Or he could take the correct approach and just deny the commit, rather than spewing noise about it, all the while taking non-bug fixes in an RC and then bitching about it. Why waste the time and energy. Make them resubmit with only bug fixes the way it is intended to be done.
You couldn't be more wrong. They do not use the legacy file system as you know it. They use a task specific file system. It's evident in every aspect of iCloud, and iTunes. When you want to work with files relating to your gym app, you select the gym app on your iDevice, and you will see all files related to that app. iCloud is the same way.
Apple's method doesn't need 'directories' or anything of the sort. The underlying structure is irrelevant in a task oriented file system. You see the files specific to the task you are working on. It doesn't require knowledge of the underlying file system, or a knowledge of how folder structures work or are layed out. You seem to think that Apple is targeting a geek. Nothing could be farther from the truth. It's probably one of the primary reasons that geeks hate Apple so much. They don't market to geeks, they don't sell the features you think are important, and it's also the reason that geeks just don't get why average Joe and Jane like Apple's approach. It doesn't require computing knowledge. It's intuitive to a regular person. They can spend more time using their device to do the things they want it for, rather than worrying about applying the latest shell.
Simple and elegant as an answer can get. Hopefully they mod you up for that.
The police may be asking all of the wrong questions, which of course lead them to a 'guilty' conviction. It makes sense for them to do so, while they may understandably have less passion in proving you innocent. The answers they could compel may not have any basis in the reality of what actually happened.
I think the disconnect here is not in writing the patch, but rather certifying it doesn't break anything else. Any time you touch code, you risk breaking something else. Our QA department requires a regular 20 day lead time, although you can escalate emergencies for production fixes and get them into QA almost immediately, but it still often takes 2-3 days to get a minimal once-over from QA. They do not evaluate all of the code line by line. They test all functionality, ensure that it works as documented, and they also verify the fallback package to ensure if something does break production, you can quickly fall back off.
7 Days for a business is do-able, but expecting a patch at the drop of a hat is not realistic. Anyone doing so would most likely introduce any number of new issues that could be just as likely to expose new vulnerabilities. It's easy to react. Much harder to react with required caution if that makes sense. All patches should still undergo as much QA as is feasible to ensure stability and a fix for the existing issue.
Any number of things could be done. It could emit a low pitch noise, it could be given a very obvious glow (some suggested a pin light led type indicator but those can be easily hidden).
They could also just ban them in certain places, like pharmacies, bathrooms, etc.
Just because technology makes a thing possible, doesn't mean it should be done. You seem to have forgotten that. There are often moral dilemmas associated with new technologies. Society hasn't put the proper expectations around this one, or looked at another way, the 'hate' is exactly that; an expectation that the technology needs to change to become acceptable to the public.
You're making the false assumption that the government would need to 'hack' a device or get a warrant. Google glasses provides the ability to simply upload it into the public domain. In other words, there would be little reason for a warrant. They could at some point, tap into any persons public life, relatively easy with face recognition software, and by scraping what's publicly available on the internet.
The difference here is that it isn't readily obvious if a person is being recorded. it adds a whole new range of 'creepy' to this gear. If you see someone holding a phone, they typically hold it in an almost horizontal fashion as they look down to navigate or browse. If you find someone holding a phone in front of them in a vertical fashion, it would be immediately obvious that they are recording or taking a photo. Glasses turns on the display, which could easily just be someone browsing, or doing any number of other activities. It's the fact that these could become mainstream, and could easily cloak that people are taking photos or videos with their target being unaware of what's going on. Only a fool states that only those doing something illegal have nothing to hide. EVERYONE has something to hide, be that a nasty habit of picking your nose, buying RID at the pharmacy, throwing Chicks with Dicks out in your trash, staring at your brothers wife's ass at the family reunion and having it uploaded afterwards, picking up HIV drugs at the pharmacy, etc. All of these things are potentially in the public view, but they are typically not readily available to be recorded an uploaded to youtube at the whim of a total stranger looking for 'likes' or a few laughs.
People have a certain expectation of privacy even in public, where a potentially live camera removes all doubt, and it can be uploaded to the net, which NEVER forgets.
Is it really that hard to understand why there is so much hate? Public surveillance is totally different in that the common public doesn't typically access it, and it's typically not available to upload on a whim to the net where it could potentially live forever.
This is hardly the case of someone doing nothing wrong. From the original article:
On July 24, he said he was at a 'great crossroads. As if a storm of destiny is about to pick me up and take me to fight a great battle.' On August 9 he talked about severing heads and told the generals he was coming for them. On August 13, he wrote, 'Sharpen up my axe; I'm here to sever heads.' On August 14, Raub wrote, 'The Revolution will come for me. Men will be at my door soon to pick me up to lead it.'"
There is a point where you cross a line from being angry, to posing a potential danger to those around you. I think he easily cross the line where higher scrutiny is deserved.
Although it's possible some providers may try offering inferior plans, the fact that it is still a free market (contrary to the 'socialist' cries from the the fringe elements), any provider offering substandard plans would quickly find themselves left in the dust or heavily penalized if they tried to gouge customers. The affordable health care act requires that all applicants of the same general age and geographical location be offered the same premium costs, meaning any spikes due to pre-existing conditions will be averaged across a large number of individuals, which also includes a large number of health individuals which will balance out those spikes. Providers will also have to reinvest a set amount of profits into consumer benefits rather than profits, meaning the increased customer base doesn't necessarily mean they will get rich. There are indeed some good protections in the act that are consumer friendly.
Those who try to gouge customers will also be barred from getting into the healthcare exchanges and the customers that those exchange will provide. Such companies will also be monitored by the HHS, DOJ and FTC, who will in turn report such gouging to the local states to see if the price hikes were 'justified', and can have penalties levied against them if they are found to be gouging. The information will also be published to the public. Such information would create a very black eye for any reputable company. Pharma and medical equipment manufacturer's are also covered under that provision.
In short, gouging from the insurance industry is not very likely, and can be promptly addressed at the federal and state level if needed.
Those who fall into poverty ranges (up to 138% of the poverty level) will receive assistance in paying for premiums, although they will have to contribute within their means. It's a fair system IMO.
The act also makes it easier for smaller businesses (50 employees) to offer health care coverage via the same exchanges as well as help wit subsidies from the government to help reduce their premium costs), where previously they had no such option (all or nothing type of situation).
As to Larry, his statement speaks volumes about the disconnect of the rich from the poor. Prior to health care reform, admitting you had a pre-existing condition virtually guaranteed you would never find coverage, or that such coverage would be excluded with a rider to your policy, making coverage largely pointless for those with a condition requiring regular treatment.
You can only download matched media, or purchased media. Anyone who rips a significant portion of their library would require match to do this (pay account), and upload it before they could leverage cloud playback on demand.
As to your CPU issue it appears to be related to winsock.
Close your iTunes, Go to command Prompt -
(Win 7/Vista) - START>PROGRAMS>ACCESSORIES, right mouse click "Command Prompt", choose "Run as Administrator".
(Win XP SP2 n above) - START>PROGRAMS>ACCESSORIES>Command Prompt
In the "Command Prompt" screen, type in
netsh winsock reset
Hit "ENTER" key Restart your computer. If you do get a prompt after restart windows to remap LSP, just click NO.
Now launch your iTunes and see if it is working now.
If you are still having these type of problems after trying the winsock reset, refer to this article to identify which software in your system is inserting LSP:
I think his comment was aimed more at those who simply don't want to be recorded 24x7. Although this is becoming the norm in some of the larger metro areas across it's not all that common in the U.S for example.
I actually find I'm not all that comfortable with it either and I'm no criminal. It just has a bit of a creepy vibe that's hard to ignore.
It's also hard to ignore Google primary business profit motive. Couple that with these, and the likely place that these sorts of clips, photos, and video's will end up, and it just turns me off to the idea.
Agree somewhat, but as I said, it falls on both, and you touched on that as well when it comes to devs taking the 'easy' route rather than doing it right. Although MS could make it more clear and harder to deviate both through policy and enforcement, it also falls on the developer to do their due diligence and follow the standards.
As easy as it is to blame MS (and there is plenty of room for blame there as well as plenty of room for improvement), there's enough blame to go around.
The parent is correct. NT was always designed as multi-user. As to programs requiring admin rights, the fault there lies somewhat in both MS and Developer hands. It's all to common for Windows apps to ask about installing an app for 'all users', which would generally require admin access if it writes to the HLKM registry keys.
A simple example would be OS X and it's Application folder, which provides a central point for 'common' apps, which any valid user account can initially drop an app into, but then all user specific files are stored in the users directory on a per-user basis. Also like Linux, they provide user specific ~/Application folders (/usr/bin) to keep things tidy if needed. An install leveraging that install structure doesn't require an admin password on OS X or Linux. A similar 'all users' install on Windows isn't always as clean, often requiring files to be spread across a variety of system folders for an All User install.
I think the last piece of the puzzle has to do with Windows general 'messiness' when it comes to application installs. This is something I actually admire on OS X in that it uses self contained app installs, with user prefs, and app settings created and stored in the user directories on a per-user as-needed basis. It allows anyone to install an app for 'all users', allows individual end-user customization via preference files and app config files, and also makes it easy to blow one aspect of those three away without affecting the other pieces (very useful for troubleshooting). Really wishing MS would ditch the registry for something similar (is it wrong to wish for the old INI functionality of tweaking a programs settings in a simple and straightforward way?).
I've often wondered if/when the MS folks would revisit their app install process. It's a bit dated, and arguably not always multi-user install friendly depending on the functionality needed, and the support files needed for the install. I suspect such a change would break a lot of legacy programs, which seems to be something MS is always hesitant to do.
And you in turn treat your neighbors and passerby's as potential 'terrorists'. Do you lock your house at night? If so, why? it's a simple precaution, but it restricts your freedoms, yet you do it. You do it to protect yourself and your family. You choose this over leaving your door wide open. You would also probably prevent an armed neighbor from just walking in your door. You would stop them and question what the hell they were doing.
The simple fact is that the majority of people who fly actually agree with these security checks whether misguided or not, just as you put basic security in place on your home. You do this because you have the authority (it's your house). Granted, this is just an example, but a valid comparison. The difference here being that the TSA is tasked with the safety of the passengers and airline employees just as you may be tasked with the safety of those in your home. The airport is 'their house', and the public is their 'family'...ok, that was a little creepy and sickening, but you hopefully get the point.
It's not strictly about you, but about what the majority of air passengers want to get a basic level of perceived safety. The courts allow it because congress allowed it, and congress allowed it because that's what a majority of their constituents want.
Oddly enough, the same is true regarding drone attacks. A large majority support them. People understand the realities of todays terrorists, the risks, and potential casualties a terrorist can inflict. They have real world examples engraved in their memories after 9/11.
Actually the courts already addressed this. In your opinion, their rights are violated. The courts would disagree. As I said, if they were treated as potential terrorists, they would be arrested, or put on a no fly list. As it is, you just go through security. The extent of 'violation' which largely relates to the extent that I personally think is too far. Simple checks for weapons and dangerous chemicals, that catch the bulk of 'simpleton' attempts at carry on, I'm fine with. Full body scanners that don't work, backscatter, etc, not so much.
I would ask again, please provide a list of U.S. citizens being labeled as 'suspected terrorists' by the Government at U.S. airports, and the reasons for each.
There are all sorts of idiots stopped every day, like those I mentioned with body armor, gas masks, and banned chemicals in their baggage (this inventory list is all the same person by the way). You would prefer they just let this person on a plane anyway? Give him the benefit of the doubt? Would you feel comfortable flying with someone known to have all of those items in his carry-on?
I happen to love the quote from Benjamin Franklin about those willing to give up freedom. I think it cuts to the very heart of the debate regarding giving up rights to 'reserve' safety. That said, I also don't' think he could comprehend the destructive power a single person can wield these days, and the hundreds or even thousands of people a single person can kill, whether unbalanced, or using premeditation.
If a security check is common sense, I have no issue with it.
No, they are being treated like a potential threat to the passengers on the plane. If they were being treated as potential terrorists, they would either be arrested, or put on a no-fly list.
Agreed and point taken. If the Pakistani military believes that 80% of those were militants, than I find that ratio acceptable during military action. Given that a handful of people killed thousands of Americans in the course of 90 minutes. Those would be what I would consider acceptable casualties. Given their MO of using civilians as meat shields, it is unavoidable.
They didn't give the Americans any such luxury, where I would guess that a high 95+ percentile were just civilians. The only military target was the Pentagon which had one of the lowest fatality rates of any of their attacks.
In your first scenario, the hypothetical is too ridiculous to be believed. I would classify that in the same vein as Rand's rant. It seems the rhetoric is relishing creating these wild fantasies, when simple reality says that any civilians killed in such a strike will most definitely result in investigations by either extreme.
The second hypothetical is more much relevant. Lets say this person does move to a country classified as an 'axis of evil', albeit far fetched when such a hacker could do the same from here or via a zombies host. Assume they left the country in protest for some added drama. None of these things would make him a terrorist, but rather just a criminal (assuming he or she followed through on the act of espionage). If he was to hack into an agency that and releases information that puts American lives at risk, he or she crosses a line and becomes a terrorist. A good example would be releasing the names of undercover agents and putting their lives and/or families at risk.
In your last scenario, a politician 'labeling' someone as a traitor fortunately is no where near enough to in fact 'make it so'. They have entire branches of government dedicated to determining exactly what a person is doing, may do, all past and present connections, monitoring where their money is spent and received from, communications, hell, even romantic interests ((any and all connections), etc. Simply being called a terrorist by someone in congress like Palin calling him an enemy (while laughable) is also pointless and yet again more rhetoric. I don't think, I would hop you would agree, that the President would give no credence to such a claim by a member of congress. They would rely on intelligence (something congress seems to lack all too often).
Interesting. Do you have a list of these US citizens being arrested and classified as terrorists at a US airport? i see a small number of people over the last few years in the UK arrested under suspicion of Terrorism who were actively engaged in planning attacks and who were fortunately stopped before they could inflict harm, but not much here in the U.S. I found 1 in Dec of 2012 in Atlanta, and one in June of 2010. The two in 2010 were actively trying to join Al Shabab, a group that claims ideological kinship with Al Qaeda.
The Dec 2012 pair also seems pretty well researched.
Wilson, also known as Rasheed Wilson, and Abukhdair are both U.S. citizens. At the time of their arrests, they were being investigated by the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force in Mobile. The two allegedly met online in 2010. Wilson is described in the criminal complaint as a close friend and former roommate of Omar Hammami, an American and member of the Somali Islamist militant group al-Shabaab. Hammami, who was raised in Alabama, is believed to be a senior leader within al-Shabaab, which is an Al Qaeda affiliate. He has been indicted on U.S. terrorism charges and is on the FBI’s “Most Wanted Terorrists” list.
It seems it really is more difficult than you make it seem to be classified as a terrorist to the point where they take action and arrest you. It seems in many of these, the people in question either did brain-dead things like wear bullet proof vests, and had weapons, gas masks, and other questionable material in their carry-ons, and were arrested for suspicion of terrorism, or they were already on a most wanted list as likely engaged in terrorist activities with some pretty hard links to Al Qaeda.
Care to post some valid information on how easy it is to be arrested as a terrorist? [Citation Needed]
Now you are equating a suspected terrorist in the midst of causing imminent harm, to assassinating someone while they are asleep? Really? Perhaps you should go back and read Holder's reply. It's very clear. Perhaps your reading comprehension needs work.
You might also try to remember that during military action, or war, civilians can and do get in the way. It is unavoidable. Claiming the President is sitting there directing civilians to be shot is bullshit. it's also bullshit claiming those deaths are all due to American action. A large portion are from factions within Iraq, Iran, etc. Nice straw man. It's also bullshit claiming all of those deaths are drone related. Estimates for Pakistan for example show drone related deaths to be about 2000-3500. Seems that number falls far short of your hundreds of thousands, but don't let facts get in the way.
It should also be noted that the Pakistani military believes that upwards of 80% of those killed in drone attacks were militants. I don't recall the twin towers being a hotbed of military planning, warehouses for weapons, or anything of that sort, but I must have missed that memo too. What they did was an act of war. You do what you can to minimize civilian fatalities (or at least the US does...the terrorists do not).
As to terrorists hiding in schools, markets, homes, etc. This is war. It's ugly. Terrorists are also known to reside in such places for just that reason. To use their own citizens as human shields. Civilian losses are always considered. Unless you have some evidence that these civilian losses were somehow disregarded as irrelevant, your just blowing smoke. Then again, you are posting anonymously. Go figure.
I didn't state it doesn't exist. In fact I indicated that it's common for a sitting president to have a kill list. I do question that this kill list contains anything but terrorists, or suspected terrorists. Making it appear as if he's just randomly selecting people with a dart and a dartboard is disingenuous at best, and outright lying at it's worst.
Just because an article notes a phrase, doesn't validate it as true. I would expect someone from/. to at least do a little due diligence. By your standard, simply putting "Obama Kill List" here on/. is sufficient citation?
Slashdot Mirror
Or he could take the correct approach and just deny the commit, rather than spewing noise about it, all the while taking non-bug fixes in an RC and then bitching about it. Why waste the time and energy. Make them resubmit with only bug fixes the way it is intended to be done.
You couldn't be more wrong. They do not use the legacy file system as you know it. They use a task specific file system. It's evident in every aspect of iCloud, and iTunes. When you want to work with files relating to your gym app, you select the gym app on your iDevice, and you will see all files related to that app. iCloud is the same way.
Apple's method doesn't need 'directories' or anything of the sort. The underlying structure is irrelevant in a task oriented file system. You see the files specific to the task you are working on. It doesn't require knowledge of the underlying file system, or a knowledge of how folder structures work or are layed out. You seem to think that Apple is targeting a geek. Nothing could be farther from the truth. It's probably one of the primary reasons that geeks hate Apple so much. They don't market to geeks, they don't sell the features you think are important, and it's also the reason that geeks just don't get why average Joe and Jane like Apple's approach. It doesn't require computing knowledge. It's intuitive to a regular person. They can spend more time using their device to do the things they want it for, rather than worrying about applying the latest shell.
Simple and elegant as an answer can get. Hopefully they mod you up for that.
The police may be asking all of the wrong questions, which of course lead them to a 'guilty' conviction. It makes sense for them to do so, while they may understandably have less passion in proving you innocent. The answers they could compel may not have any basis in the reality of what actually happened.
I think the disconnect here is not in writing the patch, but rather certifying it doesn't break anything else. Any time you touch code, you risk breaking something else. Our QA department requires a regular 20 day lead time, although you can escalate emergencies for production fixes and get them into QA almost immediately, but it still often takes 2-3 days to get a minimal once-over from QA. They do not evaluate all of the code line by line. They test all functionality, ensure that it works as documented, and they also verify the fallback package to ensure if something does break production, you can quickly fall back off.
7 Days for a business is do-able, but expecting a patch at the drop of a hat is not realistic. Anyone doing so would most likely introduce any number of new issues that could be just as likely to expose new vulnerabilities. It's easy to react. Much harder to react with required caution if that makes sense. All patches should still undergo as much QA as is feasible to ensure stability and a fix for the existing issue.
You can also put your own content (DRM Free) on a Kindle account so that it syncs between devices just like purchased content.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/sendtokindle
Any number of things could be done. It could emit a low pitch noise, it could be given a very obvious glow (some suggested a pin light led type indicator but those can be easily hidden).
They could also just ban them in certain places, like pharmacies, bathrooms, etc.
Just because technology makes a thing possible, doesn't mean it should be done. You seem to have forgotten that. There are often moral dilemmas associated with new technologies. Society hasn't put the proper expectations around this one, or looked at another way, the 'hate' is exactly that; an expectation that the technology needs to change to become acceptable to the public.
You're making the false assumption that the government would need to 'hack' a device or get a warrant. Google glasses provides the ability to simply upload it into the public domain. In other words, there would be little reason for a warrant. They could at some point, tap into any persons public life, relatively easy with face recognition software, and by scraping what's publicly available on the internet.
The difference here is that it isn't readily obvious if a person is being recorded. it adds a whole new range of 'creepy' to this gear. If you see someone holding a phone, they typically hold it in an almost horizontal fashion as they look down to navigate or browse. If you find someone holding a phone in front of them in a vertical fashion, it would be immediately obvious that they are recording or taking a photo. Glasses turns on the display, which could easily just be someone browsing, or doing any number of other activities. It's the fact that these could become mainstream, and could easily cloak that people are taking photos or videos with their target being unaware of what's going on. Only a fool states that only those doing something illegal have nothing to hide. EVERYONE has something to hide, be that a nasty habit of picking your nose, buying RID at the pharmacy, throwing Chicks with Dicks out in your trash, staring at your brothers wife's ass at the family reunion and having it uploaded afterwards, picking up HIV drugs at the pharmacy, etc. All of these things are potentially in the public view, but they are typically not readily available to be recorded an uploaded to youtube at the whim of a total stranger looking for 'likes' or a few laughs.
People have a certain expectation of privacy even in public, where a potentially live camera removes all doubt, and it can be uploaded to the net, which NEVER forgets.
Is it really that hard to understand why there is so much hate? Public surveillance is totally different in that the common public doesn't typically access it, and it's typically not available to upload on a whim to the net where it could potentially live forever.
This is hardly the case of someone doing nothing wrong. From the original article:
On July 24, he said he was at a 'great crossroads. As if a storm of destiny is about to pick me up and take me to fight a great battle.' On August 9 he talked about severing heads and told the generals he was coming for them. On August 13, he wrote, 'Sharpen up my axe; I'm here to sever heads.' On August 14, Raub wrote, 'The Revolution will come for me. Men will be at my door soon to pick me up to lead it.'"
There is a point where you cross a line from being angry, to posing a potential danger to those around you. I think he easily cross the line where higher scrutiny is deserved.
Although it's possible some providers may try offering inferior plans, the fact that it is still a free market (contrary to the 'socialist' cries from the the fringe elements), any provider offering substandard plans would quickly find themselves left in the dust or heavily penalized if they tried to gouge customers. The affordable health care act requires that all applicants of the same general age and geographical location be offered the same premium costs, meaning any spikes due to pre-existing conditions will be averaged across a large number of individuals, which also includes a large number of health individuals which will balance out those spikes. Providers will also have to reinvest a set amount of profits into consumer benefits rather than profits, meaning the increased customer base doesn't necessarily mean they will get rich. There are indeed some good protections in the act that are consumer friendly.
Those who try to gouge customers will also be barred from getting into the healthcare exchanges and the customers that those exchange will provide. Such companies will also be monitored by the HHS, DOJ and FTC, who will in turn report such gouging to the local states to see if the price hikes were 'justified', and can have penalties levied against them if they are found to be gouging. The information will also be published to the public. Such information would create a very black eye for any reputable company. Pharma and medical equipment manufacturer's are also covered under that provision.
In short, gouging from the insurance industry is not very likely, and can be promptly addressed at the federal and state level if needed.
Those who fall into poverty ranges (up to 138% of the poverty level) will receive assistance in paying for premiums, although they will have to contribute within their means. It's a fair system IMO.
The act also makes it easier for smaller businesses (50 employees) to offer health care coverage via the same exchanges as well as help wit subsidies from the government to help reduce their premium costs), where previously they had no such option (all or nothing type of situation).
As to Larry, his statement speaks volumes about the disconnect of the rich from the poor. Prior to health care reform, admitting you had a pre-existing condition virtually guaranteed you would never find coverage, or that such coverage would be excluded with a rider to your policy, making coverage largely pointless for those with a condition requiring regular treatment.
You can only download matched media, or purchased media. Anyone who rips a significant portion of their library would require match to do this (pay account), and upload it before they could leverage cloud playback on demand.
As to your CPU issue it appears to be related to winsock.
Sad that your post isn't being modded insightful.
Yes you can set it to accept any input, not just a 4 number pin. I use it myself.
I think his comment was aimed more at those who simply don't want to be recorded 24x7. Although this is becoming the norm in some of the larger metro areas across it's not all that common in the U.S for example.
I actually find I'm not all that comfortable with it either and I'm no criminal. It just has a bit of a creepy vibe that's hard to ignore.
It's also hard to ignore Google primary business profit motive. Couple that with these, and the likely place that these sorts of clips, photos, and video's will end up, and it just turns me off to the idea.
My personal opinion, but it is what it is.
Agree somewhat, but as I said, it falls on both, and you touched on that as well when it comes to devs taking the 'easy' route rather than doing it right. Although MS could make it more clear and harder to deviate both through policy and enforcement, it also falls on the developer to do their due diligence and follow the standards.
As easy as it is to blame MS (and there is plenty of room for blame there as well as plenty of room for improvement), there's enough blame to go around.
The parent is correct. NT was always designed as multi-user. As to programs requiring admin rights, the fault there lies somewhat in both MS and Developer hands. It's all to common for Windows apps to ask about installing an app for 'all users', which would generally require admin access if it writes to the HLKM registry keys.
A simple example would be OS X and it's Application folder, which provides a central point for 'common' apps, which any valid user account can initially drop an app into, but then all user specific files are stored in the users directory on a per-user basis. Also like Linux, they provide user specific ~/Application folders (/usr/bin) to keep things tidy if needed. An install leveraging that install structure doesn't require an admin password on OS X or Linux. A similar 'all users' install on Windows isn't always as clean, often requiring files to be spread across a variety of system folders for an All User install.
I think the last piece of the puzzle has to do with Windows general 'messiness' when it comes to application installs. This is something I actually admire on OS X in that it uses self contained app installs, with user prefs, and app settings created and stored in the user directories on a per-user as-needed basis. It allows anyone to install an app for 'all users', allows individual end-user customization via preference files and app config files, and also makes it easy to blow one aspect of those three away without affecting the other pieces (very useful for troubleshooting). Really wishing MS would ditch the registry for something similar (is it wrong to wish for the old INI functionality of tweaking a programs settings in a simple and straightforward way?).
I've often wondered if/when the MS folks would revisit their app install process. It's a bit dated, and arguably not always multi-user install friendly depending on the functionality needed, and the support files needed for the install. I suspect such a change would break a lot of legacy programs, which seems to be something MS is always hesitant to do.
And you in turn treat your neighbors and passerby's as potential 'terrorists'. Do you lock your house at night? If so, why? it's a simple precaution, but it restricts your freedoms, yet you do it. You do it to protect yourself and your family. You choose this over leaving your door wide open. You would also probably prevent an armed neighbor from just walking in your door. You would stop them and question what the hell they were doing.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20022876-503544.html
The simple fact is that the majority of people who fly actually agree with these security checks whether misguided or not, just as you put basic security in place on your home. You do this because you have the authority (it's your house). Granted, this is just an example, but a valid comparison. The difference here being that the TSA is tasked with the safety of the passengers and airline employees just as you may be tasked with the safety of those in your home. The airport is 'their house', and the public is their 'family'...ok, that was a little creepy and sickening, but you hopefully get the point.
It's not strictly about you, but about what the majority of air passengers want to get a basic level of perceived safety. The courts allow it because congress allowed it, and congress allowed it because that's what a majority of their constituents want.
Oddly enough, the same is true regarding drone attacks. A large majority support them. People understand the realities of todays terrorists, the risks, and potential casualties a terrorist can inflict. They have real world examples engraved in their memories after 9/11.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2013/feb/11/majority-americans-approve-drone-strikes/
Actually the courts already addressed this. In your opinion, their rights are violated. The courts would disagree. As I said, if they were treated as potential terrorists, they would be arrested, or put on a no fly list. As it is, you just go through security. The extent of 'violation' which largely relates to the extent that I personally think is too far. Simple checks for weapons and dangerous chemicals, that catch the bulk of 'simpleton' attempts at carry on, I'm fine with. Full body scanners that don't work, backscatter, etc, not so much.
I would ask again, please provide a list of U.S. citizens being labeled as 'suspected terrorists' by the Government at U.S. airports, and the reasons for each.
There are all sorts of idiots stopped every day, like those I mentioned with body armor, gas masks, and banned chemicals in their baggage (this inventory list is all the same person by the way). You would prefer they just let this person on a plane anyway? Give him the benefit of the doubt? Would you feel comfortable flying with someone known to have all of those items in his carry-on?
I happen to love the quote from Benjamin Franklin about those willing to give up freedom. I think it cuts to the very heart of the debate regarding giving up rights to 'reserve' safety. That said, I also don't' think he could comprehend the destructive power a single person can wield these days, and the hundreds or even thousands of people a single person can kill, whether unbalanced, or using premeditation.
If a security check is common sense, I have no issue with it.
No, they are being treated like a potential threat to the passengers on the plane. If they were being treated as potential terrorists, they would either be arrested, or put on a no-fly list.
Agreed and point taken. If the Pakistani military believes that 80% of those were militants, than I find that ratio acceptable during military action. Given that a handful of people killed thousands of Americans in the course of 90 minutes. Those would be what I would consider acceptable casualties. Given their MO of using civilians as meat shields, it is unavoidable.
They didn't give the Americans any such luxury, where I would guess that a high 95+ percentile were just civilians. The only military target was the Pentagon which had one of the lowest fatality rates of any of their attacks.
In your first scenario, the hypothetical is too ridiculous to be believed. I would classify that in the same vein as Rand's rant. It seems the rhetoric is relishing creating these wild fantasies, when simple reality says that any civilians killed in such a strike will most definitely result in investigations by either extreme.
The second hypothetical is more much relevant. Lets say this person does move to a country classified as an 'axis of evil', albeit far fetched when such a hacker could do the same from here or via a zombies host. Assume they left the country in protest for some added drama. None of these things would make him a terrorist, but rather just a criminal (assuming he or she followed through on the act of espionage). If he was to hack into an agency that and releases information that puts American lives at risk, he or she crosses a line and becomes a terrorist. A good example would be releasing the names of undercover agents and putting their lives and/or families at risk.
In your last scenario, a politician 'labeling' someone as a traitor fortunately is no where near enough to in fact 'make it so'. They have entire branches of government dedicated to determining exactly what a person is doing, may do, all past and present connections, monitoring where their money is spent and received from, communications, hell, even romantic interests ((any and all connections), etc. Simply being called a terrorist by someone in congress like Palin calling him an enemy (while laughable) is also pointless and yet again more rhetoric. I don't think, I would hop you would agree, that the President would give no credence to such a claim by a member of congress. They would rely on intelligence (something congress seems to lack all too often).
Interesting. Do you have a list of these US citizens being arrested and classified as terrorists at a US airport? i see a small number of people over the last few years in the UK arrested under suspicion of Terrorism who were actively engaged in planning attacks and who were fortunately stopped before they could inflict harm, but not much here in the U.S. I found 1 in Dec of 2012 in Atlanta, and one in June of 2010. The two in 2010 were actively trying to join Al Shabab, a group that claims ideological kinship with Al Qaeda.
The Dec 2012 pair also seems pretty well researched.
Wilson, also known as Rasheed Wilson, and Abukhdair are both U.S. citizens. At the time of their arrests, they were being investigated by the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force in Mobile.
The two allegedly met online in 2010. Wilson is described in the criminal complaint as a close friend and former roommate of Omar Hammami, an American and member of the Somali Islamist militant group al-Shabaab. Hammami, who was raised in Alabama, is believed to be a senior leader within al-Shabaab, which is an Al Qaeda affiliate. He has been indicted on U.S. terrorism charges and is on the FBI’s “Most Wanted Terorrists” list.
It seems it really is more difficult than you make it seem to be classified as a terrorist to the point where they take action and arrest you. It seems in many of these, the people in question either did brain-dead things like wear bullet proof vests, and had weapons, gas masks, and other questionable material in their carry-ons, and were arrested for suspicion of terrorism, or they were already on a most wanted list as likely engaged in terrorist activities with some pretty hard links to Al Qaeda.
Care to post some valid information on how easy it is to be arrested as a terrorist? [Citation Needed]
Now you are equating a suspected terrorist in the midst of causing imminent harm, to assassinating someone while they are asleep? Really? Perhaps you should go back and read Holder's reply. It's very clear. Perhaps your reading comprehension needs work.
You might also try to remember that during military action, or war, civilians can and do get in the way. It is unavoidable. Claiming the President is sitting there directing civilians to be shot is bullshit. it's also bullshit claiming those deaths are all due to American action. A large portion are from factions within Iraq, Iran, etc. Nice straw man. It's also bullshit claiming all of those deaths are drone related. Estimates for Pakistan for example show drone related deaths to be about 2000-3500. Seems that number falls far short of your hundreds of thousands, but don't let facts get in the way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_attacks_in_Pakistan
It should also be noted that the Pakistani military believes that upwards of 80% of those killed in drone attacks were militants. I don't recall the twin towers being a hotbed of military planning, warehouses for weapons, or anything of that sort, but I must have missed that memo too. What they did was an act of war. You do what you can to minimize civilian fatalities (or at least the US does...the terrorists do not).
As to terrorists hiding in schools, markets, homes, etc. This is war. It's ugly. Terrorists are also known to reside in such places for just that reason. To use their own citizens as human shields. Civilian losses are always considered. Unless you have some evidence that these civilian losses were somehow disregarded as irrelevant, your just blowing smoke. Then again, you are posting anonymously. Go figure.
I didn't state it doesn't exist. In fact I indicated that it's common for a sitting president to have a kill list. I do question that this kill list contains anything but terrorists, or suspected terrorists. Making it appear as if he's just randomly selecting people with a dart and a dartboard is disingenuous at best, and outright lying at it's worst.
Just because an article notes a phrase, doesn't validate it as true. I would expect someone from /. to at least do a little due diligence. By your standard, simply putting "Obama Kill List" here on /. is sufficient citation?