All developers are required to pay their $699 SCO licensing fees at the door.
It isn't a licensing fee. It's the price of paying the SCO lottery! For the low low price of $699, you have a chance at one of several fabulous prizes including $100k, a luxury car, and a night of terror on Darl's private yacht complete with built-in dungeon! Fun for the whole family!
Monopolies are okay. Abusing monopoly power is not. If Google starts using vendor lock-in and product tying to force its way into dominating other markets or by charging outrageous prices, then we have a problem.
The easiest one was when they asked to identify dolphins, they were the only ones in water.
A long time ago, I think the 1980s, I saw a TV program about image recognition. Scientists trained a computer to distinguish between photos of U.S. and Soviet tanks. It had 100% accuracy in the lab. Once they fed "real" photos taken by spies, they had mixed results. As it turned out, they took the training pictures on an Army base. One day they took pictures of Army tanks, the next day they took pictures of stolen Soviet tanks. However, the first day had clear skies, the second was overcast. In reality the program was just telling you if it was cloudy out or not.
Photo recognition is not an easy task, there are many variables. Fortunately, in the case of captchas, the human brain is much better suited to this than computers are currently.
RAMBUS wasn't really shit -- it had about a 20% advantage in workstation performance over SDRAM -- until DDR came out.
RDRAM is based on the same premise behind USB and SATA: cut the number of bits transmitted and increase the frequency to get higher throughput. This is a method that is proven to work. However, Rambus brought their technology to market before it was mature. They promised a simpler design, fewer errors, higher throughput. What they delivered was a complex mess of overheating chips that didn't perform up to its potential. They needed more time to develop RDRAM and to allow it to mature. That and not to submit submarine patents as standards. That pissed some people off, too.
Eventually I think we will see memory using the same ideas behind RDRAM, but implemented better. Modern motherboards are extremely complex in part because of the memory. That is a lot of traces and a lot of bits to move very quickly and in sync. This complexity is proven to cause problems, which is why we are unlikely to see 128 bit RAM anytime soon. I doubt we'll see truly serial (1 bit) RAM either, but I think fewer bits at a higher frequency is the answer. It will just take time for the technology to mature.
Here is a picture of what one looks like. Red Hat got its name because its founder wore a red baseball cap, and was known as "that guy in the red hat." When he made his own Linux distribution, he took that name. Later on when he started the Fedora project, I guess he grabbed a name of a hat that people would recognize to go along with the theme. "Fedora" probably sounds friendlier than "baseball cap" or "football helmet" anyway.
Not everyone needs fancy photo manipulation. Some people just need a piece of software that can resize, crop, convert between formats, change color depth, browse directories of thumbnails, etc. and Paint Shop Pro does that very well. Photoshop can do all that, but not before you get past the obtuse user interface. Photoshop also costs an order of magnitude more than Paint Shop Pro. Sure, The Gimp runs in Windows along with the other two programs, but how many people can get past its interface? I'm an experienced computer user and I can't. I've gotten it to do amazing things, through trial and error. Ask me to do something, and hope I stumble upon it with random clicking.
I use an old version of Paint Shop Pro because it works for the simple tasks I need it to, it was cheap (I think $50 at the time), and the UI doesn't actively try to hinder my work. FYI I am a programmer, not a graphic designer or photographer.
I highly recommend pair Netorks. I've been using them for years and never had a problem. In fact they've been good to me. They definitely cost more than a "value" host, but have some key benefits. Uptime is excellent, bandwidth is never a problem, shared servers aren't overloaded and in fact locked down once they're full. They use open source sofware including Apache, MySQL, and FreeBSD. More importantly, they donate a portion of their business' profits back into the OSS foundations/companies whose products they use. They have a private news server where you can talk about their services, and their owner/CEO Kevin Martin (privately owned) reads it regularly and posts there, even responding to customers' posts even though he encourages people to use formal customer service channels for most concerns. They even have their own DNS registrar, pairNIC.
I have no stake in this company. I am just an extremely satisfied customer that recommends them to all my friends because of the superior level of service I receive from them.
As for towing, you can tow a boat or trailer with a dirtbike, if that's what you want. The point is that a truck is optimized to tow things, i.e. it has better fuel efficiency and lower emissions hauling a two-ton box of furniture than your geo metro. You'd think someone as environmentally conscious as you would understand the advantages of that. And that someone browsing/. would be in a technical field that would require one to understand optimization./innocent expression
Really? I thought engines produced a maximal amount of torque at a given RPM, and with some math, you can figure out the maximum load of an engine. So, for example, a dirt bike would not be able to produce sufficient force to move a mass of, say, 5,000 pounds while an F-350 could. Am I wrong?
there are lots of safe vehicles with heavy/long trailers on our roads; they're called semis.
Semis have 18 wheels and are wider even than a big pickup, even a duallie (sic). A semi cab hauling a trailer is not quite the same as a pickup or SUV towing a boat or trailer.
It is more fuel efficient to make one long trip to various stores than to cram everything in a sedan and make two or three trips. Also, that comparison was for a minivan, not a truck. Minivans tend to sit between cars and trucks with fuel economy. Some of them get pretty good mileage for their size. Some of them are laden down with all sorts of crap and luxury features and get shitty mileage. I don't want that stuff.
Part of the problem is the line between wants and needs. Excluding businesses such as shipping companies, delivery companies, et al. that need bigger engines and more horsepower, what about individuals who need them? My brother is an electrical worker. He needs his Silverado. Not want, need. It gets bad mileage, but he hauls stuff around and it is not a company vehicle. What about large families that need large vehicles? Or should they take two cars everywhere, which is probably less fuel efficient? How about someone who owns a boat and needs to tow it to a lake, so he needs a big V-8 or V-10? Should these people "feel the pain" when despite owning gas guzzlers, are driving vehicles they need?
I like the solution of requiring better fuel economy, but that still hurts a subset of consumers (again, not talking businesses here) that truly do need larger vehicles. Ideally, people would buy more sensible vehicles, but that is not our culture. That is not the American way. Like it or not, it's the popular sentiment among 290 million people. Bigger is better.
Real fuel economy hasn't gone down in 2 decades, once you factor in the shift from cars to SUVs in the US.
There's no excuse to produce non-commercial vehicles that get 9mpg in the city in "real life", or even 14mpg "rated".
If you REALLY wanted energy independence, step 1 is to get rid of the mini-vans, Jeeps, the "cross-over" vehicles, and the "look I've got SO MUCH horsepower" crap. If it can't do at least 20mpg city/30mpg highway, just melt it down for scrap.
That's awfully ignorant. So we should all be driving compacts, motorcycles, and bicycles? Minivans tend to get good gas mileage for their size, certainly better than SUVs but not quite as good as cars. My next vehicle will be a minivan so I can fit my whole family in the car *and* my groceries and other junk. I'll still get 20+ mpg. I own a Ranger pickup truck. It's fairly efficient for a truck, in that range between "car" and "gas guzzler." I don't use it for a business, so should I melt it down for scrap? Considering that I use it for its intended purpose on average once a week, hell no. I move furniture and other large items for myself and for friends, so I own a truck. Not a pile of scrap metal.
What you are getting at is that our automobile industry needs to start producing more efficient vehicles, and their customers need to evaluate their needs and purchase vehicles that they need, not that they want. For example, a single person or small family in a Suburban or Excursion. That's retarded. A car or minivan is more efficient, more safe, and cheaper. If they want to waste extra money on the big SUV both on purchase price and fuel, let them. I'll stick with my Taurus that gets around 25 mpg and is around a gajillion times safer.
This is a free market. If people want SUVs, Detroit will produce SUVs. Enough of us sane people choose to purchase sedans and light trucks that are cheaper, more fuel efficient, safer, and more reliable that they will continue to make them. I am happy spending half as much to fill my tanks as other people. This gas "crisis" really doesn't affect me much.
The Iranian government isn't like al Qaeda. They don't want to die in a blaze of glory. Maybe they're a bit crazy, but I don't think they want to start a nuclear war. They just want a deterrent so the U.S. will leave them alone. And with how the U.S. bullies the rest of the world, I don't blame them. I don't like the idea of them having nukes, but I can't blame them for wanting a deterrent.
As others pointed out, my assertion is not necessarily true. You are correct, an F-16 properly configured can go straight up without stalling. However, an F-15, while more massive, has more than enough thrust to do this under any configuration.
While I haven't flown either one, I have watched them strut their stuff and the F-16 tends to look like it's struggling to go straight up. It slows down, and typically doesn't do this very long. I've seen F-15s go straight up and out of sight without a quiver or slowing down.
If you've ever stood next to a running jet engine (F-15 at full AB) oyu'd understand why.
If you stood within 100 meters of an F-15 without hearing protection, you'd be deaf. Every once in a while at Langley AFB (no, not the CIA place) I'd drive toward the side gate next to the runway, and one would be taking off. If I had the unfortunate luck to do so while they're doing a vertical ascension takeoff, windows up in my truck or not, it HURT. FYI that's when they take off at full throttle, full afterburners, and as soon as they're a few feet above the runway, turn to go straight up. As if the afterburners aren't loud enough, once the ass end of the plane has that flat pavement 10 feet behind it, the noise scatters all over and even half a mile away you can't hear the person next to you.
So yes, to the GP poster, flashlights and a hairdryer have NOTHING on a fighter jet with a cocky bastard at the stick.
Useless trivia fact: while the F-15 can perform this maneuver, the F-16 lacks the thrust/mass ratio to sustain that climb for more than a second or two.
Try looking more than a year or two out. Where will China be in 10 years, 20 years, even 50? They have an easier time developing technology than we do because they can easily steal it, and because half of what we do comes from their factories anyway. They will rise to be a Superpower -- maybe not on par with the U.S., but definitely an economic and military power to be reckoned with. When that happens, where will we be? How will we get there? Should we sit on our asses until China is an equal, or should we stay ahead of the game?
These are the questions our government is asking themselves and acting on. Whether you agree with U.S. foreign policy or not, you must understand the way our government thinks or choose ignorance. Look back at history. We have always been in a race either militarily or economically with someone -- whether playing catch-up to the British in the 1800s, an arms race with the Soviets in the 1900s, or widening our lead against China while beating on al Qaeda's door in the 2000s, we don't stand still.
You're joking, right? I've flown many times pre-9/11. Every time I went through a metal detector, every time my bags were screened, sometimes even opened. Every time I had to show ID and boarding pass before being allowed to board the plane. Sure it wasn't spread-your-cheeks level of security, and definitely more casual, but to say there was no security is a joke.
I've actually used other photo ID besides a driver's license (passport, military ID, etc) and had the cashier/bouncer/etc tell me they need a state-issued ID, not a federal one. In many cases, a state ID or driver's license really is the "real" ID. I think it's more because of ignorance on the part of the people requesting the ID than anything.
Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the 9/11 bombers use US internal airlines because the security was so poor?
By internal I take it you mean using U.S. airlines to attack the U.S. Duh? This place isn't like Europe with a bunch of little countries next to each other. If they didn't use U.S. airlines taking off from U.S. airports, what would they have used?
Anyway, the problem wasn't security. The hijackers had clean records, were in this country legally, and had authentic identification. There was no way we would have caught them because they blended in so well with the surroundings. We (airlines, TSA, and regular people on those flights) had no suspicions.
The real fault was the FBI who was sitting on documented evidence of a plot, including some of the names. If they had connected the dots instead of being lazy, they would have had enough evidence to demand the FAA ground all airplanes that day while they went after the hijackers. Yes, we'd still have knee-jerk reactions to security, but at least the specific events of that day would not have happened. It would have been a success overall, because the system (law enforcement) would have worked.
Far more likely it's to protect America's "intellectual property economy" when it's cheap enough for private individuals to launch their own satellites to disseminate information under any laws they see fit.
Wow. There's my first good laugh of the day.
No, this is more of a paranoid-delusional fantasy of the Pentagon and some bureaucrats who don't want competition from China and maybe Russia. The key to U.S. military dominance is our excellent satellite intelligence. While HUMINT helps with the social engineering aspects of war, nothing but a satellite combined with proper munitions can blow up a tank underneath a bridge without hitting the bridge. From 40,000 feet. Our satellites give our military and NIMA a detailed view of pretty much every square meter of the planet, and we use this to blow shit up. No other nation on the globe has this capability to the extent we do. The United States government wants to keep it this way.
So, we're in a hypothetical future conflict with China. They have satellite capabilities similar to ours. Maybe not as good, but similar in ability. We use these lasers to blow up their satellites, removing their capability to deliver precision guided munitions. We retain that capability. We win the fight. Maybe not the war, as Iraq is teaching it takes more than bombs to do that, but at least the U.S. isn't the country blown to bits with an occupying force.
Ever since 9/11, I refuse to travel by air. Not because of the scary terrorists, but because of my scary government. While the article talks about a UK program with bad security, the author is clear that this is all because of pressure from the United States.
I sent an email to the TSA a while ago telling them that I despise their spying programs and I am boycotting the airline industry. I don't want to be treated like a second-class citizen, spyed on, and my rights violated. Sure, the majority of airline passengers don't have a problem, but there are a significant quantity that do hit security snags on a daily basis. What has this increased illusion of security bought us? Pork. We haven't caught terrorists because of spending on ineffective security programs. Each alleged terrorist since 9/11 was caught because of people. People who thought something was wrong -- the shoe bomber who had trouble with his bomb, and passengers and flight attendants handled the situation. Not computers, not databases. People.
As far as I'm concerned, the airline industry can rot in hell for giving in to government pressure. They know these security programs do nothing more than waste money on pork and make certain politicians feel smug, earning brownie points with their constituents. Until the government gets a clue, I will not fly. If the airlines suffer, so be it. Money is what drives this country. Maybe when the government realizes that the airlines aren't making money, someone, somewhere, will get a clue and start implementing good security that does not violate our privacy.
Slashdot Mirror
It isn't a licensing fee. It's the price of paying the SCO lottery! For the low low price of $699, you have a chance at one of several fabulous prizes including $100k, a luxury car, and a night of terror on Darl's private yacht complete with built-in dungeon! Fun for the whole family!
Monopolies are okay. Abusing monopoly power is not. If Google starts using vendor lock-in and product tying to force its way into dominating other markets or by charging outrageous prices, then we have a problem.
The easiest one was when they asked to identify dolphins, they were the only ones in water.
A long time ago, I think the 1980s, I saw a TV program about image recognition. Scientists trained a computer to distinguish between photos of U.S. and Soviet tanks. It had 100% accuracy in the lab. Once they fed "real" photos taken by spies, they had mixed results. As it turned out, they took the training pictures on an Army base. One day they took pictures of Army tanks, the next day they took pictures of stolen Soviet tanks. However, the first day had clear skies, the second was overcast. In reality the program was just telling you if it was cloudy out or not.
Photo recognition is not an easy task, there are many variables. Fortunately, in the case of captchas, the human brain is much better suited to this than computers are currently.
RAMBUS wasn't really shit -- it had about a 20% advantage in workstation performance over SDRAM -- until DDR came out.
RDRAM is based on the same premise behind USB and SATA: cut the number of bits transmitted and increase the frequency to get higher throughput. This is a method that is proven to work. However, Rambus brought their technology to market before it was mature. They promised a simpler design, fewer errors, higher throughput. What they delivered was a complex mess of overheating chips that didn't perform up to its potential. They needed more time to develop RDRAM and to allow it to mature. That and not to submit submarine patents as standards. That pissed some people off, too.
Eventually I think we will see memory using the same ideas behind RDRAM, but implemented better. Modern motherboards are extremely complex in part because of the memory. That is a lot of traces and a lot of bits to move very quickly and in sync. This complexity is proven to cause problems, which is why we are unlikely to see 128 bit RAM anytime soon. I doubt we'll see truly serial (1 bit) RAM either, but I think fewer bits at a higher frequency is the answer. It will just take time for the technology to mature.
Here is a picture of what one looks like. Red Hat got its name because its founder wore a red baseball cap, and was known as "that guy in the red hat." When he made his own Linux distribution, he took that name. Later on when he started the Fedora project, I guess he grabbed a name of a hat that people would recognize to go along with the theme. "Fedora" probably sounds friendlier than "baseball cap" or "football helmet" anyway.
Not everyone needs fancy photo manipulation. Some people just need a piece of software that can resize, crop, convert between formats, change color depth, browse directories of thumbnails, etc. and Paint Shop Pro does that very well. Photoshop can do all that, but not before you get past the obtuse user interface. Photoshop also costs an order of magnitude more than Paint Shop Pro. Sure, The Gimp runs in Windows along with the other two programs, but how many people can get past its interface? I'm an experienced computer user and I can't. I've gotten it to do amazing things, through trial and error. Ask me to do something, and hope I stumble upon it with random clicking.
I use an old version of Paint Shop Pro because it works for the simple tasks I need it to, it was cheap (I think $50 at the time), and the UI doesn't actively try to hinder my work. FYI I am a programmer, not a graphic designer or photographer.
My web host, pair Networks, is listed on Netcraft as being fairly reliable, #14 out of all hosting providers as of the time I post this.
I highly recommend pair Netorks. I've been using them for years and never had a problem. In fact they've been good to me. They definitely cost more than a "value" host, but have some key benefits. Uptime is excellent, bandwidth is never a problem, shared servers aren't overloaded and in fact locked down once they're full. They use open source sofware including Apache, MySQL, and FreeBSD. More importantly, they donate a portion of their business' profits back into the OSS foundations/companies whose products they use. They have a private news server where you can talk about their services, and their owner/CEO Kevin Martin (privately owned) reads it regularly and posts there, even responding to customers' posts even though he encourages people to use formal customer service channels for most concerns. They even have their own DNS registrar, pairNIC.
I have no stake in this company. I am just an extremely satisfied customer that recommends them to all my friends because of the superior level of service I receive from them.
As for towing, you can tow a boat or trailer with a dirtbike, if that's what you want. The point is that a truck is optimized to tow things, i.e. it has better fuel efficiency and lower emissions hauling a two-ton box of furniture than your geo metro. You'd think someone as environmentally conscious as you would understand the advantages of that. And that someone browsing /. would be in a technical field that would require one to understand optimization. /innocent expression
Really? I thought engines produced a maximal amount of torque at a given RPM, and with some math, you can figure out the maximum load of an engine. So, for example, a dirt bike would not be able to produce sufficient force to move a mass of, say, 5,000 pounds while an F-350 could. Am I wrong?
there are lots of safe vehicles with heavy/long trailers on our roads; they're called semis.
Semis have 18 wheels and are wider even than a big pickup, even a duallie (sic). A semi cab hauling a trailer is not quite the same as a pickup or SUV towing a boat or trailer.
It is more fuel efficient to make one long trip to various stores than to cram everything in a sedan and make two or three trips. Also, that comparison was for a minivan, not a truck. Minivans tend to sit between cars and trucks with fuel economy. Some of them get pretty good mileage for their size. Some of them are laden down with all sorts of crap and luxury features and get shitty mileage. I don't want that stuff.
Part of the problem is the line between wants and needs. Excluding businesses such as shipping companies, delivery companies, et al. that need bigger engines and more horsepower, what about individuals who need them? My brother is an electrical worker. He needs his Silverado. Not want, need. It gets bad mileage, but he hauls stuff around and it is not a company vehicle. What about large families that need large vehicles? Or should they take two cars everywhere, which is probably less fuel efficient? How about someone who owns a boat and needs to tow it to a lake, so he needs a big V-8 or V-10? Should these people "feel the pain" when despite owning gas guzzlers, are driving vehicles they need?
I like the solution of requiring better fuel economy, but that still hurts a subset of consumers (again, not talking businesses here) that truly do need larger vehicles. Ideally, people would buy more sensible vehicles, but that is not our culture. That is not the American way. Like it or not, it's the popular sentiment among 290 million people. Bigger is better.
Real fuel economy hasn't gone down in 2 decades, once you factor in the shift from cars to SUVs in the US.
There's no excuse to produce non-commercial vehicles that get 9mpg in the city in "real life", or even 14mpg "rated".
If you REALLY wanted energy independence, step 1 is to get rid of the mini-vans, Jeeps, the "cross-over" vehicles, and the "look I've got SO MUCH horsepower" crap. If it can't do at least 20mpg city/30mpg highway, just melt it down for scrap.
That's awfully ignorant. So we should all be driving compacts, motorcycles, and bicycles? Minivans tend to get good gas mileage for their size, certainly better than SUVs but not quite as good as cars. My next vehicle will be a minivan so I can fit my whole family in the car *and* my groceries and other junk. I'll still get 20+ mpg. I own a Ranger pickup truck. It's fairly efficient for a truck, in that range between "car" and "gas guzzler." I don't use it for a business, so should I melt it down for scrap? Considering that I use it for its intended purpose on average once a week, hell no. I move furniture and other large items for myself and for friends, so I own a truck. Not a pile of scrap metal.
What you are getting at is that our automobile industry needs to start producing more efficient vehicles, and their customers need to evaluate their needs and purchase vehicles that they need, not that they want. For example, a single person or small family in a Suburban or Excursion. That's retarded. A car or minivan is more efficient, more safe, and cheaper. If they want to waste extra money on the big SUV both on purchase price and fuel, let them. I'll stick with my Taurus that gets around 25 mpg and is around a gajillion times safer.
This is a free market. If people want SUVs, Detroit will produce SUVs. Enough of us sane people choose to purchase sedans and light trucks that are cheaper, more fuel efficient, safer, and more reliable that they will continue to make them. I am happy spending half as much to fill my tanks as other people. This gas "crisis" really doesn't affect me much.
The Iranian government isn't like al Qaeda. They don't want to die in a blaze of glory. Maybe they're a bit crazy, but I don't think they want to start a nuclear war. They just want a deterrent so the U.S. will leave them alone. And with how the U.S. bullies the rest of the world, I don't blame them. I don't like the idea of them having nukes, but I can't blame them for wanting a deterrent.
Even better, call it eMacs and bundle it with GNU/Herd and Emacs.
As others pointed out, my assertion is not necessarily true. You are correct, an F-16 properly configured can go straight up without stalling. However, an F-15, while more massive, has more than enough thrust to do this under any configuration.
While I haven't flown either one, I have watched them strut their stuff and the F-16 tends to look like it's struggling to go straight up. It slows down, and typically doesn't do this very long. I've seen F-15s go straight up and out of sight without a quiver or slowing down.
Shock and awe, dude, shock and awe. The cops will surrender peacefully and let him go about his business.
If you've ever stood next to a running jet engine (F-15 at full AB) oyu'd understand why.
If you stood within 100 meters of an F-15 without hearing protection, you'd be deaf. Every once in a while at Langley AFB (no, not the CIA place) I'd drive toward the side gate next to the runway, and one would be taking off. If I had the unfortunate luck to do so while they're doing a vertical ascension takeoff, windows up in my truck or not, it HURT. FYI that's when they take off at full throttle, full afterburners, and as soon as they're a few feet above the runway, turn to go straight up. As if the afterburners aren't loud enough, once the ass end of the plane has that flat pavement 10 feet behind it, the noise scatters all over and even half a mile away you can't hear the person next to you.
So yes, to the GP poster, flashlights and a hairdryer have NOTHING on a fighter jet with a cocky bastard at the stick.
Useless trivia fact: while the F-15 can perform this maneuver, the F-16 lacks the thrust/mass ratio to sustain that climb for more than a second or two.
While Galileo crossed my mind when I wrote my OP, I don't think the U.S. would attack European satellites.
Try looking more than a year or two out. Where will China be in 10 years, 20 years, even 50? They have an easier time developing technology than we do because they can easily steal it, and because half of what we do comes from their factories anyway. They will rise to be a Superpower -- maybe not on par with the U.S., but definitely an economic and military power to be reckoned with. When that happens, where will we be? How will we get there? Should we sit on our asses until China is an equal, or should we stay ahead of the game?
These are the questions our government is asking themselves and acting on. Whether you agree with U.S. foreign policy or not, you must understand the way our government thinks or choose ignorance. Look back at history. We have always been in a race either militarily or economically with someone -- whether playing catch-up to the British in the 1800s, an arms race with the Soviets in the 1900s, or widening our lead against China while beating on al Qaeda's door in the 2000s, we don't stand still.
You're joking, right? I've flown many times pre-9/11. Every time I went through a metal detector, every time my bags were screened, sometimes even opened. Every time I had to show ID and boarding pass before being allowed to board the plane. Sure it wasn't spread-your-cheeks level of security, and definitely more casual, but to say there was no security is a joke.
I've actually used other photo ID besides a driver's license (passport, military ID, etc) and had the cashier/bouncer/etc tell me they need a state-issued ID, not a federal one. In many cases, a state ID or driver's license really is the "real" ID. I think it's more because of ignorance on the part of the people requesting the ID than anything.
Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the 9/11 bombers use US internal airlines because the security was so poor?
By internal I take it you mean using U.S. airlines to attack the U.S. Duh? This place isn't like Europe with a bunch of little countries next to each other. If they didn't use U.S. airlines taking off from U.S. airports, what would they have used?
Anyway, the problem wasn't security. The hijackers had clean records, were in this country legally, and had authentic identification. There was no way we would have caught them because they blended in so well with the surroundings. We (airlines, TSA, and regular people on those flights) had no suspicions.
The real fault was the FBI who was sitting on documented evidence of a plot, including some of the names. If they had connected the dots instead of being lazy, they would have had enough evidence to demand the FAA ground all airplanes that day while they went after the hijackers. Yes, we'd still have knee-jerk reactions to security, but at least the specific events of that day would not have happened. It would have been a success overall, because the system (law enforcement) would have worked.
Far more likely it's to protect America's "intellectual property economy" when it's cheap enough for private individuals to launch their own satellites to disseminate information under any laws they see fit.
Wow. There's my first good laugh of the day.
No, this is more of a paranoid-delusional fantasy of the Pentagon and some bureaucrats who don't want competition from China and maybe Russia. The key to U.S. military dominance is our excellent satellite intelligence. While HUMINT helps with the social engineering aspects of war, nothing but a satellite combined with proper munitions can blow up a tank underneath a bridge without hitting the bridge. From 40,000 feet. Our satellites give our military and NIMA a detailed view of pretty much every square meter of the planet, and we use this to blow shit up. No other nation on the globe has this capability to the extent we do. The United States government wants to keep it this way.
So, we're in a hypothetical future conflict with China. They have satellite capabilities similar to ours. Maybe not as good, but similar in ability. We use these lasers to blow up their satellites, removing their capability to deliver precision guided munitions. We retain that capability. We win the fight. Maybe not the war, as Iraq is teaching it takes more than bombs to do that, but at least the U.S. isn't the country blown to bits with an occupying force.
Ever since 9/11, I refuse to travel by air. Not because of the scary terrorists, but because of my scary government. While the article talks about a UK program with bad security, the author is clear that this is all because of pressure from the United States.
I sent an email to the TSA a while ago telling them that I despise their spying programs and I am boycotting the airline industry. I don't want to be treated like a second-class citizen, spyed on, and my rights violated. Sure, the majority of airline passengers don't have a problem, but there are a significant quantity that do hit security snags on a daily basis. What has this increased illusion of security bought us? Pork. We haven't caught terrorists because of spending on ineffective security programs. Each alleged terrorist since 9/11 was caught because of people. People who thought something was wrong -- the shoe bomber who had trouble with his bomb, and passengers and flight attendants handled the situation. Not computers, not databases. People.
As far as I'm concerned, the airline industry can rot in hell for giving in to government pressure. They know these security programs do nothing more than waste money on pork and make certain politicians feel smug, earning brownie points with their constituents. Until the government gets a clue, I will not fly. If the airlines suffer, so be it. Money is what drives this country. Maybe when the government realizes that the airlines aren't making money, someone, somewhere, will get a clue and start implementing good security that does not violate our privacy.