 50 staes must become 50 nations.

      The historical ignorance, it burns, it burns...

      Yeah, let's go back to the days when states could decide that people with dark skin couldn't sit at the same table as people with light skin. Let's let women in shithole red states be subject to state legislatures that think the world portrayed in The Handmaid's Tale would be a mighty good idea. Let's zip on back to the corruption of the Gilded Age

      We can rationally argue about the current balance of federal and state power, sure. There are many areas where the feds have overstepped their bounds. But taking away anything to balance state power? I'm sorry, but that's just a damned stupid idea. The idea that state governments are more friendly to liberty than the federal government can only be entertained by someone ignorant of historical and political reality.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    37. Re: Proud? by sageres · · Score: 2, Informative

      As a person who grew up in Soviet Union and still keeping in touch with things that are happening in all of the Soviet republics, I can tell you that Russia, Belarus, Ukraine and Kazakhstan easily qualify as an answer to all four of these questions. BTW, who in the United States have been militarily imprisoned without a trial? Are the constitutional rights REALLY including freedom of speech, religion, the right to own a weapon, the right against self incrimination, the right to own a property are really not protected in these zones? Does the government really suspended entire constitution in these zones? Or are the government with agreement of the courts (who are the constitution) expending the right of limited warrants for the cause for search and seizure? Are the prisoners in Gitmo really innocent? Can I put a big sticker on you that says, "JEW" and put you in the same room as Khaled Shekh Muhammad? (You know, he personally cut the throat of Daniel Pearl, for being Jewish.) Perhaps I don't need to label you as a Jew. I can just add you as another American in a Gitmo room full of "innocent" jihadists. Lets see how long you last. And where and when have we assassinated one of our own citizens for engaging in protected speech? The only assassinations of the American citizens are those of the Yemeni cleric from Detroid (I think). And he was running an Al Quada media wing. Was that only because of the so called "protected" speech on his part?

    38. Re:Proud? by C0R1D4N · · Score: 2

      Should the UN be stepping in and enforcing civil rights issues on the US? Possibly to the point of sending armed peacekeepers to enforce it?

    39. Re:Proud? by Capt+James+McCarthy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, but the didn't start attacking the US until we got our military fully involved in defending our oil supplies. Even though they weren't ours.

      Biggest user of said supply. It is an interest of the US. Yes, it's an interest of the companies that sell it, which is in turn an interest of the US govt for wealth and control.

      That being said, this isn't new stuff here. The US did not have the creation rights to defending it's interests. It's been done by every nation/culture past and present. This is how it goes, someone/people have control over a resource and will defend it until it's no longer needed. The Egyptians did it. The Norse did it, the Chinese did it, the Russians did it, the French did it, Native American Tribes did it, and so on, and so forth. (note: Different resources (water, trade routes, land, buffalo herds, etc, but waging war over resources is not new)

      I'm not justifying or defending it, however that has been the way of the world for thousands of years. And guess what, it will remain that way until someone figures out a better way.

      --
      There are no loopholes. It's either legal or it's not.
    40. Re:Proud? by Grishnakh · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm all for the breakup of the US, and have written about it many times here, but that's absolutely the wrong answer. The 50 states are mostly too small to exist on their own as viable nations (except for California and Texas) without being part of some kind of union, the way small European countries have banded together into a union to increase their trading and economic power and reduce the frictional losses of having separate currencies and economies and having trade barriers.

      The answer is to break the US up into a handful of smaller nations: maybe 5-10, not 50. The states need to all secede, and then band together into regional republics with nearby like-minded states. For instance, the southeast ("Southern") states should probably form their own country; they've been wanting to do that for 160 years now. Although these days I'm not sure they'll want Florida with them, though they might want to break it in half and keep the northern part, while giving the southern part to Cuba. The northeast states (including New England) should probably form a separate country; though if they can't all get along, surely NH, VT, and ME would want to join together, while MA, CT, and RI would want to also join together. The pacific northwest states of OR and WA should also join together, and maybe they could get northern CA (maybe including the Bay Area, maybe not) to join them; they might also want to join with part of ID and WY, and maybe they could get British Columbia to leave Canada and join them into a country called "Ecotopia". The Dakotas and parts of WY and MT could also form their own country of "Lakota" as they've been wanting to do for a while. Now of course, all these new countries can also have their own "states" or administrative regions within them, whether using today's boundaries or better yet, redrawing many of them since many of today's state boundaries were very badly chosen, frequently by just drawing an arbitrary straight line on a map (see the western states esp.) rather than taking into account regional/local cultures.

      But you're absolutely right: democracy simply does not work in large countries. There's too much internal friction, too much power, and too much corruption.

    41. Re:Proud? by Valdrax · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That is why states need to have a majority of the power. It essentially makes them 50 counties with unifying treaties. The closer the government is to the people, the more likely that those people are under a rule that they agree with.

      Tell that to black people, circa 60+ years ago. Our federal system has done much to blunt or prevent the worst of tyranny of the majority over its lifetime.

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    42. Re:Proud? by Immerman · · Score: 3

      Indeed. Until the World Wars the US federal government was much like what the EU was sold as - a central source for common currency and defense, and a relatively impartial authority to invoke when there was a disagreement between states, or when a state began behaving in an unconstitutional manner. As Washington D.C. began rapidly accumulating power - first military then domestic (gotta fight them communists in our midst!), it began to grossly overstep it's historical bounds, and has staunchly refused to even consider stepping back from the power it granted itself. And in the face of new "threats" like the War on Drugs and War on Terror it has once more begun massively expanding it's powers.

      What's the quote? Something like "if this democracy ever falls to tyranny it will be under the guise of defending against a foreign threat".

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    43. Re: Proud? by operagost · · Score: 2

      How many countries have cameras on every street corner?

      How many countries give their police full automatic weapons, but won't let the citizens have a pump-action shotgun in their house?

      How many countries outlaw religious garb because some terrorists wear it?

      How many countries kick you off your farm, tell you where to work and live, and execute you if you speak out about it?

      How many countries can stop and search you for no reason whatsoever?

      In how many countries can the police come into your house at any time and demand you list everyone who lives there, who they are related to, where they work, and what vehicles they drive?

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    44. Re:Proud? by Mister+Transistor · · Score: 4, Informative

      Obviously you don't live near or have experienced "roadside safety checks" where the local gestapo indiscriminately pulls over every vehicle in a fishing-expedition for anything from forgotten safety-belts (seat belts) to that roach that's been under your seat for 15 years, or perhaps some actual rare real violation such as drunk driving, etc.

      They pull vehicles over with no probable cause and subject them to searches if they twitch or sweat or the carefully trained "police dog" sits on command to please it's trainer and thus will hit on everyone, every time so they will always have cause to search you. Or they might ask you a few questions to see if you appear nervous. Well, of fucking course you're nervous, you are in severe danger of having your life fucked with, completely upset and turned upside down with a mere crook of their finger.

      Also, lately they have been talking about expanding the role of TSA to harass people at sporting events, and at train and bus terminals, so the erosion of our freedom/society is not only continuing, it's expanding, or trying to.

      This, all the suburban traffic cops are all dressing like SWAT-team members for either the intimidation factor, or that they think it looks "cool" and there was oodles of extra Homeland Security grant money to pay for all that neat stuff.

      [Godwin Alert] This is just shy of the good old Nazi checkpoints - "Papers, Please" and actual jackboots would be the only things missing. So, yeah - even travel within supposedly safe areas of this "free" country is getting fucked up and are becoming hazardous to your rights and so-called freedom. What little you (we) have left, anyway.

      --
      -- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
    45. Re: Proud? by dkleinsc · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Either that or he thinks that the invasiveness of government is directly proportional to the tax rate. This is obviously false: If you have country A who taxes at 50%, and spends all that money on great roads and rail and health care and national parks and aid for the poor, that's less invasive than country B who taxes at 20% and spends all that money on police, surveillance of citizens, jails, propaganda, and the military.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    46. Re:Proud? by darkmeridian · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Dear Uneducated Citizen:

      Our Founding Fathers were okay with slavery. Who really cares what they envisioned with regard to what's okay and what's not okay?

      Yours,
      An Educated Citizen

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    47. Re:Proud? by Silvrmane · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I would venture to say that being put in an interrogation room for a few hours cuts into the flight-time advantage of flying.

      As it is, driving a long distance vs flying sort of works out this way. If I want to visit Denver Colorado from my home here in Canada, I have a choice of travelling by car or flying.

      If I drive, it's a good solid 10 - 11 hours of driving from where I live, with a moderate stop at the border to answer a couple of questions. I get to see the beauty of the country (Wyoming is particularly picturesque), and the cost in gas is pretty OK. I can stop wherever I want, eat whatever I want, make phone calls, etc. It's a very pleasant, if time consuming, way to travel. My trip back is generally just as pleasant. If I leave at a good early time in the morning, like say 4 am, I can be at my destination by 3 or 4pm that afternoon.

      If I fly, I have to get to the airport a good hour and a half before my flight leaves, so that I can get in the line for check-in, and then in the line for security clearance. In the security line I have to do silly things like take off my shoes, belt, have someone poke through my carry-on to make sure I don't have large liquid containers or too much tooth-paste. At least on the Canadian side of things this is a polite and generally stress-free process.

      Then for the flight itself I have to endure sitting for two and half to three hours in a big metal dong full of dead air and the sneezes and coughs of my fellow travellers. We eat some kind of awful snack thing and half of a beverage, and fsm help you if you need to use the washroom on the plane. Once you get to the other end of the journey, you have to walk at least 1-2 miles through the terminal to reach US customs, where you again have to stand in line to have someone very rude and surly check that you are good to be in the country. Then you hop the tram down to where your bags are, and negotiate the rental of a car, and then start the journey from the airport to the city proper. This adds at least another 2hours from getting off the plane to getting to where you were going to the journey. If the flight leaves at 10am, I can be at my destination by 2:30 or 3:00 pm.

      In total, I've spent 6 hours to fly uncomfortably by air, get treated like a criminal, eaten terrible food, have seen nothing of the coutry's beauty, and paid more for the privilege of doing so. And I ended up at my destination only slightly ahead of when I arrive by driving.

      Sure, driving took longer, but cost less, gave me more freedom, less hassle, and more of a sense of seeing new places. I'll take driving over the experience of flight anytime.

    48. Re:Proud? by amicusNYCL · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There's only one way to fix this, and that's to fight it, any and every way we can think of.

      That's very noble and idealistic of you. Let's start a list of things that need to change.

      1. The takeover of the Commission on Presidential Debates by the Democratic and Republican parties in 1988 needs to be reversed. No political party should have a say in who is and is not allowed to debate. That control should be restored to a non-political entity such as the League Of Women Voters, who had that responsibility before refusing to sanction the 1988 elections on the basis that the 2 parties would commit a fraud on American voters. This will make sure that more voices are heard and that people have more options to choose from. I'm sick of this red state vs blue state shit, I want to see yellow states, green states, purple states, whatever. We need more choices and more opinions to be heard.

      2. The influence of money needs to be removed from government. I propose that all elected officials, political parties, or campaigns are barred from receiving anything of value from any lobbyist organization or any corporation. Individuals are allowed to donate whatever they want, and those donations should be made public so that the public can know who is influencing the elections. If an elected official receives anything of value from a lobbyist or corporation then they should be removed from office and the organization that donated should be fined proportionally to the value of the donation (e.g. 10 times the value). Lobbyists can still exist, but they need to lobby with words and not money or services or other gifts.

      3. The notion of corporations as people needs to be explicitly disallowed. Corporations are not people. If corporations were people then we would call them people instead of corporations. Corporations as a whole are not allowed to donate to any political group. Donations must be made by individuals.

      4. We need term limits for all members of congress. Members of congress are supposed to be private citizens that leave the private sector in order to serve the public, and once their service is over they return to the private sector. Congress should have a 4-term limit across both the House and Senate. You can serve 4 terms as a Representative, but then you are not eligible to be a Senator. You can serve 2 terms in each. Whatever the combination, once you serve 4 terms in congress you are done. The notion of a career politician needs to be eliminated. Politicians are there to serve the public, not themselves.

      5. Elected representatives should be prohibited from participating in any stock market or speculative trading, with the possible exception of physical assets such as real estate (but not commodity futures). Again, politicians are there to serve the public, not to enrich themselves. Serving the public is a position of sacrifice, not a position of prestige. You're there because you want to make a difference, not stay there until you retire.

      That's a pretty short list, maybe other people have more add. The problem starts with the legislative branch, real reform cannot happen unless the legislative branch is truly working for the people. So, how do you suggest that we fight in order to make these necessary reforms happen? It's pretty easy to post online about it, isn't it? But there's a problem when we have a federal government that asserts the right to kill anyone across the globe for reasons that are secret; that has the ability to spy on virtually anyone they want to spy on; and that can redefine the word "terrorist" at will to make it mean whatever they want it to mean. How are we going to overcome that when virtually the entire legislative branch wants things to stay more or less just as they are?

      Not to mention, being a pussy and fleeing doesn't fix anything.

      Well that's not entirely true. It fixes things for me, doesn't it? Does it help the rest of Americans? No, it doesn'

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    49. Re:Proud? by sglines · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'm proud of my daughter who has the gumption to leave the US with no intention of returning. I'm proud of my sister and her kids who walked into the consulate in Alberta Canada and renounced their American Citizenship.

      Reminds me of a confused Brit who was asked when he applied for US Citizenship 50 years ago, "Do you advocate the overthrow of the US government by force or violence?" He thought for a moment then answered, "Violence I suppose."

      It's time for a second American Revolution.

    50. Re:Proud? by amicusNYCL · · Score: 2

      No, you're right. Let's hide racism and pretend it doesn't exist. Outlawing drugs worked to eliminate drugs, outlawing murder worked to eliminate murder, so obviously if all we do is outlaw racism, then no one will be racist. The best part: no one has to take any accountability for their actions, all they have to do is march in lock-step with what the government says. There will be absolutely no resentment that comes from that.

      I don't know if you've noticed, but people in this country have a tendency to dislike being forced to live a certain way because of federal laws. At this point we are not progressing, things are regressing. Racism still exists, it is still widespread, and outlawing it isn't going to do shit. It needs to be exposed and out in the open, even legal, so that society, not the government, can deal with it. If Mississippi or Alabama want to ostracize themselves by passing racist laws, they should not be federally prohibited from doing that. They should feel the full weight of society, not the government, on their shoulders.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    51. Re:Proud? by tnk1 · · Score: 2

      Would you prefer that we didn't have oil supplies?

      And we are not taking oil supplies, we are insuring access to oil supplies. We're paying for every drop of that oil.

      It has never made sense to me why people complain about fighting over resources. As far as I can tell, it's the only valid reason to even have a war. Sure, someone is getting rich off of it, because they are providing something we want. Maybe some day we won't need oil, but today we do. So it is worth fighting over to make sure that we have free access to it.

      Not saying I like it, just saying I don't understand why people are upset about that in principle. If you simply don't like wars, I get that, but don't tell me we're going to be peachy keen if we don't maintain access to resources.

    52. Re:Proud? by u38cg · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Um, Putin jails his political opponents and is attempting to outlaw gays. Please don't talk nonsense in your efforts to use hyperbole.

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    53. Re:Proud? by Parafilmus · · Score: 3, Informative

      Totally complete list of totally amazing freedom enhancing things done in the name of states' rights:

      Sure, I'll bite:

      In 1869, Wyoming granted voting rights to women. It would be 50 years before federal law caught up with them.

      In 1982, Wisconsin prohibited employment discrimination against gays. 30 years later, most of the nation still hasn't caught up with Wisconsin.

      In 1780, Pennsylvania voted to abolish slavery. Massachusetts followed suit in 1883. Federal law would continue to permit slavery until 1865; It was only state law which protected the freedom of black americans in the north.

      These are the ones that pop into my head, but I'm sure I could list of similar examples all day long. State law has been at the forefront of just about every major civil rights issue in our nation's history.

    54. Re: Proud? by sageres · · Score: 2

      Neither you , nor I know that he cut off Daniel Pearls head, because his confession was gained by torture - cause a man enough pain and he will tell you he owns the moon and will sell it to you as well.

      Guess what? Confession under torture is still a valid confession. Besides, even in a court-room, he once again confessed, requoting himself word-by-word from what he told in interrogation.

      "I decapitated with my blessed right hand the head of the American Jew Daniel Pearl, in the city of Karachi, Pakistan

      Does it sound to anyone here as though this was taken by a confession?

      240 of them are still there despite their innocence being known.

      Not even going argue about numbers. They were foreign fighters in Afganistan fighting for Taliban. By the Taliban's very definition the foreign fighters were Al-Quada affiliated. In short -- they deserved it.

      Can I put a big sticker on you that says "Muslim" and expect you to pass through the US unmolested?

      Absolutely. I will not be molested even if I were to show up wearing Taqiyah with a Muslim wife dressed in a full hijab in a middle of New York city or at the airports. And no, you probably have not talked to enough of the average Muslims. While percentage of Muslims that are scrutinized by TSA is higher than any other religion, it is by far not unique, and very small minority of Muslims who pass through the airport gates get scrutinized.

      RTFA, the dude is Hindu. The red flag goes up for many reasons, and when enough flags go up -- the computer flags you for extra scrutiny. This is a price of living in a "safe" country.

      Kinda funny a guy from Russia et all... Sort out your own shit before crowing about anybody else's pal.

      Did you even read what I wrote? I grew up in Russia and I spit on that place. Russia is your worst offender of human rights, and while the domestic America-haters on the left love to hold Russia up on a pedestal -- this behavior is not unique, and been present among the socialist-liberal / academic circuses since 1930s. As Lenin called them -- "Useful Idiots". Seriously, Fuck Russia. But at least in Russia they won't cut your head off for being different nationality or religion, unlike among the prisoners of Guantanamo Bay.

    55. Re:Proud? by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      Our dear leader jails whistleblowers (after promising more transparency and protection for whistleblowers), wants to keep cannabis illegal even though many states want to legalize it, and he defended the DOMA.

      And at least Putin is honest about his intentions, instead of saying one thing to get elected and doing the exact opposite afterwards.

    56. Re:Proud? by Valdrax · · Score: 4, Informative

      None of those are examples in which the federal government heavily resisted state autonomy to make such a decision, with the exception of the Fugitive Slave Act. Thus, none of them are things done in the name of state's rights.

      These are the ones that pop into my head, but I'm sure I could list of similar examples all day long. State law has been at the forefront of just about every major civil rights issue in our nation's history.

      They've also been at the far other side. Many of the Southern states refused to ratify the 19th Amendment and led the charge against women's suffrage; several never even signed it until the late 20th century. Many states (also again in the South) have amended their own constitution to deny gays the right to marry.

      Do we even need to talk about slavery and race relations? Except maybe to acknowledge the nadir of American race relations post-Reconstruction? How about California's "Foreign Miner's Tax" of 1850 or the "Anti-Coolie Law" of 1862 to go after the Chinese? (19th century California's hate-on for the Chinese is frequently forgotten.) Or how about their "Greaser Act" against Mexicans from 1855?

      You also have wonders like Texas leading the way in 1883 on the convict-lease system to use prisoners as slave labor. You know, the chain-gangs of old.

      I'm from the South. I don't trust my state legislature not to attempt to put the screws to anyone that's likely to vote against them. Just look at the wave of laws North Carolina passed as soon as section 5 of the Voting Rights Act got knocked out.

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    57. Re:Proud? by amicusNYCL · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It seems like if I want to make a movie badmouthing Hillary or Romney, I should be able to to so without risking my entire personal savings or property when we get sued

      Why? Why should you be allowed to avoid that risk? Corporate officers should be personally responsible for the actions of the corporation as a whole, and they should make their decisions with that accountability in mind.

      There is little evidence that corporate donations have much influence on election outcomes.

      I have two things to say about that statement. First, the reason that there is little evidence is because of a lack of disclosure, not because there is actually no influence. A corporation can anonymously donate as much money as they want to various organizations, and those organizations can spend that money to specifically and directly benefit a particular candidate, all the way up until the actual election. And they don't need to tell you shit. And second, the presence or lack of evidence of corporations seeking to influence elections (and thus gain favorable legislation) is separate from the actual point of whether or not it should be allowed at all. I believe that it should not be allowed. It's fine if corporations want to donate to social welfare groups, but those groups cannot pass that money onto political candidates (right now political organizations can register themselves as social welfare groups, and they do not have to disclose their donors. Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS is one such group).

      I think there are already significant restrictions.

      The legislative branch tends to not enjoy passing laws that limit what they are able to do, and they tend to enjoy voting to repeal or amend existing laws. You realize that you are relying on the people who pass laws to pass laws that limit how they can make money, right? How much support do you think there is for those laws? If you would like to cite specific laws to limit how congress can make money that are currently in effect, then that would help your position.

      The real solution is much simpler: devolve power (and money) back from the federal level to state and local institutions. Everything becomes much more manageable, cheaper, and more accountable at the state and local level.

      I'm not sure that stripping the federal government of its powers is quite as easy as you think. In fact, promoting that might even make you start to look like a needle in the NSA's haystack. This is the problem, and this problem cannot be fixed without fixing the problems in the legislative branch first. You can't strip the federal government of its power if the legislative branch wants everything to stay the same. The legislative branch is the second piece of the solution, after taking our election process back from the people who are in power.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    58. Re:Proud? by Guy+Harris · · Score: 2

      Dear Not-quite-so Educated Citizen:

      From the Encyclopedia Britianica:

      "Although many of the Founding Fathers acknowledged that slavery violated the core American Revolutionary ideal of liberty, their simultaneous commitment to private property rights, principles of limited government, and intersectional harmony prevented them from making a bold move against slavery.

      I sincerely hope they were not so delusional as to think peoples' slaves were "private property". A slave is stolen property - the slave's life has been stolen from him or her. And a government so limited as to be unable to prevent somebody from completely depriving somebody else of their freedom by owning them is a government that's too limited.

      "Insersectional harmony", OK, if that's purely pragmatism, maybe they couldn't, in practice, just get rid of slavery. (Treating "intersectional harmony" as more important than "giving people seized at weaponpoint and sold as property the rights stolen from them" is a major moral failure, just as giving "property rights" or "limited government" priority over that is.)

  3. Re:Why? by VortexCortex · · Score: 3, Informative

    It's called jihad.

    When an entire religion declares that non-members are subhuman kafirs who deserve death, and the "moderate" members of that religion tacitly allow that, it's bad enough.

    But it's even worse when that religion places the "holy" duty of jihad on all its members to go out and literally wage war against kafirs.

    You reap what you sow.

    TL;DR: Old School McCarthyism

  4. Re: Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Why you ask? Because despite your bigotry, if you had read the article you would have noticed the guy is Hindu.

  5. Re:Why? by scubamage · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You realize, that Muslim extremists are to Islam what the Westboro Baptist Church, Tripura, Assam, Odisha, anti-abortion bombers, and Hutaree are for Christianity, right? Sickening examples that leave the majority just as disgusted as you, the outside observer.

  6. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's called imperialism.

    When an entire country declares that non-members are subhuman johnny-foreigners who deserve death, and the "moderate" citizens of that country tacitly allow that, it's bad enough.

    But it's even worse when that country places the "holy" duty of detection of terrorism on all its citizens to go out and literally wage war against johnny foreigners.

    You reap what you sow.

  7. Re:Why? by jcr · · Score: 4, Informative

    Didn't read the article, did you?

    The author's not a muslim, and even if he had been, his treatment was asinine.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  8. Re:Why? by Mitchell314 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... when they came for the hindus, I said nothing.

    --
    I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
  9. Freedom to travel by fermion · · Score: 5, Insightful
    On hallmark of a civilized democratic society is the freedom to travel. One way to insure that a populous remains subservient and ignorant is to limit travel. This is because it limits experiences. For instance, if kids stay in the square couple miles that define their neighborhood, they may never learn there are other options, and that people do live in luxury. I recall attending a summer retreat with a guy from the Texas valley and how surprised he was at how big the houses were in around the the retreat. This is why many high school will encourage students to go away for college, which I agree with unless it imposes huge debts.

    In any case, while the argument can be made he could have driven or taken the bus instead of flown, and so travel is not infringed, there are cases when air travel is the only viable option. Therefore the security theater that has popped up over the past decade can only be construed as an attack on our right to travel, and, along with the job creation program called military action and surveillance, transform us into a citizenry whose ability to grow and become education is much less that the previous generation.

    --
    "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    1. Re:Freedom to travel by Eivind · · Score: 2

      Absolutely. By going away from home, you do not only learn new stuff about the place you're going, you also learn new stuff about your home. A lot of things just aren't VISIBLE if they've been that way every day of your life, you just don't notice, and tend not to consider that alternatives exist.

      I learnt a whole lot about my home-country (Norway) while living abroad for 4 years. Things that are hard to notice, when one country is all you *really* know. And no, watching movies or reading books or whatever is not at all the same as actually changing your location.

  10. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Actually the flaw is yours. Did the fact that not all members of the Nazi party were fully committed to "the cause" make that group any less dangerous? No, it did not.

    The religion of Islam has as its cause the conversion of all people to its faith, either willingly or by force. Conversion from Islam to another religion is the "crime" of apostasy and punishible by death. This group, as a whole, is dangerous. Just look at what is happening to christians in Egypt.

    Perhaps some innocent Nazis were detained and searched too. Boo hoo.

  11. Re:Why? by buchner.johannes · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The feeling he describes, from lost security and violation of personal rights by security officers, police and flight company -- it's terror.

    Just because of a false positive, and because people don't know the difference between a Hindu/Indian and a Muslim/Pakistani, and are "too smart" to ask directly.

    I wonder how many more false positives like this happen, with similarly Kafkaesque stories and no satisfactory conclusion (compensation for raiding the wrong home, anyone?).

    --
    NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
  12. Don't fly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This is what I don't get about people these days.

    None of you are willing to sacrifice ANYTHING or inflict ANY kind of inconvenience upon yourself to deal with the issues that need to be dealt with. You just sit there and whine and complain about everything, you make up excuses from thin air and say you've got no choice. Well, news flash, you do.

    You want to get rid of the TSA?

    Don't fly.

    It's that simple. No, don't tell me you have to. You don't. You get enough people together and you all refuse to fly until the TSA is dismantled, and you know what'll happen? The airlines will get things changed in a hurry and the TSA will evaporate in a puff of invalid logic. It's that simple!

    "Oh but it isn't and I have no choice and I need to fly and-"...

    Yeah, that right there, that's the reason why the TSA still exists. You're unwilling to inconvenience yourself. None of you are. So the TSA will continue to inconvenience you instead, because they've got you by the balls (sometimes literally) and they know it. They'll continue to squeeze and squeeze, they'll expand out into the rest of the world like a cancerous tumor and then, when you find yourself in a police state and the TSA controls all major forms of travel- you'll wonder why you didn't do something sooner.

    The fact that you think you have no choice is precisely what they want you to think, because that is what gives them control over you.

    Cue the endless stream of "I have to fly, you're wrong, if I wish really hard I'm sure the TSA will go away all the same" replies.

    1. Re:Don't fly. by jareth-0205 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Fuck you. Flying is a necessary part of a normal life. Just because you have decided you don't need it doesn't make it a luxury. People with family abroad, jobs that are in different cities, or maybe someone who wants to see parts of the world and expand their mind beyond their backyard.

      The market-based solution of boycott isn't always the solution! Sometimes you need laws to protect minorities.

    2. Re:Don't fly. by _anomaly_ · · Score: 2

      You have a point about flying abroad, to see family or for important (like religious, not sporting) events.

      But the GP does have a point... there is a LOT of flying being done by a big portion of those who are up in arms over how the TSA is treating people. A lot of flying that doesn't have to happen. You're right that in a "free" country, we should be able to fly for our vacations, but if principles important to you contradict that, then don't fly. You can drive anywhere in the continental US for a vacation. Some may say it even enhances the experience, being able to see more. You can drive to work if you work in a different city. Just leave earlier.

      The point being that if those who are so vehemently opposed to how the TSA operates would act upon those principles, then the airlines would begin to feel it. And we all know that the government wouldn't allow the airlines to start collapsing.

      Even eliminating flying for vacation and unnecessary business travel (I regularly drive for work when it's only 4-6 hours, when I know others would fly for that kind of business trip) would make a huge impact.

      --
      "I have no special gift, I am only passionately curious." - Albert Einstein
    3. Re:Don't fly. by CyberKnet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, that right there, that's the reason why the TSA still exists. You're unwilling to inconvenience yourself. None of you are.

      I haven't flown in 11 years, and I routinely encourage others not to. Not for personal, not for business. Not at all.

      I routinely drive 200-500 mile round trips because I won't advocate a pat down or a naked picture. Not of my wife, my children, or even myself. It is an unacceptable term of flying.

      Don't tell me that I'm not willing to inconvenience myself sir, I find it repugnant, and offensive - and I have put my money where my mouth is.

      --
      Video meliora proboque deteriora sequor - Ovidius
    4. Re:Don't fly. by Wovel · · Score: 2

      The market solution of boycott is absurd. This is not a Market problem. The TSA is not a Market driven organization. The TSA is a government entity. People need to stop believing their congressman is Ok. Fly all you want. Not flying will not change the TSA, not even a little. It is Naive and childish to believe boycotting a commercial enterprise will somehow affect government behavior.

      If you voted for a republican or democrat in the last election, if you didn't vote in the last election, you are the problem. Boycotting the airlines does not help. Change your congress person. Whoever they are, they have contributed to this problem.

  13. Re:Evidence? by Ardyvee · · Score: 2

    The issue here is that unless somebody is willing to talk to the airline, check phone records, ask family and somehow get lucky in obtaining all that information (good luck trying to verify this story with any of the three letter agencies), there is just no evidence whatsoever anybody could ever present about this. And this is a more important issue than whether or not it indeed happened.

    --
    I don't care if I'm wrong. I only care about everyone obtaining something from the discussion.
  14. Re:Why? by Dog-Cow · · Score: 5, Informative

    Um, no. The Talmud doesn't say that. You should probably stop reading Neo-Nazi and Jihadist websites.

  15. Re:In the the land of he free by intermodal · · Score: 5, Funny

    In the the land of he free and the home of the brave.*

    *some restrictions may apply.

    Prosser: But the plans were on display.
    Arthur Dent: On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar.
    Prosser: That's the display department.
    Arthur Dent: With a torch.
    Prosser: The lights had probably gone.
    Arthur Dent: So had the stairs.
    Prosser: But you did see the notice, didn't you?
    Arthur Dent: Oh, yes. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign outside the door saying "Beware of the Leopard." Ever thought of going into advertising?

    --
    In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
  16. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Since the the entire religion is based on the koran and states that all non-muslims are infidels i think his statement is accurate to within round off error.

    On a less accurate note I have been led to believe that the crazies are the ones running most of the show while the sane ones don't have the intestinal fortitude to stop them. Kinda like our congress, so much crazy crap is going on and so little being done about it by the sane ones.

  17. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    How did he know the men in his house were "large?"

    They tried on his sweaters and stretched the head-holes.

  18. Re:Why? by SJHillman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Actually the flaw is yours. Did the fact that not all members of the Nazi party were fully committed to "the cause" make that group any less dangerous? No, it did not."

    But it did mean that we didn't prosecute all Nazis for war crimes just because they were Nazis.

    Also, newsflash, many major religions support the cause of converting others or killing them. Including Christians and Jews. A clear majority of Muslims think that's an outdated concept just as much as Christians and Jews do too. It's just some relatively tiny sects that still support it (see Westboro Baptist Church).

  19. Re:shaking by Somebody+Is+Using+My · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Actually, the after-effects from a surge adrenalin was why he was shaking.

    Admittedly, caused by the "fight or flight" reflex triggered by the fear engendered by the abusive of authority administered upon his person.

    Its literally his body and muscles, all hyped up to run but having no escape, trembling as it releases all that energy and tension to return to normal functioning.

    Remember when "fear of flying" used to be about the planes crashing?

  20. Explosives Residue by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If somebody tested positive for explosives residue going through airport security I'd be suspicious too.

    The problem here is the level of expertise of the people responding to this situation. It's like these people are DMV rejects. They do not have the training or even basic knowledge needed to deal with this situation AT ALL.

    1. Re:Explosives Residue by wbr1 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      The TSA is an employment program for low income, low education punks. That said, do you know how many false positives the explosives residue detector generates? I do not. I could google it, but I am fairly certain that most of the testing is done by the makers of the machines, and hence untrustable by me. Maybe the guy ate one to many airport bean burritos and had a methan riddled fart trapped in his pants that set off the detector.

      Maybe, just maybe some TSA bullie saw hindu clothes and some headgear and said let me fuck with this rag head, and pushed the little button that makes the machine light up regardless of whether residue is present.

      --
      Silence is a state of mime.
    2. Re:Explosives Residue by kaiser423 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This guy got a raw deal. Hell, at LAX I was running late for my plane with my family and had some luggage that had tested positively for bomb residue just a week earlier (I was working at an explosives facility...). I, of course, got stopped for more luggage swiping because I had recently tested positive. While in the plexiglass cube surrounded by TSA agents I yell at my wife to take all of my luggage, everything except my shoes and wallet because they're going to test positive for bomb residue. A TSA agent was literally standing next to me as I'm telling my wife to take my stuff because it has bomb residue on it, and no one cared.

      Then they didn't even test me because it appeared that all I was travelling with was a wallet and flip flops. Shouldn't that also be some kind of warning sign?

      The advantages of being a white male I guess.

    3. Re:Explosives Residue by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 2

      So you're saying these four TSA agents at LAX are not representative of the others?

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
  21. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You realize you're an idiot, right?

    I can't stand the Westboro Baptist Church as much as anyone else. However, they are not strapping bombs to themselves and blowing things up. They have not sworn to destroy America. They simply have a warped mind and a big mouth. Muslim extremists do act violently on their extreme views.

  22. Re:Why? by Jason+Levine · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So he's guilty of the crime of "flying while Muslim"?

    Oh wait... He's Hindu.

    So he's guilty of the crime of "flying while having a name that someone thinks sounds Muslim."

    Airport Security: Just when you think they've gone as low as they can go, they dig deep and go lower! Congrats TSA (and other agencies since home searching isn't something the TSA does) for continually coming in below our already lowered our expectations.

    --
    My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  23. Re:Evidence? by RoTNCoRE · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think opening a newspaper recently, and following anything happening regarding the NSA, Snowden, Manning, Greenwald, etc. might provide you with some circumstantial evidence that would indicate that the scenario described is plausible. Hell, even if it isn't true, I'm angry that things have gotten to the point that I can believe it. Further, now that Clapper has gone in front Congress and been caught lying without repercussions, even a flat denial from officials doesn't cut it for me anymore. This is a problem for our now seemingly nominal democracy. I heard a great line from Ron Paul - I may misquote: "The truth becomes treason in an empire of lies". We're there.

  24. Re:Why? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There were communist spies in the state department. And there was almost zero intersection between the communist spies and the lives destroyed by McCarthism. So your point is...?

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  25. Re:shaking by stewsters · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Or more terminologically correct, "Terror".

    Terrorism:
    Terrorism is the systematic use of terror, often violent, especially as a means of coercion.

    Terrorist:
    A person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims.

    So really, you, like Miranda last week, had a run in with terrorists and lived.

  26. Re:Why? by Chrisq · · Score: 3, Funny

    There really were witches in Salem, too. Prove that there weren't!

    Sure, just look into my crystal ball ... Oh wait!

  27. The sheer level of ignorance by barlevg · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This reminded me of last year's massacre at a Sikh temple in Wisconsin, where the gunman thought he was attacking a mosque. Not that Muslims deserve to be targeted for hate crimes and unconstitutional detention any more than non-Muslims, but detaining a Hindu on suspicion of being a radical Muslim? It would be like detaining an Episcopalian on suspicion of being an IRA terrorist. After all, Whitey all looks the same...

    1. Re:The sheer level of ignorance by Archwyrm · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually it would be like detaining an Irish pagan on suspicion of being an IRA terrorist. Hinduism and Islam are entirely unrelated to each other. Episcopalians and Catholics on the other hand might as well belong to the same religion.. Oh wait, they do. Ironic how the kernel of your post was about ignorance.

      --
      Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power. -- Mussolini
  28. Some interesting bits in TFA by dkleinsc · · Score: 5, Informative

    Another agent came over and handed me a paper slip

    Notice that he's already receiving different treatment, despite absolutely zero evidence that he's any kind of threat to anyone.

    “You can leave, but I’m keeping your bag.”

    Something that would have been interesting to try at this point: "Ok, then. I presume there's a procedure for handling bags you've collected in this fashion, let's fill out the necessary paperwork and do everything by the book, and I'll need to be kept informed about which office to contact for retrieving such evidence once you've discovered that there's nothing criminal about it."

    “What is your religion?”

    This whole line of questioning is so obviously in violation of the Free Exercise clause it's not even funny.

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  29. I've Felt That Feeling by Jason+Levine · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I've felt that feeling to a much smaller degree when I found out that my identity was stolen and a credit card was opened in my name. We go about our lives confident that some things are safe. When we leave the house/apartment in the morning, we're confident that everything will be there when we get back. When we walk down the street, we're confident that our body won't be violated by some random stranger. When we go about our daily lives, we're confident that someone isn't - at that moment - opening lines of credit that will financially ruin us.

    We're confident about all this because the alternative is living in terror of assaults from all angles at every second and there's no way a sane mind could deal with this.

    So we convince ourselves that we (and our belongings, credit, loved ones, etc) are safe.

    And then something like this happens which shatters our illusion of safety. Mine was a bit abstract (your credit score isn't exactly a physical entity) and was caught early so the impact wasn't as big. The author's impact was worse because his body safety illusion was shattered, his concept of having the freedom to move as he pleased was destroyed, and the safety of his personal effects was violated. Rape victims probably feel something similar. We don't really have a word that accurately describes it because it isn't a feeling we feel often enough.

    Oh and if you think you don't have an illusion of safety because you've read stories like this and know it can happen - you're wrong. Even though you read the stories, part of your brain rationalizes away the terror of the situation as "things that happen to other people" and you maintain your internal safety illusion until something like this happens.

    --
    My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  30. Re:Proud To Be An American by Joining+Yet+Again · · Score: 3

    There's a song for that. (and, no, it's not that shitty South Park thing, but some fine Denis Leary)

  31. Re:Why? by Bongo · · Score: 4, Informative

    It is about numbers. You can read books by Muslim women talking about what they see as dominant trends in their culture, in places like Egypt, Gaza, and where Islamic culture spreads to Europe and America. It isn't as simple as "extremists are a tiny minority". I also see it personally with friends who come from Muslim families -- despite being born in the West, they cannot extricate themselves from the old culture without being completely ostracised from their family. Many would rather conform than leave. And to do it they'll live a double life. Anyway like I say, read what Moslem women like Nonie Darwish, Ghazal Omid, Qanta Ahmed.

    A sample from Darwish: "We often hear that “moderate” Muslims are the majority and that terrorist supporters are a minority fringe group. However, when genuine Islamic moderate leaders stand firm against terrorism, we do not see majority Muslim support for their views. To the contrary, such “moderates” shout the speakers down, condemn, and threaten them."

    Anyway this is a separate point to racial profiling by security services.

  32. Re:Proud To Be An American by jareth-0205 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You're proud to be a bully? Go you!

  33. Re:Why? by alexgieg · · Score: 3, Informative

    Since the the entire religion is based on the koran and [it] states that all non-muslims are infidels

    No, it doesn't. The Koran distinguishes believers on one extreme, infidels on the other, and "people of the book" in the middle, who must be protected by believers even though they're (thought of as being) in error. Christians and Jews are explicitly cited as "people of the book". Afterwards Buddhists, Hinduists and others were added to the list.

    By the way: traditional Muslims in Egypt have been helping protect Christian churches from the fundamentalist Christian-hating ones. In particular, they've been protecting Coptic Christian churches, the same Coptics that both Catholics and Orthodox Christians were persecuting several centuries ago and who had to flee from Europe and find refuge there, in Islamic Egypt, back in the day fundamentalist Islam hadn't been invented yet (this one's an English Puritanism-inspired 18th-century innovation).

    --
    Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
  34. Re: Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't think it's an important point at all.

    It doesn't matter if the guy was Hindu, Muslim, Atheist, Christian or Xenu him-fucking-self, this SHOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED.

  35. Re:Why? by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Muslim extremists do act violently on their extreme views.

    I've actually seen a group of Phelpsies. I've interacted with them. A friend of mine had a bogus police report filed against him by them.

    You, on the other hand, have never met a Muslim extremist. In fact, although I don't know you from Adam's off ox, I feel confident that you don't actually know any Muslims personally at all -- or if you do, you're unaware of their religion because there was no reason for the subject to come up, particularly when talking with a guy like you. Would you want to talk to you about religion? I'm feeling dirty right now.

    And BTW, anti-abortion bombers actually are, by definition, "blowing things up". In know, I know, no true Scotsman.

    --
    I am not a crackpot.
  36. Re:Why? by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Based on polling, between 10 and 20% of Muslims are "radicalized". That represents at least 200,000,000 people. They are following their scripture's teachings. Not surprisingly, there are Muslim terrorist attacks in the Middle East almost daily. Pakistan is particularly hard hit, and most victims of Muslim violence are other Muslims.

    The "Christians" that you've mentioned there are not following the teachings in their scriptures, and they number in the hundreds total. They've killed a few people. On average, they've killed fewer people in the last 100 years than the Muslims kill in a day.

    Which group should I be more worried about?

  37. Re:Just fuck the fucking Muzzies already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    I have the sneaking suspicion that you're sort of an idiot.

  38. Re:Why? by ultranova · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Nope! It turns out, Senator McCarthy was right. There really were Communists in the State Department.

    This forces us to re-evaluate the entire phrase of "McCarthyism" as the current (wrong) meaning implies falsehood. Please stop using this phrase, it is deprecated.

    It is useful as ever. McCarthy took the allegation "there are communist spies", expanded that to "all communists are spies" and finally conducted show trials to condemn more or less random people, all to boost his own career. This is, of course, entirely analogous to this story: "there are muslim terrorists" -> "all muslims are terrorists" -> "this guy might be a muslim! Break down his door!"

    It's a tactic with a long and bloody pedigree. McCarthy was simply a less capable Hitler wannabe. And so are the current anti-muslim fearmongers.

    --

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

  39. Re:Why? by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 2

    When an entire religion declares that non-members are subhuman kafirs who deserve death

    Why are we talking about Afrikaner Calvinism?

  40. Re: Why? by dotancohen · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The fact that the SUMMARY leaves out this very important point shows how bad the editors are.

    I fail to see where the guy's religion comes into the picture. There is a difference between profiling and between hating Muslims. One is a security measure, the other is bigotry.

    Oh, and I'm an Israeli jew. Half my good neighbours are Muslims. Of course, my country has an existential threat, not a power-hungry government, so our citizens are able to make this distinction.

    --
    It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
  41. Re:Why? by catfood · · Score: 4, Informative

    Yes, you idiot. The passage you quote is Rabbi Yochanan being slapped down for saying something stupid and wrong.

  42. completely crooked, biased summary by slashmydots · · Score: 2, Informative

    Let me post my version of the summary:
    He had explosives residue all over him according to multiple tests
    - The End

    You can all put your race cards away now

    1. Re:completely crooked, biased summary by idontgno · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Your contention is "He was just asking for it"?

      Make sure to mention that line of thinking if you get called to jury duty. I'm sure the victim doesn't want you on the jury any more than you want to be on the jury. Perhaps even more.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    2. Re:completely crooked, biased summary by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 2

      I read the fine article, and I came to a different conclusion than you. Just curious: in what was he behaving like a wise-ass punk in front of the scanner and again in front of the pat-down? I thought his behavior was surprisingly calm, and I'd find it challenging to handle myself as well as he did were I to find myself in a similar situation. Thankfully enough, I'm white, so that's unlikely to happen.

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    3. Re:completely crooked, biased summary by Whorhay · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Bullshit, he tested positive for chemicals which are also used in explosives. That doesn't warrant holding someone for longer than it takes to determine they don't have explosives on them or in their luggage. On top of that they then apparently went and searched his appartment, because he had chemical residues on his person.

      I've worked in close proximity to military working dogs that did bomb sniffing. Their training is such that when in doubt they sit and indicate a chemical. I can't tell you how many times I saw the base I was at go into a temporary lockdown which they searched a truck more thoroughly because a dog sat down. It doesn't mean that it isn't a valid form of detection but that false positives are far more likely than you might think and should be handled in a professional manner.

    4. Re:completely crooked, biased summary by whoever57 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Black box gave false positive result.

      Under-trained and under-educated interrogators were not capable of either asking relevant questions or understanding his answers.

      Interrogators resorted to low-level torture (not providing water after multiple hours).

      Unconstitutional search of his apartment was conducted.

      FTFY

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    5. Re:completely crooked, biased summary by chrismcb · · Score: 2

      but he knew how it worked, and he got what he had coming.

      Really? What he had coming was to get on a plane on going on his vacation. I'm not sure where you are from, but here in America we have a right to be "wise ass punks" (not agreeing with you in saying he was)
      Lets suppose you, a fine upstanding citizen, than does nothing wrong, not even speed, gets pulled aside and told they are taking you to the back room for a further patdown and screening... What would you do? "oh yes sir, right away sir, whatever you say sir." You KNOW you've done nothing wrong, and your family is waiting for you to catch the flight, which leaves in 20 minutes. And you will just go silently? If you don't say something, anything, then YOU get what is coming to you...

  43. Re:Just fuck the fucking Muzzies already by Des+Herriott · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That's a shame then, a case of mistaken identity. Unfortunately this sort of thing happens occasionally, but it is the Muzzes to blame not the authorities defending against them.

    I generally don't presume to speak for others, but in this case I'll make an exception.

    On behalf of everyone who isn't a bigoted moronic arsewipe, I'd just like to say to you: You are an oxygen thief.

  44. Re:Why? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 4, Interesting

    TL;DR: Old School McCarthyism

    You don't know how right you are.

    "Why do so many countries want to attack us?" the person asked.

    The general replied that America stands in the way of them reaching their objective, which is to force everybody to comply with sharia law.

    That general is Keith Alexander, head of the NSA
    Yes, the head of the NSA is a fox news nutbag.
    McCarthy is alive and well.

    --
    When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  45. Re:Why? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 3, Informative

    I think I can safely say that's an unfair representation of the text you quoted? I mean, people who say that the Koran says to kill non-believers are off base(it does say to kill ex-believers, which isn't much better), Shariah law(the "accepted" interpretation of the Koran's rules) suggests a tax on non-believers is the most that can be demanded.

  46. SPOILERS by GameboyRMH · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Why did this happen?

    The guy's Indian, and to your average dimwitted, racist TSA goon that's just another variety of "terr'ist sand-nigger." They're not even smart enough to be racist properly.

    This led to him getting an enhanced pat-down with an explosive swab test on his pants which came back positive for some unknown reason, and everything snowballed from there like some kind of comedy skit, where everything he did and said was interpreted as matching the profile of a terrorist.

    Now this raises the question, is this how they treat anyone who they think is a Muslim? Explosive swab test and then run them through the wringer if it tests positive, complete with searching their home?

    This is why I don't fly in clothes that I've handled gasoline or worked on cars in, you never know what might have been absorbed into the fibers.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    1. Re:SPOILERS by kilfarsnar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Most of us have "garage" clothes and don't wear them out. You know, because we have some self-respect and class.

      And so would any real terrorist, but they don't seem to consider that.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    2. Re:SPOILERS by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2

      The guy's Indian, and to your average dimwitted, racist TSA goon that's just another variety of "terr'ist sand-nigger." They're not even smart enough to be racist properly.

      You, sirrah, have made my morning, and I thank you for it!

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    3. Re:SPOILERS by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2

      Oh it's not hard, you just have to opt-out of the millimeter wave scanners while acting belligerent or even just wearing a T-shirt that quotes part of the US constitution about searches, then they'll start to caress you EVERYWHERE. You can get as big of a hardon as you want and they can't do anything...and in front of all those people! If you make even more of a fuss during the search, they might even take you into the back room where the really naughty stuff happens! ;-)

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    4. Re:SPOILERS by tipo159 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Explosive test comes up positive in an airport and you wonder why they react strongly? You truly are a fuckwit.

      A few years ago, I got a new computer bag. I flew with it a couple of times, but the first time that the bag was randomly selected for a swab test, it came up positive. I got lots of questions (in the public area). Eventually I had to provide some contact and other information and was allowed on my way. A few flights later, the bag was selected again and came up positive again. Got the same kind of questions and had to complete the same form again. After that I stopped flying with that bag.

      I was not interrogated in a private room and I wasn't kept off of the plane by the airline. Then again, I am pasty white and I don't fly Jet Blue.

    5. Re:SPOILERS by John+Pfeiffer · · Score: 4, Funny

      The guy's Indian, and to your average dimwitted, racist TSA goon that's just another variety of "terr'ist sand-nigger." They're not even smart enough to be racist properly.

      Yeah, that's basically the level of dumbness I've expected from people blinded by terrorism-induced paranoia. I mean, I guess I can kinda sympathize; the world is getting pretty fucking scary, but a large chunk of that is precisely because everyone's walking around so crazy and paranoid!

      Funny story: Back in like 2002, I was living in an apartment over an Indian restaurant, and we had an earthquake— now this was in Vermont, mind you, and I'm from New Jersey so like, earthquake, what? —and I swear to god, my first thought was "Oh shit, some fucking rednecks couldn't tell Indians from Arabs and bombed the restaurant!" (Not one of my finest moments; sprawled out prone on the living room floor, looking like Garfield in a car window.)

      That's a good tip about the clothes, by the way.

      --

      Friend: "The NIC is misconfigured..." Me: "No prob, I'll just telnet in and fix it." *Silence*
    6. Re:SPOILERS by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      No, don't you know, terrorists are stupid and we're smart. Don't you watch movies?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    7. Re:SPOILERS by tinkerghost · · Score: 4, Informative
      Silver nitrate in the film will set off the detectors they use - as will a wide variety of hand lotions and even perfumes.
      Other things that will set off the detector/test if you handle your lugage at any time while contaminated with them include:
      • potting soil, grass patch, plant food, and of course straight fertilizer.
      • Cleaning products - anything with amonia in it.
      • attending a show with pyrotechnics
      • gun powder residue - black or smokeless.
      • nitrate based medicines for heart conditions
      • insecticides

      The list goes on, but the point is, even transporting your lugage in the same trunk as you carried potting soil in 2 months ago is going to get you flagged as a positive. After that, it's going down hill for you.

    8. Re:SPOILERS by TheCarp · · Score: 2

      Funny thing about "testing positive for explosive residue", is more loaded than accurate.

      The test is not for "explosive residue" it is for redidues of categories of substances which include both explosives and various known and possibly unknown substances which it can't distinguish from them. The problem is you are only looking at specificity, that it can detect explosives.

      The population of people who are not blowing up planes is much larger than the people who are. In fact, the population of people who handle some form of explosives occasionally, or come into contact with them (possibly through contact with someone who does) is itself a much larger population than people looking to do anything maliscious, and to such a degree that even a miniscule false positive rate is far too much.

      Saying that someone "tested positive" is far too strong for such a test. If you see a guy in the vicinity of a shed, and that shed has an explosives lab in it, and he tests positive on a test like this, then yes he is testing positive for explosives.

      J Random public just testing positive on this test is NOT credibly a positive result for explosives or evil intent with them.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    9. Re:SPOILERS by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 2

      Admitting that you have read Kafka, or using a Kafka reference, will get you tagged as some sort of intellectual subversive.

      --
      Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
    10. Re:SPOILERS by garyebickford · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Saying that someone "tested positive" is far too strong for such a test.

      This is true especially for cases where the 'true positives' are a very small percentage of the total population. For example, if the test has a 5% false positive rate, and 1% of the population is actually positive, then for every true positive there will .05*.99 = 4.95 false positives. IOW, if you test positive you are still just slightly more than 20% likely to be true positive.

      This is a well know problem in medical testing and drug testing (though it's often forgotten in the drug testing business). There is a name for this rule but I forget what it is. Here's a better explanation (Bayes' FTW).

      Suppose that you are worried that you might have a rare disease. You decide to get tested, and suppose that the testing methods for this disease are accurate 99 percent of the time (regardless of whether the results come back positive or negative). Suppose this disease is actually quite rare, occurring randomly in the general population in only one of every 10,000 people.

      If your test results come back positive, what are your chances that you actually have the disease?

      Do you think it is approximately: (a) .99, (b) .90, (c) .10, or (d) .01?
        Surprisingly, the answer is (d), less than 1 percent chance that you have the disease!

      --
      It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
  47. Re:shaking by asylumx · · Score: 2

    Commonly known as "Shock" -- similar to what you feel after a car accident or any other traumatic experience. In my opinion, this is the kind of thing a citizen should have rights to sue over for damages.

  48. Re:Why? by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 2

    Stalin was also right: there really were people sabotaging the nation's 5 year plans and/or plotting to overthrow him. It's not really a consolation to those who were falsely accused. And in that case we're talking actual traitors and saboteurs; one has to wonder to which of the McCarthy commies that label could be applied. It seems more of a case of "disagree with me = treason".

    The dictionary defines McCarthyism thus:
    1. the practice of making accusations of disloyalty, especially of pro-Communist activity, in many instances unsupported by proof or based on slight, doubtful, or irrelevant evidence.
    2. the practice of making unfair allegations or using unfair investigative techniques, especially in order to restrict dissent or political criticism.


    The current definition seems pretty accurate to me, even if there really were a couple of communists.

    --
    If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
  49. Why is almost nobody questioning this account? by NiteShaed · · Score: 5, Insightful

    An uncorroborated story, retold in amazing detail (he remembers almost everything said to him so clearly that he's comfortable using quotation marks for dialog), complete with a clever protagonist who's at the mercy of idiots (the Jet Blue agent who, despite working at one of the busiest airports in the US seems never to have encountered anyone who isn't a WASP, the TSA drones who think they're working in the Hotel California, the cops who can't read dates on an ID card and mistake venture capital with capitol one credit cards because, y'know, they're a bunch of blue-collar dummies. Luckily though, our protagonist is clever enough to be able to guess their source of confusion immediately). Then, the chilling conclusion, where he returns home to find almost everything exactly in place, except for the missing photograph. Why would whatever shadowy TLA actually take a photograph off the wall? If they were interested in what it showed, might it not just occur to them to, I dunno, take a picture of it themselves? Then there's the procedural inconsistencies...the NYPD officer can't even be present when he's patted down "because when we pat people down, it’s to lock them up." Really? NYC, the focus of the "Stop and Frisk" controversy actually has officers who believe they can't do a pat-down unless it's during an arrest? And going back to the uncorroborated nature of the story, he would have at least had some voicemails from himself during this ordeal, except once again the universe conspired against him and when he called his parents, "Unfortunately, my mom’s voicemail was full, and my dad had never even set his up".

    I'm not going to go so far as to say that the blogger here is lying, but there's more than enough here to make me very skeptical.

    --
    Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
    1. Re:Why is almost nobody questioning this account? by LoRdTAW · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You have a very good point. Someone posts a scary story. Story is posted and people go ape shit about loss of freedoms, discrimination, etc. But how do we know its true? I am not dismissing it but look at the frenzy of replies where everyone read a story and did not stop to think "is this true"? Same thing happens on facebook where people share scary or touching stories with little proof of their truth.

      Goes to show you the power the Internet can have to sway public opinion. We live in an age where people have mostly abandoned critical thinking and take things for face value. And the internet allows such false stories to spread like wildfire across the globe. In the old days such stories were old wives tales and were local to villages or towns. Reminds me of a story someone shared on facebook about a secret meeting between record execs and prison execs to make gangsta rap more popular so blacks would emulate the music and fill the prisons up to make the prison companies more money. The kicker was the storyteller was a supposed attendee of the meeting but was so afraid for his life that he refused to name any names (including his own) or locations. No proof whatsoever and hundreds of comments were posted from people who believed the story and expressed outrage and anger. Its really sad.

    2. Re:Why is almost nobody questioning this account? by houghi · · Score: 2

      FUD does not only work on Internet. It works well in the real world too. That is how we got in this mess in the first place.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  50. Re:In the the land of he free by Are+You+Kidding · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You got the wrong Arthur Dent quote - should have been this: “It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see..." "You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?" "No," said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like so straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people." "Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy." "I did," said Ford. "It is." "So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't people get rid of the lizards?" "It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."

  51. Re:Why? by mariox19 · · Score: 2

    It was not "being a communist"; it was being a member of the Communist Party, a secret political organization swearing allegiance to a foreign government that was nominally our foe and having as its expressed purpose the overthrow of the United States Constitution and government.

    --

    quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.

  52. Re:Proud To Be An American by interval1066 · · Score: 2

    I don't think getting snuffed 10 years after you mastermind an attack that kills 3000 people is getting fucked over 1000 times worse, but what do I know?

    --
    Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
  53. Re:Why? by mariox19 · · Score: 2

    Two words: Alger Hiss. Two more words: You're wrong. Two final words: (I'll leave this as an exercise for the reader.)

    --

    quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.

  54. True Story by barlevg · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A friend of mine set off the explosives detectors while trying to fly home for spring break. He hadn't been in contact with any cleaning products or fertilizers or anything like that, and he couldn't for the life of him figure out what the culprit could be.

    In the end, it turned out it was his sweat-absorbing socks. I'm not a chemist, so I don't know precisely what it was in sweat that can set off their detectors (ammonia, maybe?), but for everyone's sake I hope TSA had some good hazmat disposal protocols for those things.

    Of course, my friend is white, so no back-alley interrogation for him.

    1. Re:True Story by Firethorn · · Score: 2

      I'm not a chemist, so I don't know precisely what it was in sweat that can set off their detectors (ammonia, maybe?), but for everyone's sake I hope TSA had some good hazmat disposal protocols for those things.

      Wouldn't necessarily be the sweat itself, could have been something involved in the sock's material. Most explosive detectors look for a number of things, but nitrates is the big one. As the wiki page mentions, they can be detected in solution(don't need much) via an electrode, thus making a test for it quick&easy.

      One option is that maybe he ran through a freshly fertilized field and picked up enough to set the detector off.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
  55. Re:Why? by scubamage · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You mean a country that had a democratically elected leader until the US and UK organized a coup and then spent several years training secret police to murder and torture any secularists who didn't support the friendly puppet that they put in place? What do you have left when you have paid for all of the secularists to be killed? Let's be entirely honest about the history there. I admit that that country does have a grudge against us, but they have a really, REALLY good reason for it.

  56. Re:just leave. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "just leave" and your travel plans are destroyed.

    There goes your entire vacation or even worse your job. Air Travel is not optional.

    I'm sure he was hoping during this fiasco to get a later flight since TSA detained him, not late based on his actions. Once it is obvious you are getting on a flight At All it is too late to leave.

  57. Re: Why? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 4, Informative

    The converse that all terrorists are Muslim is a common sense generalization, however.

    All Terrorists are Muslims... Except the 94% that Aren't

    --
    When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  58. Re:Why? by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 2

    Nope! It turns out, Senator McCarthy was right. There really were Communists in the State Department.

    "After reviewing evidence from Venona and other sources, historian John Earl Haynes concluded that, of 159 people identified on lists used or referenced by McCarthy, evidence was substantial that nine had aided Soviet espionage efforts." -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_McCarthy

    Any moron can predict that one government has spies in the employ of a rival government. Here, I'll do it: "The United States has spies in the Chinese government!" There, in fifty years you can talk about how history proved me right.

    9 out of 159 does not make a person "right". McCarthy led a witch-hunt and ruined lives.

    "It is difficult to estimate the number of victims of McCarthyism. The number imprisoned is in the hundreds, and some ten or twelve thousand lost their jobs. In many cases simply being subpoenaed by HUAC or one of the other committees was sufficient cause to be fired. Many of those who were imprisoned, lost their jobs or were questioned by committees did in fact have a past or present connection of some kind with the Communist Party. But for the vast majority, both the potential for them to do harm to the nation and the nature of their communist affiliation were tenuous. Suspected homosexuality was also a common cause for being targeted by McCarthyism. The hunt for "sexual perverts", who were presumed to be subversive by nature, resulted in thousands being harassed and denied employment." -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism

    And of course, being a Communist, or believing in or speaking about communism, is not and cannot be a crime in the United States. It may be a silly, naive, and dangerous thing to be -- but the same is true about being a capitalist.

    --
    Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
    You cannot wash away blood with blood
  59. Re:Why? by alexgieg · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What is the penalty for apostasy in the Muslim religion?

    The same one applied in the Christian and Jewish religions: death.

    What? You thought either preached something different? No, they just don't put into practice. But that it's in the book all the same, it is.

    How old was Muhammad's wife? How old must a person be to be wed under Islamic law? How old must that wife be to have sex?

    Of legal age at the time. Of legal age under said law. :-)

    What? You think our Western laws aren't arbitrary either? Try talking to someone from 3613 CE an see what he thinks of your morality and the laws you think of as just. Just as a matter of perspective I'll say this: a radical progressive of the 1920's would feel welcome among the extreme right wing of the GOP of today. Ditto for us all in 100 years, never mind in 1600.

    We're all the cavemen of tomorrow.

    --
    Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
  60. Re:Why? by zrelativity · · Score: 2
    But even then their action does not make sense, because the subject in this case is not a muslim. His name would suggest that he is a Hindu Bengali from west Bengal, India. So the logic being employed is

    brown skinned -> some muslim are brown skinned -> "there are muslim terrorists" -> "all muslims are terrorists" -> "this guy might be a muslim! Break down his door!"

    there would appear to be some major flow in their passenger profiling

  61. like being a jew in WWII Germany by 0111+1110 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Living in the US with dark skin is like being a jew in NAZI Germany. Between "if you see something say something" white trash morons fingering every person that looks like a stereotypical Muslim to them and the typical dumb-as-a-rock law enforcement thugs who see every dark skinned person as a terrorist this is a country I would want to flee from.

    I wonder what would have happened if he had clammed up and refused to answer any of their questions. What he should have done is tried to leave the airport and fight to get back his possessions if necessary. Once an explosive detector is set off leaving the airport is really the best course of action for anyone. You won't be permitted to fly without being thoroughly violated at that point anyway. May as well come back and try your luck another day. TSA agents have no power to detain you. You are within your rights to take your stuff and walk away. If they try to physically stop you you have the right to defend yourself. The only power they have is the power to prevent you from flying that day out of that airport.

    --
    Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
  62. Re:In the the land of he free by ray-auch · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... and you cut off before the most important bit:

    "You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"
    "Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."
    "But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"
    “Because if they didn’t vote for a lizard, the wrong lizard might get in.”

  63. Re:Why is jet blue not paying the extra $700? by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

    Because they said they wanted his business when they took his money. If they did not want to deal with him they should never have taken his money.

    He paid $X for transport from Y to Z, they should be obligated to provide that one way or another. Just as you cannot normally cancel a flight once you purchase it, they should not be able to do so once they take the money.

  64. Re:Why? by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 2

    Or perhaps he just made the whole thing up? Since there is nothing in the story which would allow anyone else to corroborate his story.

    --
    The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  65. White American persecution complex ENGAGE! by GameboyRMH · · Score: 5, Informative

    I know! That's why we never heard of Constitution on Chest Guy, Little White Boy with Terrorist's Name & Friends, Veteran with Too Much Implanted Metal or TSA Pen. Tester Guy. The media just isn't interested in the plight of the white man.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  66. Re: Why? by Artifakt · · Score: 4, Funny

    According to his accusers, Mr. Xenu is guilty of extreme war crimes including mass murder by the use of nuclear weapons. There is no statute of limitations on such crimes and if his accusers are saying anything that might be corroborated enough to trigger a police or even customs investigation, that's grounds for adding him to the no fly lists. We also seem to have allegations that Mr. Xenu touched somebody's thetans, and I'm shocked, shocked I say, that apparently nobody has called Chris Hansen with these claims. I fully support adding Mr. Xenu to the no fly lists. (Particularly if the airplane in question resembles a gold plated DC-10).
                In addition, Mr. Xenu is alleged to be a space alien, and in the case where I have seen him hanging out outside the Scientology campus in Clearwater Fla. he certainly looked like one. and I have a degree in recognizing space aliens from the University of thousands of hours of Stargate-SG1, Farscape, and Trek. Body cavity searches thus constitute data of priceless scientific value. We ignore people's rights for everything else, why not for science?

    --
    Who is John Cabal?
  67. Re:Why? by LateArthurDent · · Score: 3, Informative

    Nope! It turns out, Senator McCarthy was right. There really were Communists in the State Department.

    This forces us to re-evaluate the entire phrase of "McCarthyism" as the current (wrong) meaning implies falsehood. Please stop using this phrase, it is deprecated.

    As I've pointed out before, if you think McCarthyism is wrong because he was accusing people who weren't communists of being communists, you don't get it. The problem with McCarthyism is that he was trying to hurt people for their political views. In this country, you have the right to be communist.

  68. He was showing too many warning signs by Sethra · · Score: 2

    Here is a guy who declined the scan and then tested positive for explosives during the routine pat down.
    He has no identification showing a fixed residence.
    He has no identification showing his work place.
    He can't provide a phone number they can call to verify his work.
    The two people he says he's meeting can't be reached by phone either.

    These are all legitimate red flags for security to follow up on.

    I don't see what the problem is here. This is actually the TSA doing what they should be doing.

    1. Re:He was showing too many warning signs by chrismcb · · Score: 2

      The ONLY thing that should be a warning sign is the positive test. Everything else is just hogwash. Are you saying you HAVE to have a workplace? You can't be travelling alone? He has to have papers?
      As far as TSA doing what they should be doing, why are they doing anything? Why do they exist.

  69. Re:Why? by romiz · · Score: 2

    You're hopelessly wrong about the origin of Copts. The term itself comes from the 'gpt' consonants in Egypt.

    They were living in Egypt before Muslims ever existed, and they still live there because even int the 9th century, Muslim invaders understood that expelling the vast majority of its population is not the right way to do a conquest. They resisted islamic assimilation for 14 centuries, including periods when they were violently reprimed for this. Except for a short period during the Crusades, there has been no direct conflict between Western Christians and Copts, and there was never any significant movement of population from Europe to Egypt.

  70. Re:Nowhere near blatantly corrupt by 0111+1110 · · Score: 2

    There is more than one type of corruption. The kind of corruption in the US is one of the government itself accepting large bribes from corporations and our police will beat you or kill you instead of accepting monetary bribes.

    Also offering $50 to someone who makes $6000/month is an insult, not a bribe. Try doing it with $5000 instead and see what happens. Probably he'd just keep the money and give you the ticket anyway, but at least you'd have a chance of success.

    --
    Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.