Re:What's the deal with the rush of TSA stories re
on
TSA Pats Down 3-Year-Old
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Bullshit.
You really think that the airlines -like- these? No, the airline's rights to be exempt from TSA screenings are being violated first off. This of course makes any free-market alternatives to the TSA unavailable.
Governments are not like private enterprise, in an age of fiat currency, we can't exactly 'bankrupt' the TSA like consumers can run a business into the ground by not choosing to use them. In no way does a decision not to fly hurt the TSA and send a statement to them, it does, however screw the airlines out of more business even though the TSA scans and the like weren't authorized by them. If no one flies, the TSA agents still get paid, they still get a chunk of the budget, cutting costs doesn't happen as easily as simply printing more worthless paper notes for the government.
Because all these TSA goons are stealing our tax money, make traveling a pain, are screwing airlines, etc.
The way it is, you can't simply choose -not- to deal with these privacy invading goons and fly unless you have something like a private jet.
The masses are scared that another 9/11 could happen again if we didn't have these things and every incompetent terrorist "attacks" add more "reason" that the masses see to continue with these worthless programs.
When the government which is supposed to be limited and by the people for the people is stealing your money, trying to run businesses into the ground which will no doubt 'need' to be "bailed out", invade your privacy and all of this for no increase in safety which is why they say they are doing it in the first place, it should be a major issue.
So let me get this right, the greatest threat to net neutrality isn't you know, Comcast which violated it, Microsoft which runs the majority of desktop PCs, Google which is approaching number 1 in smartphone OS marketshare, and is number one in a multitude of areas, but instead is Apple which has a decent, but falling smartphone marketshare, has a very low amount of marketshare with desktops/laptops, doesn't cater to the masses, and sells expensive stuff that the average person can't afford.
Of course Apple would want to control everyone's computers, Apple loves control but Apple doesn't like selling cheap stuff. When the choice is between a $450 laptop that can do everything you want to do for the average person or a $350 desktop, an Android handset free on contract on any carrier, etc. or a laptop line -starting- at $999, a tablet -starting- at the price higher than most laptops with less features, desktops -starting- at around $500-600, iPhone on AT&T only for $99-200 on contract, etc.
Apple isn't a threat to net freedom because Apple doesn't produce cheap enough things for most people to buy.
It works on the same principle. Tetris reduces thinking of things other than the game. With Pub Quiz and most things that are "productive" it is multi-dimensional thinking, you can't just focus on one task or you have downtime that allows those memories to reoccur.
Any sane person can see that this is a joke. Those that aren't sane are at risk for violent behavior already and -anything- can put them over the edge. Plus, this was a guy on a city council. A city. council. I don't know about you, but the people on my city council I really don't care what they say personally or not. This isn't an MP, this isn't the Queen, this isn't David Cameron or Nick Clegg saying this its some random city council member.
Free speech should be free speech, especially when it comes to things that are obviously jokes. If someone was going to kill this person, they were going to do it no matter what some random city councilor said or not.
Yes, it was an off-color (or would it be colour?) joke that wasn't very professional. Could people demand he not be re-elected and elect someone else? Yes. Should they arrest someone for an obvious joke? No.
Especially since Rare hasn't done much of anything with Microsoft. Back in the day, Rare titles more or less defined the game console, I mean, Donkey Kong Country showed people that the SNES still had some life in it against CD based competitors. Goldeneye and Perfect Dark basically created the console FPS genre. (Ok, and Star Fox adventures totally sucked, but lets ignore that for a moment) But ever since Rare is with Microsoft, nothing has really happened. Yes, there was Viva Pinata but Rare has fallen from its glory days of old.
I don't defend the ability for corporations to leverage their power over people in unfair ways.
How is it unfair?
I go to buy a product, I am informed of the product and reasonably can know its limitations. I buy that product. I am able to use that product as I see fit.
Yes, I do think that phones should have to say on the packaging if they do not allow root/admin/superuser/etc. access. But saying that you can't sell them despite the fact that people were aware of the limitations is as silly as saying we should ban tomatoes because they don't give you the ability to fly.
Except when HTC utilizes their control over the design to ensure that you can't. Sort of like how no one has broken Motorola's lock down of the boot loader or kernel.
Oh yes, I forgot about the fact that I was held up at gunpoint and forced to buy Motorola products! I mean, I was just sleeping and a Motorola representative pointed a 9MM at my head and handed me a Droid and made me use it.
If you don't like it, don't buy it. There are phones sold pre-rooted without a contract. Go buy one of those if you want one.
Nonsense. Corporations have too much power and control information too well for there to be a truly informed consumer base. That and corporations deliberately leverage the ignorance of the masses for their own benefit. Corporations and people are not equal. As it stands they have way more in terms of rights, power, money, and political influence than you and will always use it to disenfranchise you and benefit themselves.
Oh yes, I forgot that everyone everywhere was a corporate shill and that every single review MUST be written by an agent of a corporation. Bullshit. If you truly want to inform yourself you can read support forums, reviews from different sites, listen to what people on/. have to say about it, look at your friend's devices, etc. There can be a truly informed consumer base, the thing is, most people have no desire to be informed. No one wants the -best-, the most reliable, etc. they just want to make a statement with it.
And no, corporations (unlike governments) require the masses to survive. People automatically have leverage over corporations when the government steps out of the way and lets the market work. If people really didn't want phones like these, they would all buy Nexus Ones or similar phones and HTC wouldn't be profitable making locked-down phones and would switch to the more profitable phones or face increased competition from Nokia/Samsung/Motorola/etc. and don't say that the masses "didn't know" about the fact it was locked down, its pretty damn obvious if they were searching for it that it was locked down.
Corporations don't control the information, consumers just don't want to look for the information.
But that has nothing to do with jailbreaking. I can just as well use that much bandwidth streaming Pandora all day on a non-jailbroken iPhone or non-rooted G2 and the idea that jailbreaking somehow is going to add to bandwidth problems is rather silly at best.
This conflicts with the manufacturer being allowed to ship things locked down. I can understand secured with option to disable, but stuff like what Motorola does (and HTC, if they start signing the bootloader) precludes your right to work with your property, and solely for the benefit of the manufacturer.
No it doesn't. Consider someone buying a locked chest. It should be within someone's rights to sell a locked chest so long as the person who buys it knows that it is locked. It should be well within that person's rights that when they take it home, they decide to either pick the lock, cut off the lock, or smash open the chest. There is no conflict there. Now, that person shouldn't be able to force the seller of the locked chest to help him glue back the pieces of the chest he smashed open because he took that risk when he took a hammer to it, but there still is no conflict, it was a fair deal: the person got what he paid for knowing it would be a locked chest and the person selling it got the money from what they were selling.
It is only when you involve government that there can be conflicts. It is only with government control that you can get into pointless 'rental' disputes about how you never actually owned the things you paid for.
A government who tries to 'help' consumers by limiting what corporations can do can and will just as easily screw customers in favor of corporations. If you don't screw with the balance of power and instead leave governments out of things like this, consumers gain more control.
When you put that control into the government's hands it flip flops back and forth from control from the people to the corporations back to the people then back to corporate control again.
It is a fundamental right for people to be able to sell whatever product they wish so long as its not represented fraudulently and doesn't cause harm when used normally. Similarly, it is a fundamental right to use whatever product you purchased in whatever way doesn't harm others. When kept in balance, both sides balance each other out, sure, HTC can make a locked down phone, but it is a right for consumers to break it. When that balance of power doesn't exist like in copyright, either side demands more and more legislative protection which removes any balance and shifts it on one side or the other.
Indeed, it would be PUTTING POWER IN YOUR HANDS
At the expense of taking the power out of HTC's hands. You don't seem to see the historical precedent set by just about every law which shifts the power, it goes from one side to the other where both sides end up losing.
The FDA was designed to 'protect' consumers but yet it is used for big corporations to squash competition from smaller, localized, farmers. Copyright was designed to protect the artist and the public but yet it doesn't. Patents were designed to not monopolize knowledge but to free it from the grasps of guilds, but yet it is a monopoly. Etc.
The only sustainable way to have freedom is to allow businesses to do what they will and let consumers do what they will. It is only through that, that a sustainable and free equilibrium can be reached.
We have a network where pretty much everyone runs whatever they want on it. Its called the internet. And yet, oddly enough there aren't any major service disruptions other than a few localized events.
Sooner or later we should start pushing for lock downs to be made illegal, and demonstrating that they are ineffective is as good a first step as any.
No, lock downs shouldn't be illegal, it should, however, on the packaging and in the contract say to what extent things are locked down.
It should be the manufacturer's right to lock down whatever in the product they send out, it isn't the manufacturer's right to send feature destroying firmware updates out with the intent to disrupt people who chose to use their devices in other ways just like it isn't within my rights to mail every Windows user I know a virus intending to cause harm and because it is fraud to sell a product then release something that makes the product inoperative.
On the other hand, it should be perfectly within anyone's rights to modify and use their legitimately purchased items in whatever way they want (assuming it doesn't cause harm to others).
What "security" does this give you though? Its becoming increasingly obvious that many vendors -cough- Motorola -cough- want to lock down phones while not providing updates. When I buy a phone, subsidized or not, I should have the right to use it in the way that I want to. Whether that is jailbreaking, rooting, unlocking, etc. the phone. It is counter-productive for HTC/Motorola/Samsung/etc. to keep locking down their phones because what does it really gain them? A bunch of pissed off customers that their device won't be upgradeable past Android 1.6?
This is the only thing they can think of doing - for better or worse.
Except for, you know, like taking Google to court? Yes, I'm sure the court system in China isn't as good as the court system in freer, western, nations but at least do that.
Or, better yet, run your own ad company. When you are a useless middleman as it seems these people were, don't be surprised when companies streamline things to leave you out.
I'm really having a hard time finding sympathy for a company who totally relied on only one company to be a middleman. Thats just a piss-poor business strategy.
I don't know why you would think that these "hunger strikes" are in any way honorable. A hunger strike is the adult version of telling your parents you want to run away or kill yourself. It accomplishes nothing but trying to get someone to feel guilt. If you feel like you've been wronged do the adult thing and take Google to court and don't act like a 7 year old.
Perhaps it's the western perspective that work isn't something worth our health?
It isn't a "perspective" its simply a fact. No matter what philosophy you believe in, people were called for an existence other than making things in a factory. If you believe in atheism, the highest calling is to breed and protect your offspring so they can be raised to maturity to continue the human race. If you believe in religion, the highest calling is to serve your god in some way which usually goes beyond just sitting in a factory all day.
Mono should be looked at like WINE, useful to port programs to, useful to get some programs to run, but shouldn't be your language of choice if you want to get cross-platform apps.
Um, yes, I'd hope that Google Instant was censored because who wants to type in something innocent and have it come up with a porn site? Do you really want to be searching for something like "Sexual Harassment Lawsuits" and simply have all the sites for "sex" or "sexual" come up whenever you type them?
The good thing is, I can see this helping with sandboxing browsers, especially the ones in internet cafes or public labs when you are searching for something and you get bombarded with ads (usually the talking ones when the person before you turned the volume to max) or irrelevant content. However, Google is becoming less and less lightweight. If I wanted things like this I would use "iGoogle" or whatever their portal page is now.
Um, this launched Monday night, as in, last night. And judging from Google's headlines, there have been reports by news outlets from 4 hours or longer ago. This is/., we get the news late.
You make the mistake of thinking that the DHS was designed to actually have anything to do with safety. The only thing it has done is allow fear to be put into people into thinking that we need to give more money + power to the government to protect us against "threats".
Then why would you launch it right next to one of the most populated areas in the US? If you were going to launch something like that why not take it to some overseas territories in the middle of the pacific and test it there? I mean, really, out of all the places to stage a launch you do it 30 some miles off the coast of a very populated city? Even though it is the US government, you would think they would be smarter than that.
The whole system is complete bullshit. You want to know why we haven't had any successful terrorist attacks on planes since 9/11? It hasn't been because of these systems it is because people feel threatened and are willing to do whatever it takes to prevent a terrorist or hijacker from carrying out their plots. Before 9/11 you complied with the hijacker, wound up in Cuba and so long as you didn't piss off the hijacker or were really unlucky you made it off alive. Today, people think that they will either go down with the plane exploding or have the plane run into a building.
The airlines lose money with every new silly TSA regulation because it makes it more and more unpleasant to fly. Because of this, airlines have to cut costs to remain profitable which results in worse service which results in less people wanting to fly then the TSA comes up with a silly new regulation which makes it even more unpleasant to fly, and it goes on and on.
Clearly the answer is to ban the thing the bomb came in and search those things because we all know that everything is going to be the exact same and its going to make us be safer! Whats next? Someone tries to put some explosives in gum therefore we ban gum while ignoring everything else?
Its becoming increasingly obvious that the TSA is designed to cripple airlines, make comfortable travel nearly impossible, violate privacy all the while doing nothing to stop a real terrorist plot.
Slashdot Mirror
Bullshit.
You really think that the airlines -like- these? No, the airline's rights to be exempt from TSA screenings are being violated first off. This of course makes any free-market alternatives to the TSA unavailable.
Governments are not like private enterprise, in an age of fiat currency, we can't exactly 'bankrupt' the TSA like consumers can run a business into the ground by not choosing to use them. In no way does a decision not to fly hurt the TSA and send a statement to them, it does, however screw the airlines out of more business even though the TSA scans and the like weren't authorized by them. If no one flies, the TSA agents still get paid, they still get a chunk of the budget, cutting costs doesn't happen as easily as simply printing more worthless paper notes for the government.
Because all these TSA goons are stealing our tax money, make traveling a pain, are screwing airlines, etc.
The way it is, you can't simply choose -not- to deal with these privacy invading goons and fly unless you have something like a private jet.
The masses are scared that another 9/11 could happen again if we didn't have these things and every incompetent terrorist "attacks" add more "reason" that the masses see to continue with these worthless programs.
When the government which is supposed to be limited and by the people for the people is stealing your money, trying to run businesses into the ground which will no doubt 'need' to be "bailed out", invade your privacy and all of this for no increase in safety which is why they say they are doing it in the first place, it should be a major issue.
Thats because a Mac Book Air A) Isn't cheap and B) Has specs that aren't bottom-end. The Air is simply a light laptop, not a cheap laptop.
So let me get this right, the greatest threat to net neutrality isn't you know, Comcast which violated it, Microsoft which runs the majority of desktop PCs, Google which is approaching number 1 in smartphone OS marketshare, and is number one in a multitude of areas, but instead is Apple which has a decent, but falling smartphone marketshare, has a very low amount of marketshare with desktops/laptops, doesn't cater to the masses, and sells expensive stuff that the average person can't afford.
Of course Apple would want to control everyone's computers, Apple loves control but Apple doesn't like selling cheap stuff. When the choice is between a $450 laptop that can do everything you want to do for the average person or a $350 desktop, an Android handset free on contract on any carrier, etc. or a laptop line -starting- at $999, a tablet -starting- at the price higher than most laptops with less features, desktops -starting- at around $500-600, iPhone on AT&T only for $99-200 on contract, etc.
Apple isn't a threat to net freedom because Apple doesn't produce cheap enough things for most people to buy.
It works on the same principle. Tetris reduces thinking of things other than the game. With Pub Quiz and most things that are "productive" it is multi-dimensional thinking, you can't just focus on one task or you have downtime that allows those memories to reoccur.
Bullshit.
Any sane person can see that this is a joke. Those that aren't sane are at risk for violent behavior already and -anything- can put them over the edge. Plus, this was a guy on a city council. A city. council. I don't know about you, but the people on my city council I really don't care what they say personally or not. This isn't an MP, this isn't the Queen, this isn't David Cameron or Nick Clegg saying this its some random city council member.
Free speech should be free speech, especially when it comes to things that are obviously jokes. If someone was going to kill this person, they were going to do it no matter what some random city councilor said or not.
Yes, it was an off-color (or would it be colour?) joke that wasn't very professional. Could people demand he not be re-elected and elect someone else? Yes. Should they arrest someone for an obvious joke? No.
Especially since Rare hasn't done much of anything with Microsoft. Back in the day, Rare titles more or less defined the game console, I mean, Donkey Kong Country showed people that the SNES still had some life in it against CD based competitors. Goldeneye and Perfect Dark basically created the console FPS genre. (Ok, and Star Fox adventures totally sucked, but lets ignore that for a moment) But ever since Rare is with Microsoft, nothing has really happened. Yes, there was Viva Pinata but Rare has fallen from its glory days of old.
I don't defend the ability for corporations to leverage their power over people in unfair ways.
How is it unfair?
I go to buy a product, I am informed of the product and reasonably can know its limitations. I buy that product. I am able to use that product as I see fit.
Yes, I do think that phones should have to say on the packaging if they do not allow root/admin/superuser/etc. access. But saying that you can't sell them despite the fact that people were aware of the limitations is as silly as saying we should ban tomatoes because they don't give you the ability to fly.
Except when HTC utilizes their control over the design to ensure that you can't. Sort of like how no one has broken Motorola's lock down of the boot loader or kernel.
Oh yes, I forgot about the fact that I was held up at gunpoint and forced to buy Motorola products! I mean, I was just sleeping and a Motorola representative pointed a 9MM at my head and handed me a Droid and made me use it.
If you don't like it, don't buy it. There are phones sold pre-rooted without a contract. Go buy one of those if you want one.
Nonsense. Corporations have too much power and control information too well for there to be a truly informed consumer base. That and corporations deliberately leverage the ignorance of the masses for their own benefit. Corporations and people are not equal. As it stands they have way more in terms of rights, power, money, and political influence than you and will always use it to disenfranchise you and benefit themselves.
Oh yes, I forgot that everyone everywhere was a corporate shill and that every single review MUST be written by an agent of a corporation. Bullshit. If you truly want to inform yourself you can read support forums, reviews from different sites, listen to what people on /. have to say about it, look at your friend's devices, etc. There can be a truly informed consumer base, the thing is, most people have no desire to be informed. No one wants the -best-, the most reliable, etc. they just want to make a statement with it.
And no, corporations (unlike governments) require the masses to survive. People automatically have leverage over corporations when the government steps out of the way and lets the market work. If people really didn't want phones like these, they would all buy Nexus Ones or similar phones and HTC wouldn't be profitable making locked-down phones and would switch to the more profitable phones or face increased competition from Nokia/Samsung/Motorola/etc. and don't say that the masses "didn't know" about the fact it was locked down, its pretty damn obvious if they were searching for it that it was locked down.
Corporations don't control the information, consumers just don't want to look for the information.
But that has nothing to do with jailbreaking. I can just as well use that much bandwidth streaming Pandora all day on a non-jailbroken iPhone or non-rooted G2 and the idea that jailbreaking somehow is going to add to bandwidth problems is rather silly at best.
This conflicts with the manufacturer being allowed to ship things locked down. I can understand secured with option to disable, but stuff like what Motorola does (and HTC, if they start signing the bootloader) precludes your right to work with your property, and solely for the benefit of the manufacturer.
No it doesn't. Consider someone buying a locked chest. It should be within someone's rights to sell a locked chest so long as the person who buys it knows that it is locked. It should be well within that person's rights that when they take it home, they decide to either pick the lock, cut off the lock, or smash open the chest. There is no conflict there. Now, that person shouldn't be able to force the seller of the locked chest to help him glue back the pieces of the chest he smashed open because he took that risk when he took a hammer to it, but there still is no conflict, it was a fair deal: the person got what he paid for knowing it would be a locked chest and the person selling it got the money from what they were selling.
It is only when you involve government that there can be conflicts. It is only with government control that you can get into pointless 'rental' disputes about how you never actually owned the things you paid for.
A government who tries to 'help' consumers by limiting what corporations can do can and will just as easily screw customers in favor of corporations. If you don't screw with the balance of power and instead leave governments out of things like this, consumers gain more control.
When you put that control into the government's hands it flip flops back and forth from control from the people to the corporations back to the people then back to corporate control again.
It is a fundamental right for people to be able to sell whatever product they wish so long as its not represented fraudulently and doesn't cause harm when used normally. Similarly, it is a fundamental right to use whatever product you purchased in whatever way doesn't harm others. When kept in balance, both sides balance each other out, sure, HTC can make a locked down phone, but it is a right for consumers to break it. When that balance of power doesn't exist like in copyright, either side demands more and more legislative protection which removes any balance and shifts it on one side or the other.
Indeed, it would be PUTTING POWER IN YOUR HANDS
At the expense of taking the power out of HTC's hands. You don't seem to see the historical precedent set by just about every law which shifts the power, it goes from one side to the other where both sides end up losing.
The FDA was designed to 'protect' consumers but yet it is used for big corporations to squash competition from smaller, localized, farmers. Copyright was designed to protect the artist and the public but yet it doesn't. Patents were designed to not monopolize knowledge but to free it from the grasps of guilds, but yet it is a monopoly. Etc.
The only sustainable way to have freedom is to allow businesses to do what they will and let consumers do what they will. It is only through that, that a sustainable and free equilibrium can be reached.
We have a network where pretty much everyone runs whatever they want on it. Its called the internet. And yet, oddly enough there aren't any major service disruptions other than a few localized events.
Sooner or later we should start pushing for lock downs to be made illegal, and demonstrating that they are ineffective is as good a first step as any.
No, lock downs shouldn't be illegal, it should, however, on the packaging and in the contract say to what extent things are locked down.
It should be the manufacturer's right to lock down whatever in the product they send out, it isn't the manufacturer's right to send feature destroying firmware updates out with the intent to disrupt people who chose to use their devices in other ways just like it isn't within my rights to mail every Windows user I know a virus intending to cause harm and because it is fraud to sell a product then release something that makes the product inoperative.
On the other hand, it should be perfectly within anyone's rights to modify and use their legitimately purchased items in whatever way they want (assuming it doesn't cause harm to others).
What "security" does this give you though? Its becoming increasingly obvious that many vendors -cough- Motorola -cough- want to lock down phones while not providing updates. When I buy a phone, subsidized or not, I should have the right to use it in the way that I want to. Whether that is jailbreaking, rooting, unlocking, etc. the phone. It is counter-productive for HTC/Motorola/Samsung/etc. to keep locking down their phones because what does it really gain them? A bunch of pissed off customers that their device won't be upgradeable past Android 1.6?
This is the only thing they can think of doing - for better or worse.
Except for, you know, like taking Google to court? Yes, I'm sure the court system in China isn't as good as the court system in freer, western, nations but at least do that.
Or, better yet, run your own ad company. When you are a useless middleman as it seems these people were, don't be surprised when companies streamline things to leave you out.
I'm really having a hard time finding sympathy for a company who totally relied on only one company to be a middleman. Thats just a piss-poor business strategy.
Perhaps it's the western perspective that work isn't something worth our health?
It isn't a "perspective" its simply a fact. No matter what philosophy you believe in, people were called for an existence other than making things in a factory. If you believe in atheism, the highest calling is to breed and protect your offspring so they can be raised to maturity to continue the human race. If you believe in religion, the highest calling is to serve your god in some way which usually goes beyond just sitting in a factory all day.
Mono should be looked at like WINE, useful to port programs to, useful to get some programs to run, but shouldn't be your language of choice if you want to get cross-platform apps.
Um, yes, I'd hope that Google Instant was censored because who wants to type in something innocent and have it come up with a porn site? Do you really want to be searching for something like "Sexual Harassment Lawsuits" and simply have all the sites for "sex" or "sexual" come up whenever you type them?
The good thing is, I can see this helping with sandboxing browsers, especially the ones in internet cafes or public labs when you are searching for something and you get bombarded with ads (usually the talking ones when the person before you turned the volume to max) or irrelevant content. However, Google is becoming less and less lightweight. If I wanted things like this I would use "iGoogle" or whatever their portal page is now.
Um, this launched Monday night, as in, last night. And judging from Google's headlines, there have been reports by news outlets from 4 hours or longer ago. This is /., we get the news late.
You make the mistake of thinking that the DHS was designed to actually have anything to do with safety. The only thing it has done is allow fear to be put into people into thinking that we need to give more money + power to the government to protect us against "threats".
Then why would you launch it right next to one of the most populated areas in the US? If you were going to launch something like that why not take it to some overseas territories in the middle of the pacific and test it there? I mean, really, out of all the places to stage a launch you do it 30 some miles off the coast of a very populated city? Even though it is the US government, you would think they would be smarter than that.
The whole system is complete bullshit. You want to know why we haven't had any successful terrorist attacks on planes since 9/11? It hasn't been because of these systems it is because people feel threatened and are willing to do whatever it takes to prevent a terrorist or hijacker from carrying out their plots. Before 9/11 you complied with the hijacker, wound up in Cuba and so long as you didn't piss off the hijacker or were really unlucky you made it off alive. Today, people think that they will either go down with the plane exploding or have the plane run into a building.
The airlines lose money with every new silly TSA regulation because it makes it more and more unpleasant to fly. Because of this, airlines have to cut costs to remain profitable which results in worse service which results in less people wanting to fly then the TSA comes up with a silly new regulation which makes it even more unpleasant to fly, and it goes on and on.
Clearly the answer is to ban the thing the bomb came in and search those things because we all know that everything is going to be the exact same and its going to make us be safer! Whats next? Someone tries to put some explosives in gum therefore we ban gum while ignoring everything else?
Its becoming increasingly obvious that the TSA is designed to cripple airlines, make comfortable travel nearly impossible, violate privacy all the while doing nothing to stop a real terrorist plot.