"Online warfare" - Would that include stuxnet, which attacked stand alone systems and needed to be airgapped over?
"Electronic warfare" - Lots of prior art here. This includes stuff like radar jamming. Oh, and my calculator, thermostat, and car navigation system are electronic. Are they now in this war?
"Internet warfare" - What is that, World of Warcraft? Flame wars?
Changing a name in midstream, so to speak, would add to the confusion for most people, not decrease it. Whereas you propose abandoning a word commonly used for decades because it reminds you of "late 80s early 90s grade B films". Maybe you could just get over it instead.
I have had the new ones. I got out in 2003, and have gone downrange since then as well. They are better that what they used to be. Still not exactly high cuisine.
Sensitive But Unclassified is a classification for documents. Secure But Unclassified refers to the network. Surely you can see the difference in meaning in the words secure and sensitive.
Eating an MRE has more of the effect of putting a solid brick in your bowels than getting you "hopped" up. The only raw sugar I encountered eating all the hundreds of MREs I've reluctantly consumed in my 7+ years active duty Marine Corps was the sugar packets that came with the instant coffee packets. There's also a candy of some sort, my favorite being a bag of M&Ms stating they are proud sponsors of the 1984 Olympics (this was in 1996). Anything new, tasty, and FSM forbid, energizing would be welcome.
I'm an intelligence analyst. We're not going to outsource anything that requires a security clearance, and there's no automated software or hardware that can synthesize multiple disparate pieces of evidence into a coherent picture of the battlespace and an assessment of future friendly and enemy courses of action. Yet.
Nice straw-man. He's certainly *not* saying he wants more invasive searches.
No, but he does want to point out that the TSA failed to detect the explosives hidden in someone's underwear, and his remark that he hopes the implant bomber doesn't take down a plane indicates he cares about safety. So what's the solution? Educate passengers that someone could, at any moment, do something innocuous, like push a button on a watch or a cellphone, and blow up the plane?
the government should focus on actions which actually have a measurable impact on actual security.
Like?
Currently, the TSA is a 'tiger repelling rock' which involves a government agency overstepping the power explicitly allowed to it in our Constitution, while simultaniously violating personal rights which are specifically enumerated in our Constitution.
Now, I'm no fan of the current security theater, and I do think the current precautions are too much, but this may be exaggerating slightly. We've been using metal detectors and xray scanners for bags for decades. Now, we have to take off our shoes and belts and not bring liquids. A nuisance, sure, but not unconstitutional. Groping? Perhaps. The nude-image scanners? Perhaps.
"Mr." is the appropriate title for addressing the President of the United States. It seems to me that even this humble title is missing many times when journalists refer to his predecessor. I seem to see "Bush" a lot more than "Mr. Bush" in news articles, while "Mr. Obama" or even "President Obama" seems more common than just "Obama."
The reason it hasn't happened is that almost no one wants to do it
The US is hated throughout the world, as slashdaughters love to point out, and there are literally hundreds of terrorist groups that have threatened or actually attacked the US.
and even fewer have the wherewithal and resources
9/11 was perpetrated with boxcutters and a flight simulator. It doesn't take much wherewithal or resources to attack us.
I guess I should have specified it hasn't happened in the US, or is the TSA responsible for Russian airports now? I might even take my opponents' position and argue that if it's only happened once, then it's not really a threat. Just like there's only been one shoe bomber, and one underwear bomber.
There's also this many and more people tightly packed in many more places, like sporting events, subway stations, malls, etc. Doesn't mean they're all targets.
Which is why I used the word thwarted as well, as in BEFORE the attack. Walking a backpack full of explosives into the lion's den is risky from their point of view. Others have pointed out that it's happened in other countries, which isn't the TSA's fault or responsibility. There are bomb-sniffing dogs and armed police wandering airports these days. And what if they show up, and the line isn't as long as they had hoped? It's not the sure thing that some people seem to believe.
No. No, it's not. I am an intelligence analyst. I track bad guys. I'll reiterate that I think the security measures are too much, but that doesn't mean the threat isn't real.
You're a hard man to please. The shoe bomber was caught just 12 days after the first TSA director was nominated in December 2001. Didn't give him much time to change policies, huh? As for the underwear bomber, I don't know what to say. Are you complaining we didn't have MORE invasive searches since 9/11? Or do you want to both complain about the searches, and complain when they're not invasive ENOUGH? You hope the implant bomber doesn't take the plane down, so I guess even one plane taken down to terrorism is too much. What additional searches and scans do you recommend the TSA emplace in order to stop them?
Well, must be something wrong with that logic, since it hasn't happened. Once. So maybe they don't think the same way you do. I would argue that the 0-50 people waiting in line at any given point isn't worth the effort or risk of being thwarted or arrested.
If they catch terrorists that proves they are working well. Which they didn't. So no proof of success there
They don't need to catch terrorists; that's the job of the FBI and other organizations. The TSA doesn't track down networks, investigate leads, issue warrants, kick down doors, etc. They just need to make sure they're not getting on planes. Having security measures in place is enough to discourage attempts.
They did however allow a half dozen to slip by
Yup. Because, at least in some cases, they hid stuff in their crotch. Which is why we're searched more thoroughly now. So are you going to blame them for NOT searching everyone's junk from the start? How can you expect them to stop people who are carrying explosives in their underwear without the invasive searches you're complaining about? Seems like they're damned if they do, damned if they don't.
and a few to detonate their bombs on the plane
Maybe I missed this in the news, but how many mid-air explosions have there been since 9/11 originating from airports in the US? More than one successful detonation? I'm going to have to ask for a source for that one.
How I can I prove a negative? If a terrorist planned on taking over a plane, then abandoned the plan once he saw the security line at the airport, how would anyone know? I, for one, used to carry plastic weapons on planes for self defense. Now, I don't, because I don't want to get caught. I agree the security is too much, but there's no way of knowing what was prevented.
Yes, because a roll of aluminum foil can easily wallpaper an entire room
As other posters pointed out, you don't need to do the whole room.
aluminum foil is readily available in war zones
Neither are fertilizer, aluminum powder, potassium chlorate, and other elements used to make IEDs in Afghanistan. They ship it in. Ammonium Nitrate has gone from about $7/40 lbs bag to over $100 in Afghanistan, and it's still being used. If it's an essential material that will save their lives or kill their enemies, they'll get it.
Moreover, snipers will carry enough foil to wallpaper the multiple rooms they displace to after shooting once.
If it's necessary, yes. You should see the extreme methods used to circumvent our equipment in Afghanistan. If it's what is necessary to do the job, yes they will do it.
Whatta dumbass remark.
Yours seems to be the dumbass remark. Do you have much experience in the military, other than playing FPS games?
I think much gruff around any ereader boils down to users who don't actually want to read.
Is that what you tell yourself? That people who prefer tablets over ereaders are illiterate luddites? I hate ereaders, and love my Android phone and am actively seeking a good Android tablet. And I love to read. I just prefer treeware books over eink books. I would never trade my real books for digital books, and will not stop buying paper books as long as they sell them. Ereaders are a horrible attempt at replacing real books, and I frankly feel those people who prefer ebooks over real ones are the luddites.
WTF does that have to do with the military, even if true? The military follows the orders of the President and Congress. Don't blame them for things you don't like, and don't lump them in with people with whom you disagree.
Slashdot Mirror
All of which have prior meanings.
"Online warfare" - Would that include stuxnet, which attacked stand alone systems and needed to be airgapped over?
"Electronic warfare" - Lots of prior art here. This includes stuff like radar jamming. Oh, and my calculator, thermostat, and car navigation system are electronic. Are they now in this war?
"Internet warfare" - What is that, World of Warcraft? Flame wars?
Changing a name in midstream, so to speak, would add to the confusion for most people, not decrease it. Whereas you propose abandoning a word commonly used for decades because it reminds you of "late 80s early 90s grade B films". Maybe you could just get over it instead.
Agreed. What is your proposed alternative?
I have had the new ones. I got out in 2003, and have gone downrange since then as well. They are better that what they used to be. Still not exactly high cuisine.
Sensitive But Unclassified is a classification for documents. Secure But Unclassified refers to the network. Surely you can see the difference in meaning in the words secure and sensitive.
Dear Private Void,
Eating an MRE has more of the effect of putting a solid brick in your bowels than getting you "hopped" up. The only raw sugar I encountered eating all the hundreds of MREs I've reluctantly consumed in my 7+ years active duty Marine Corps was the sugar packets that came with the instant coffee packets. There's also a candy of some sort, my favorite being a bag of M&Ms stating they are proud sponsors of the 1984 Olympics (this was in 1996). Anything new, tasty, and FSM forbid, energizing would be welcome.
Crawling up the wall, I saw a spider.
What about nouns with 'The' already in them?
"Did you see the Terminator movie?"
"Did you see the The Birds movie?"
That kind of shit just burns me up. I would be happy to share my latest manifesto on the subject.
I'm an intelligence analyst. We're not going to outsource anything that requires a security clearance, and there's no automated software or hardware that can synthesize multiple disparate pieces of evidence into a coherent picture of the battlespace and an assessment of future friendly and enemy courses of action. Yet.
Nice straw-man. He's certainly *not* saying he wants more invasive searches.
No, but he does want to point out that the TSA failed to detect the explosives hidden in someone's underwear, and his remark that he hopes the implant bomber doesn't take down a plane indicates he cares about safety. So what's the solution? Educate passengers that someone could, at any moment, do something innocuous, like push a button on a watch or a cellphone, and blow up the plane?
the government should focus on actions which actually have a measurable impact on actual security.
Like?
Currently, the TSA is a 'tiger repelling rock' which involves a government agency overstepping the power explicitly allowed to it in our Constitution, while simultaniously violating personal rights which are specifically enumerated in our Constitution.
Now, I'm no fan of the current security theater, and I do think the current precautions are too much, but this may be exaggerating slightly. We've been using metal detectors and xray scanners for bags for decades. Now, we have to take off our shoes and belts and not bring liquids. A nuisance, sure, but not unconstitutional. Groping? Perhaps. The nude-image scanners? Perhaps.
"Mr." is the appropriate title for addressing the President of the United States. It seems to me that even this humble title is missing many times when journalists refer to his predecessor. I seem to see "Bush" a lot more than "Mr. Bush" in news articles, while "Mr. Obama" or even "President Obama" seems more common than just "Obama."
The reason it hasn't happened is that almost no one wants to do it
The US is hated throughout the world, as slashdaughters love to point out, and there are literally hundreds of terrorist groups that have threatened or actually attacked the US.
and even fewer have the wherewithal and resources
9/11 was perpetrated with boxcutters and a flight simulator. It doesn't take much wherewithal or resources to attack us.
I guess I should have specified it hasn't happened in the US, or is the TSA responsible for Russian airports now? I might even take my opponents' position and argue that if it's only happened once, then it's not really a threat. Just like there's only been one shoe bomber, and one underwear bomber.
There's also this many and more people tightly packed in many more places, like sporting events, subway stations, malls, etc. Doesn't mean they're all targets.
Which is why I used the word thwarted as well, as in BEFORE the attack. Walking a backpack full of explosives into the lion's den is risky from their point of view. Others have pointed out that it's happened in other countries, which isn't the TSA's fault or responsibility. There are bomb-sniffing dogs and armed police wandering airports these days. And what if they show up, and the line isn't as long as they had hoped? It's not the sure thing that some people seem to believe.
No. No, it's not. I am an intelligence analyst. I track bad guys. I'll reiterate that I think the security measures are too much, but that doesn't mean the threat isn't real.
You're a hard man to please. The shoe bomber was caught just 12 days after the first TSA director was nominated in December 2001. Didn't give him much time to change policies, huh? As for the underwear bomber, I don't know what to say. Are you complaining we didn't have MORE invasive searches since 9/11? Or do you want to both complain about the searches, and complain when they're not invasive ENOUGH? You hope the implant bomber doesn't take the plane down, so I guess even one plane taken down to terrorism is too much. What additional searches and scans do you recommend the TSA emplace in order to stop them?
Well, must be something wrong with that logic, since it hasn't happened. Once. So maybe they don't think the same way you do. I would argue that the 0-50 people waiting in line at any given point isn't worth the effort or risk of being thwarted or arrested.
If they catch terrorists that proves they are working well. Which they didn't. So no proof of success there
They don't need to catch terrorists; that's the job of the FBI and other organizations. The TSA doesn't track down networks, investigate leads, issue warrants, kick down doors, etc. They just need to make sure they're not getting on planes. Having security measures in place is enough to discourage attempts.
They did however allow a half dozen to slip by
Yup. Because, at least in some cases, they hid stuff in their crotch. Which is why we're searched more thoroughly now. So are you going to blame them for NOT searching everyone's junk from the start? How can you expect them to stop people who are carrying explosives in their underwear without the invasive searches you're complaining about? Seems like they're damned if they do, damned if they don't.
and a few to detonate their bombs on the plane
Maybe I missed this in the news, but how many mid-air explosions have there been since 9/11 originating from airports in the US? More than one successful detonation? I'm going to have to ask for a source for that one.
How I can I prove a negative? If a terrorist planned on taking over a plane, then abandoned the plan once he saw the security line at the airport, how would anyone know? I, for one, used to carry plastic weapons on planes for self defense. Now, I don't, because I don't want to get caught. I agree the security is too much, but there's no way of knowing what was prevented.
though nothing happened in the last decade
Yeah, and all that time wasted rewriting code for Y2K! Nothing happened!
Yes, because a roll of aluminum foil can easily wallpaper an entire room
As other posters pointed out, you don't need to do the whole room.
aluminum foil is readily available in war zones
Neither are fertilizer, aluminum powder, potassium chlorate, and other elements used to make IEDs in Afghanistan. They ship it in. Ammonium Nitrate has gone from about $7/40 lbs bag to over $100 in Afghanistan, and it's still being used. If it's an essential material that will save their lives or kill their enemies, they'll get it.
Moreover, snipers will carry enough foil to wallpaper the multiple rooms they displace to after shooting once.
If it's necessary, yes. You should see the extreme methods used to circumvent our equipment in Afghanistan. If it's what is necessary to do the job, yes they will do it.
Whatta dumbass remark.
Yours seems to be the dumbass remark. Do you have much experience in the military, other than playing FPS games?
If I already have a 10-year old kid, why would I want to print more of them? And what's wrong with the old fashioned way, even if I wanted more?
I guess they won't need Torgo to look after the place.
This is like when a car manufacturer makes a new car!
I think much gruff around any ereader boils down to users who don't actually want to read.
Is that what you tell yourself? That people who prefer tablets over ereaders are illiterate luddites? I hate ereaders, and love my Android phone and am actively seeking a good Android tablet. And I love to read. I just prefer treeware books over eink books. I would never trade my real books for digital books, and will not stop buying paper books as long as they sell them. Ereaders are a horrible attempt at replacing real books, and I frankly feel those people who prefer ebooks over real ones are the luddites.
WTF does that have to do with the military, even if true? The military follows the orders of the President and Congress. Don't blame them for things you don't like, and don't lump them in with people with whom you disagree.