I'm sorry, I thought this thread was about airport security measures, not US domestic terrorism in general. You may be surprised to know that Al Qaida has also targeted trains in UK and Europe.
Sure, the US has no shortage of homegrown crackpots, I can't imagine why you'd take pride in that as if you'd scored more points at a football game ?
And what are the reasons young Muslims turn to terrorist groups? Because they feel alienated and harassed by the rest of the world (who treat them like terrorists for no reason at all) and are looking for somewhere to find friends and feel like they belong.
Sounds like the description of a typical teenager of *any* religion. Although in our day, we were encouraged to join a youth club, or take up a sport. Times change, I guess ?
They don't even want to kill anybody until they have been brainwashed (and frequently drugged) by their new "friends".
Oh, so don't blame the bomber, blame "that bad crowd he fell in with". Did you ever wonder WHY Muslims are so susceptible to be indoctrinated ?
Because it's built into the very core of their religion, Fatwahs, Holy Wars, the whole bit. It doesn't take that much of a push when the indoctrinators can take any passage from the Koran where it mentions smiting the infidels... and believe me, there are a lot of them.
When are we going to realize that draconian security measures, racial profiling, and dropping bombs on civilians are part of the PROBLEM instead of the SOLUTION?
When are you going to realize that civil liberties does include the right to fly feeling safe from terrorists, and does NOT include the right of anyone to blow the fucking plane up ?
I don't see these scanners as any big problem, and from what I see will actually streamline the whole security process... it is more complete than the current random selection system, (i.e. everyone gets scanned, not just the "racially profiled" groups), and it saves embarrassing pat-downs and cavity searches on obviously "clean" people. This whole fuss seems to stem from the generic US prudish nature when it comes to pixellated nudity... get a grip FFS, do you get in the same lather everytime you break a leg and need an X-RAY ? OMG, he saw my naked bones !!
So the security measures are ineffectual ? How exactly did you reach that conclusion, seeing as how many airports haven't even installed the scanners yet ? A report on FOX news ? And as for existing measures, what measure of "effect" or otherwise would you like ? A big bloody LED display scrolling the latest security news ?
"... 10 terrorists caught today... 25 days since the last exploding plane incident..." ?
What would you prefer ? That the government do nothing ? All I see here is civil liberties this, ineffectual that... what would *YOU* suggest to curb the threat ? And don't say "I don't know", because that's a cop out. You too can be part of the solution instead of part of the problem.
However, "dropping bombs on civilians" being a problem, I would wholeheartedly agree with you. Whoever does it... Americans, Jews, Arabs... it's always a senseless waste of life.
It's not OK, but I don't think I'd find the need to take naked pictures of everyone I meet just in case they're carrying a blunt knife as well
While this is true, blunt knives do not explode and bring down planes... the pants bomber had every intention of doing so, just because he was an inept dumbass doesn't change his intention. My choice of weapon was merely to illustrate the point that just because he failed, it wasn't from lack of trying.
The people on that flight got very lucky that day, a slightly smarter bomber would have meant we'd be mourning the dead right now.
Surely a procedure (the full body scan) that will probably end up quicker to walkthrough and be done AND covers not just a random sampling of "people with beards", but everyone... that's got to be more effective than the current system ?
Or you prefer to have your bits felt by some sweaty minimum wage security guard, and the risk of having to endure a full body cavity search on the whim of "that guy looks suspicious" ?
With the exception of one Cuban (I'm guessing not Muslim), one Filipino (50:50), and one who gave himself up in Israel (not Muslim unless also batshit crazy), EVERY other notable hijack in the 2000's HAS been by people of the Islamic faith who demanded safe passage to a Muslim country.
That's 13 on 16 mate, over 81%... (14 on 16, over 87% if you add the Filipino). How much more convincing an argument do you need ?
Every other religion condemns the acts of it's militant elements and would probably never do anything similar. Islam is at it's core a religion founded on militant behaviour, and it's adherents are called upon to respect Fatwahs. With that mentality, isn't it better to be safe than sorry... any Muslim could *potentially* be a suicide bomber, even though the vast majority of them aren't.
Imagine Russian Roulette with every chamber loaded, except most of them are loaded with blanks. Would you pull the trigger ?
I assume this is because white people who convert to Islam are the most likely to be radicalised in the eyes of the security people.
Look, in the last 10 years, there's been 9/11, the London and Europe train bombings, and the "set his balls on fire" man... all done by Muslims in the name of Islam.
Exactly *which* demographic should the security guards be looking at ? Over 65 year old Mormons ?
It's not radicalisation, it's just common fucking sense... target the ones who are more likely to be terrorists, rather than wasting even more of everyone else's time in the name of "fairness".
Yup, in the same way they fuck over the general public with Hardback first and Paperback later versions.
Here in PH, we've been waiting over six months for the paperback version of Dan Brown's latest work, and all the time a massive pile of unsold hardbacks is gathering dust in the bookshop.
I'm someone else who cut my teeth PEEKing and POKEing on Commodore and Sinclair machines. Hell, there were even magazines with "tricks-n-tips" for useful locations and what values would create what effects. Nowadays I suspect they'd just get sued under DMCA provisions for reverse engineering:-(
Very rarely will you find the owner with his jaws clamped around your leg.
It's the fucking dog, you idiot.
Especially pit bulls and the like, they have been bred hundreds of generations for fighting. The owner can't change the temperament of the dog even if he wanted to, so calling it Cuddles and giving it a collar with a bell on it will not help the fact it's a pure-bred fighting machine.
She was apparently sharing a lot more than 24 songs, it wasn't just the case she'd downloaded them for her own personal use (in which case your fine might appear reasonable), but was actively sharing them with N unknown and unquantifiable 3rd parties.
I'd have thought for 24 songs, and considering the sharing aspect, a reasonable fine would be between 250 and 500 bucks. That makes a perfectly reasonable assumption that she shared those songs with 10 to 20 other users (who the hell has a 20:1 seed ratio anyway ?).
Nonetheless, she's still liable for legal fees, and that's where the big costs are, and I don't see why she should be exempted from those, considering how long her bullshitting has tied up the legal system from cases that are exactly important.
While I'm not condoning the RIAA tactics and extortion demands, I still think when you're found guilty, everyone knows you're guilty, and no amount of bullshitting will change that fact, maybe she should have just taken the original deal and saved everyone a whole lot of grief ? These appeals and counter-appeals are all about the damages, not the fact she is guilty or innocent. That IMHO is a waste of everyone's time and money. As someone else pointed out, she'll just declare bankrupcy and pay back exactly 0 dollars anyway.
5 times, in which case the vaccination costs $1149/5 ? 50 times, in which case the vaccination costs $1149/50 ? When we get to 500 times, then perhaps the cost per head is "reasonable".
I'm not quite sure the point you are trying to make ?
Are you saying that the vaccinations are not 100% effective, in which case saving 8.7 million lives costs another 8.7 lives where the vaccination failed ?
Or are you saying we are vaccinating a lot of people who don't actually NEED vaccinating, the net effect being we save 8.7 million lives out of 50 million vaccinations given ?
Way to oversimplify your side of the argument... "just emailing it".
Don't you mean creating a new email, asking the other party what his email address is and typing it in, creating an unnecessary subject and message, adding attachment and searching your filesystem for it, enabling your 3G connection, choosing which provider to use, and then clicking send ? And then of course either texting or otherwise communicating to the other party, "hey check your mail, I just sent you something".
Not to mention the file goes all the way out to whatever SMTP provider you use, over N hops and then back through the recipient's POP server... yes, way more convenient then just sending it person to person via bluetooth !
When you put BOTH sides of the argument in real perspective, bluetooth doesn't seem quite so daunting does it ?
It's more difficult than it needs to be, I think that is his point.
How many people in offices have PHBs who *still* send documents as email attachments, when there's a perfectly good LAN between the parties ? Now think of that irritation, but on a personal level.
Slashdot Mirror
The iPhone form factor is clearly where all phones are going because the screen supports the Web.
Really ? When was the last time you saw a web page designed for 480 x 320 ? And I'm not talking about "mobile" versions, I mean *real* webpages.
Compare this to N900, which has 800 x 480, meaning in a lot of cases you can see the whole width of the page without any scrolling whatsoever.
iTroll fail, better luck next time.
I'd take his 16 years experience backed code over your 3 year college degree in Visual Basic anytime.
[hacking is illegal in China]
It only illegal if you do it against the Chinese Government. Hacking anyone else is okay.
Come on, everyone knows the Great Firewall of China is only in place to filter out kdawson posts.
Flied Lice ? It is "Fried Rice", you plick !
I'm sorry, I thought this thread was about airport security measures, not US domestic terrorism in general. You may be surprised to know that Al Qaida has also targeted trains in UK and Europe.
Sure, the US has no shortage of homegrown crackpots, I can't imagine why you'd take pride in that as if you'd scored more points at a football game ?
And what are the reasons young Muslims turn to terrorist groups? Because they feel alienated and harassed by the rest of the world (who treat them like terrorists for no reason at all) and are looking for somewhere to find friends and feel like they belong.
Sounds like the description of a typical teenager of *any* religion. Although in our day, we were encouraged to join a youth club, or take up a sport. Times change, I guess ?
They don't even want to kill anybody until they have been brainwashed (and frequently drugged) by their new "friends".
Oh, so don't blame the bomber, blame "that bad crowd he fell in with". Did you ever wonder WHY Muslims are so susceptible to be indoctrinated ?
Because it's built into the very core of their religion, Fatwahs, Holy Wars, the whole bit. It doesn't take that much of a push when the indoctrinators can take any passage from the Koran where it mentions smiting the infidels ... and believe me, there are a lot of them.
When are we going to realize that draconian security measures, racial profiling, and dropping bombs on civilians are part of the PROBLEM instead of the SOLUTION?
When are you going to realize that civil liberties does include the right to fly feeling safe from terrorists, and does NOT include the right of anyone to blow the fucking plane up ?
I don't see these scanners as any big problem, and from what I see will actually streamline the whole security process ... it is more complete than the current random selection system, (i.e. everyone gets scanned, not just the "racially profiled" groups), and it saves embarrassing pat-downs and cavity searches on obviously "clean" people. This whole fuss seems to stem from the generic US prudish nature when it comes to pixellated nudity ... get a grip FFS, do you get in the same lather everytime you break a leg and need an X-RAY ? OMG, he saw my naked bones !!
So the security measures are ineffectual ? How exactly did you reach that conclusion, seeing as how many airports haven't even installed the scanners yet ? A report on FOX news ? And as for existing measures, what measure of "effect" or otherwise would you like ? A big bloody LED display scrolling the latest security news ?
"... 10 terrorists caught today ... 25 days since the last exploding plane incident ..." ?
What would you prefer ? That the government do nothing ? All I see here is civil liberties this, ineffectual that ... what would *YOU* suggest to curb the threat ? And don't say "I don't know", because that's a cop out. You too can be part of the solution instead of part of the problem.
However, "dropping bombs on civilians" being a problem, I would wholeheartedly agree with you. Whoever does it ... Americans, Jews, Arabs ... it's always a senseless waste of life.
Looks like we do agree on something after all.
It's not OK, but I don't think I'd find the need to take naked pictures of everyone I meet just in case they're carrying a blunt knife as well
While this is true, blunt knives do not explode and bring down planes ... the pants bomber had every intention of doing so, just because he was an inept dumbass doesn't change his intention. My choice of weapon was merely to illustrate the point that just because he failed, it wasn't from lack of trying.
The people on that flight got very lucky that day, a slightly smarter bomber would have meant we'd be mourning the dead right now.
Surely a procedure (the full body scan) that will probably end up quicker to walkthrough and be done AND covers not just a random sampling of "people with beards", but everyone ... that's got to be more effective than the current system ?
Or you prefer to have your bits felt by some sweaty minimum wage security guard, and the risk of having to endure a full body cavity search on the whim of "that guy looks suspicious" ?
By the way, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_notable_aircraft_hijackings [wikipedia.org] is why we don't profile for one race / religion.
Why not ?
With the exception of one Cuban (I'm guessing not Muslim), one Filipino (50:50), and one who gave himself up in Israel (not Muslim unless also batshit crazy), EVERY other notable hijack in the 2000's HAS been by people of the Islamic faith who demanded safe passage to a Muslim country.
That's 13 on 16 mate, over 81% ... (14 on 16, over 87% if you add the Filipino). How much more convincing an argument do you need ?
Every other religion condemns the acts of it's militant elements and would probably never do anything similar. Islam is at it's core a religion founded on militant behaviour, and it's adherents are called upon to respect Fatwahs. With that mentality, isn't it better to be safe than sorry ... any Muslim could *potentially* be a suicide bomber, even though the vast majority of them aren't.
Imagine Russian Roulette with every chamber loaded, except most of them are loaded with blanks. Would you pull the trigger ?
It's not like the pants bomber actually managed to bring down a plane, is it?
So it's okay if I repeated stab you with this blunt kitchen knife ? I mean, provided I don't kill you, no harm done eh ?
Well I don't mind letting 'em have a look at my 14" by 8.5" cock
You neglected to mention that it's only 12 microns thick.
I assume this is because white people who convert to Islam are the most likely to be radicalised in the eyes of the security people.
Look, in the last 10 years, there's been 9/11, the London and Europe train bombings, and the "set his balls on fire" man ... all done by Muslims in the name of Islam.
Exactly *which* demographic should the security guards be looking at ? Over 65 year old Mormons ?
It's not radicalisation, it's just common fucking sense ... target the ones who are more likely to be terrorists, rather than wasting even more of everyone else's time in the name of "fairness".
Yup, in the same way they fuck over the general public with Hardback first and Paperback later versions.
Here in PH, we've been waiting over six months for the paperback version of Dan Brown's latest work, and all the time a massive pile of unsold hardbacks is gathering dust in the bookshop.
Billy No-Mates, is that you ?
It has been estimated roughly that an engineering, science or maths degree from Oxford or Cambridge has a net worth of over $300000
Because with the wonderful UK loans system, that's how much you are in debt when you finish it.
I hate to do this, I really do ...
Taught correctly, people can distinguish informal and formal writing properly.
FTFY :-)
I'm someone else who cut my teeth PEEKing and POKEing on Commodore and Sinclair machines. Hell, there were even magazines with "tricks-n-tips" for useful locations and what values would create what effects. Nowadays I suspect they'd just get sued under DMCA provisions for reverse engineering :-(
Yes, a sad time indeed.
Very rarely will you find the owner with his jaws clamped around your leg.
It's the fucking dog, you idiot.
Especially pit bulls and the like, they have been bred hundreds of generations for fighting. The owner can't change the temperament of the dog even if he wanted to, so calling it Cuddles and giving it a collar with a bell on it will not help the fact it's a pure-bred fighting machine.
She was apparently sharing a lot more than 24 songs, it wasn't just the case she'd downloaded them for her own personal use (in which case your fine might appear reasonable), but was actively sharing them with N unknown and unquantifiable 3rd parties.
I'd have thought for 24 songs, and considering the sharing aspect, a reasonable fine would be between 250 and 500 bucks. That makes a perfectly reasonable assumption that she shared those songs with 10 to 20 other users (who the hell has a 20:1 seed ratio anyway ?).
Nonetheless, she's still liable for legal fees, and that's where the big costs are, and I don't see why she should be exempted from those, considering how long her bullshitting has tied up the legal system from cases that are exactly important.
While I'm not condoning the RIAA tactics and extortion demands, I still think when you're found guilty, everyone knows you're guilty, and no amount of bullshitting will change that fact, maybe she should have just taken the original deal and saved everyone a whole lot of grief ? These appeals and counter-appeals are all about the damages, not the fact she is guilty or innocent. That IMHO is a waste of everyone's time and money. As someone else pointed out, she'll just declare bankrupcy and pay back exactly 0 dollars anyway.
So how many is "a lot more" ?
5 times, in which case the vaccination costs $1149/5 ?
50 times, in which case the vaccination costs $1149/50 ?
When we get to 500 times, then perhaps the cost per head is "reasonable".
I'm not quite sure the point you are trying to make ?
Are you saying that the vaccinations are not 100% effective, in which case saving 8.7 million lives costs another 8.7 lives where the vaccination failed ?
Or are you saying we are vaccinating a lot of people who don't actually NEED vaccinating, the net effect being we save 8.7 million lives out of 50 million vaccinations given ?
Way to oversimplify your side of the argument ... "just emailing it".
Don't you mean creating a new email, asking the other party what his email address is and typing it in, creating an unnecessary subject and message, adding attachment and searching your filesystem for it, enabling your 3G connection, choosing which provider to use, and then clicking send ? And then of course either texting or otherwise communicating to the other party, "hey check your mail, I just sent you something".
Not to mention the file goes all the way out to whatever SMTP provider you use, over N hops and then back through the recipient's POP server ... yes, way more convenient then just sending it person to person via bluetooth !
When you put BOTH sides of the argument in real perspective, bluetooth doesn't seem quite so daunting does it ?
and greatly exacerbated global warming
How many times, global warming is NOT caused by man ... it's caused by the sun, you idiot.
Well that's strange ... when the price dropped a couple of years ago to like $25 a barrel, the reason cited was "lack of demand"
10 billion dollar project is expected to save 8.7 million lives
So a mere $1149 dollars per person than ?
This is a problem when 99 cent injections + associated costs = $1149, wouldn't you say ?
It's more difficult than it needs to be, I think that is his point.
How many people in offices have PHBs who *still* send documents as email attachments, when there's a perfectly good LAN between the parties ? Now think of that irritation, but on a personal level.
Apple is the iPHB.