It's a question of access and sharing vs security. Controls on information are more lax towards the front because it's there where the information can make a difference between soldiers connecting the dots and making the right move or not, and the consequences are very real. You try to push that information to the front so the people there can make the most informed decisions possible. You run the risk of something like this happening but on the other hand controlling that information more tightly runs the risk of people messing up and dying in incidents that could have been prevented by better access to information. In the tighter control scenario you would have bureaucrats telling soldiers they can't have access to information that could save their lives and in the other scenario you would have to have a soldier that's willing to put his comrades and mission in harms way in order for there to be a leak. So I think it should be easy to see why it's generally supported to push intel like this to the front, and I doubt they'll let this incident change that much.
Could you point out what documents show a smoking gun of governments lying in the textual documents? Maybe you've read more of them then me but the best example I saw was where a helicopter got shot down by what was likely a heat seeking missile because it had a smoke trail and in the press conference they said it was downed by enemy fire, and was close enough to be small arms theoretically downplaying the presence of heat seeking weapons among insurgents. Not exactly damning stuff though that in my opinion warrants the release of documents that contain indemnifying information about civilians that can be used for reprisals.
Because while the name of some Afghani that ratted out where a random weapons cache or meeting point is isn't exactly important or ground breaking news to us, it sure makes them less likely to help and the Taliban is already saying their looking over the lists for reprisal targets (probably partially in truth but mainly to scare Afghani civilians into not cooperating anymore).
If knowledge full legal name with proper spelling is necessary by everyone in order for someone to be a fame whore I suppose I take back everything I said and thought about Ocho Cinco.
Too be fair I'd like to point out that your source considers "Closing Guantanamo Bay" as just one tick below a fully kept campaign promise and fixing the Patriot Act as merely "stalled" rather than a broken promise. Meanwhile Palin is ticked off as "barely true" (the only level above "liar liar pants on fire!") for quoting a list of countries military spending as a portion of GDP directly from the CIA World Factbook with the argument of "sure, if you count really small countries as well as countries in the middle east that spend a lot on defense".
The results are evaluated by people that are watching on video and have lots of experience.
We're slightly larger than Israel and have much more domestic air travel. I'd imagine the scanners are cheaper than trying to find/train enough people that could do this expertly at all airports across the U.S. and then throw on top of that people are going to be much angrier (even if maybe they shouldn't be) about getting interrogated and asked all sorts of questions then they are about a body scan. And false positives here will REALLY make them angry.
In edition the article mentions the Brijot Gen2 machine. All of the TSA ones I've seen are the L-3 communications Provision machine. So DoJ using a different machine from a different company are storing images so they decide to sue a different department that's using different machines with different procedures? It makes no sense whatsoever.
They're much larger and look like a little room/glass-pod/transporter platform you stand in and in most US airports have a big L3 logo on the side. (red circle white text).
If NASA didn't then Slashdot did. Another clue might be that same link in the summary along with the word 'predicted' if you bothered to read that far. I know the summary was a whopping 2 sentences and all, but really =P
The city council discussed in this article likely has neither a space program nor satellites. But if they did, that might explain why they're so strapped for cash;)
It's like building any other structure, there's codes and standards it needs to be built to in order to be safe. Unfortunately a lot of those have resulted from lawsuits along the lines of little kids being able to wander over and fall in from the neighbors backyard. Plus anytime you have water and electricity in such close vacinity (pool lighting/circulation) it's a good idea to make sure the builder is making it up to code.
I think a lot of the pool permit/safety issues deal less with the safety of the builder's employees and more with general safety of the pool like the pool has to be surrounded by a fence of certain height with a self locking door so neighbor's toddlers can't chase a ball over and fall in while playing in the backyard, proper wiring of any lighting/circulation systems in the pool ect.
I don't think the first amendment covers replicas of Seals of departments of the federal government anymore than it does creating replicas of currency. It certainly wouldn't have been original intent of the first amendment as back then seals were the one way to know when a document was official and I highly doubt they would have seen imitating those seals as an inalienable right inherent in their freedom of speech. How would you know if a seal is real back then if you've never seen the real one? Because people who try to imitate it and pass it off as real get hung/jailed, therefore very few imitators.
Touche, but since NCSU is largely an engineering school I'd be more concerned if I WAS paying for someone to spend days researching the etymology of random phrases during the course of a college education. I should have picked up on that in my own reading. But I suppose that's what Carolina is for;)
After getting involved in two horrific world wars we didn't start the general thinking was keeping peace (stopping smaller conflicts from escalating into giant ones) in the rest of the world was the best way to defend our country. Not saying it's the right idea, or even that we've kept to it, but that was the general mindset that led to a lot of this projection of power.
I agree, they are different situations and I can understand that there was more reason to be hesitant against the strategy in Iraq. Re-reading that sentence I think I ended up typing too much after the "absofuckinglutely ridiculous" modifier/adjective which I meant to be applied to the right wingers making the same mistake not to the liberals original objections (which I still disagreed with but only the rhetoric ["General Betray-us"] reached the realm of the ridiculous, not the strategy objection itself).
As a side note, the "take and hold ground" principal still applied in Iraq though it was more of a walk in and hold ground. The problem before the surge was we would send patrols out now and then and then disappear to the safety of the central bases at night leaving the insurgency free to move around, conduct operations and extract vengeance on anyone who collaborated or wouldn't help the insurgency. Having enough troops to station them in the towns and be walking patrols all the time makes a big difference in combating a hidden insurgencies ability to move freely, recruit and intimidate the local populace.
As a conservative I'd like to point out your argument about the Afghanistan war becoming bloodier under Obama and this surge of troops is the same argument many liberals used during the Iraq Surge. Guess what, when you send more troops in to take and hold ground and fight the enemy more troops get hurt. But that doesn't mean the strategy is a failure. It's a war, if you want to win people end up dying before that happens.
It's absofuckinglutely ridiculous that the vehement liberals razed Petraeus for the surge under the Bush administration and now the right wingers want to make the same mistake and go AGAINST the commanders on the ground just so they can bash a Dem President. Keep your political bashing out of war strategy, the lives of our troops and future of those countries is more important than scoring political points.
Don't be asinine, I can't begin to comprehend the differences in the world had the South won that war. How long would slavery have persisted? How would the two countries have expanded west? Two different American foreign policies during the World Wars? Everyone loses in most wars but to pretend the results make no difference to the world we live in is foolhardy at best.
Well said, wish I hadn't already posted so I still could use my mod points. I wish people on all sides and in even those in the aisle could be more open and honest like that all the time. It was nice to see when it came down to brass tax that both administrations supported the strategies of the commanders on the ground when it came to the surge rather than trying to push political goals which would help their popularity.
With all the political posturing people seem to forget we're all in this together and we all want the same thing. Dems don't want to see us lose a war under a Republican administration any more than Republicans want to see us destroy our economy under a Democratic one. The political capital gained isn't worth the cost. Just cause we have different views on how we should go about doing those things doesn't mean both sides can see when something worked and support it. Both our sides have a tendency of trying to make everything out to be worse than it is when the other side is in charge and we need to do a better job of calling them on it.
Sums of 5 years worth of casualties can hardly be used to analyze the on the ground competence and readiness of the current forces in such a rapidly changing environment. Hell, any environment. Check out the Civil War casualties, did the North apparently lose?
Correction: The people involved in producing and buying electric cars benefit, the rest of the market place is taxed and receives no monetary benefit. Many people will be having their tax money support the production and purchasing of green technology cars they themselves can not afford. I agree with the reasoning for doing so and I think you already addressed those reasons well but we have to be honest about the trade-off.
Slashdot Mirror
I think we can ALL agree that the real problem is people from Maryland.
TTP - Terrorist Twisted Pair
It's a question of access and sharing vs security. Controls on information are more lax towards the front because it's there where the information can make a difference between soldiers connecting the dots and making the right move or not, and the consequences are very real. You try to push that information to the front so the people there can make the most informed decisions possible. You run the risk of something like this happening but on the other hand controlling that information more tightly runs the risk of people messing up and dying in incidents that could have been prevented by better access to information. In the tighter control scenario you would have bureaucrats telling soldiers they can't have access to information that could save their lives and in the other scenario you would have to have a soldier that's willing to put his comrades and mission in harms way in order for there to be a leak. So I think it should be easy to see why it's generally supported to push intel like this to the front, and I doubt they'll let this incident change that much.
Could you point out what documents show a smoking gun of governments lying in the textual documents? Maybe you've read more of them then me but the best example I saw was where a helicopter got shot down by what was likely a heat seeking missile because it had a smoke trail and in the press conference they said it was downed by enemy fire, and was close enough to be small arms theoretically downplaying the presence of heat seeking weapons among insurgents. Not exactly damning stuff though that in my opinion warrants the release of documents that contain indemnifying information about civilians that can be used for reprisals.
Because while the name of some Afghani that ratted out where a random weapons cache or meeting point is isn't exactly important or ground breaking news to us, it sure makes them less likely to help and the Taliban is already saying their looking over the lists for reprisal targets (probably partially in truth but mainly to scare Afghani civilians into not cooperating anymore).
If knowledge full legal name with proper spelling is necessary by everyone in order for someone to be a fame whore I suppose I take back everything I said and thought about Ocho Cinco.
Too be fair I'd like to point out that your source considers "Closing Guantanamo Bay" as just one tick below a fully kept campaign promise and fixing the Patriot Act as merely "stalled" rather than a broken promise. Meanwhile Palin is ticked off as "barely true" (the only level above "liar liar pants on fire!") for quoting a list of countries military spending as a portion of GDP directly from the CIA World Factbook with the argument of "sure, if you count really small countries as well as countries in the middle east that spend a lot on defense".
The results are evaluated by people that are watching on video and have lots of experience.
We're slightly larger than Israel and have much more domestic air travel. I'd imagine the scanners are cheaper than trying to find/train enough people that could do this expertly at all airports across the U.S. and then throw on top of that people are going to be much angrier (even if maybe they shouldn't be) about getting interrogated and asked all sorts of questions then they are about a body scan. And false positives here will REALLY make them angry.
addition*!!! I clicked too fast =/
In edition the article mentions the Brijot Gen2 machine. All of the TSA ones I've seen are the L-3 communications Provision machine. So DoJ using a different machine from a different company are storing images so they decide to sue a different department that's using different machines with different procedures? It makes no sense whatsoever.
Correction to more detailed product page with the actual different versions: L-3 Advanced Imaging Tech
They're much larger and look like a little room/glass-pod/transporter platform you stand in and in most US airports have a big L3 logo on the side. (red circle white text).
Here's the product page from L-3 Communications.
If NASA didn't then Slashdot did. Another clue might be that same link in the summary along with the word 'predicted' if you bothered to read that far. I know the summary was a whopping 2 sentences and all, but really =P
The city council discussed in this article likely has neither a space program nor satellites. But if they did, that might explain why they're so strapped for cash ;)
It's like building any other structure, there's codes and standards it needs to be built to in order to be safe. Unfortunately a lot of those have resulted from lawsuits along the lines of little kids being able to wander over and fall in from the neighbors backyard. Plus anytime you have water and electricity in such close vacinity (pool lighting/circulation) it's a good idea to make sure the builder is making it up to code.
I think a lot of the pool permit/safety issues deal less with the safety of the builder's employees and more with general safety of the pool like the pool has to be surrounded by a fence of certain height with a self locking door so neighbor's toddlers can't chase a ball over and fall in while playing in the backyard, proper wiring of any lighting/circulation systems in the pool ect.
I don't think the first amendment covers replicas of Seals of departments of the federal government anymore than it does creating replicas of currency. It certainly wouldn't have been original intent of the first amendment as back then seals were the one way to know when a document was official and I highly doubt they would have seen imitating those seals as an inalienable right inherent in their freedom of speech. How would you know if a seal is real back then if you've never seen the real one? Because people who try to imitate it and pass it off as real get hung/jailed, therefore very few imitators.
Touche, but since NCSU is largely an engineering school I'd be more concerned if I WAS paying for someone to spend days researching the etymology of random phrases during the course of a college education. I should have picked up on that in my own reading. But I suppose that's what Carolina is for ;)
After getting involved in two horrific world wars we didn't start the general thinking was keeping peace (stopping smaller conflicts from escalating into giant ones) in the rest of the world was the best way to defend our country. Not saying it's the right idea, or even that we've kept to it, but that was the general mindset that led to a lot of this projection of power.
I agree, they are different situations and I can understand that there was more reason to be hesitant against the strategy in Iraq. Re-reading that sentence I think I ended up typing too much after the "absofuckinglutely ridiculous" modifier/adjective which I meant to be applied to the right wingers making the same mistake not to the liberals original objections (which I still disagreed with but only the rhetoric ["General Betray-us"] reached the realm of the ridiculous, not the strategy objection itself).
As a side note, the "take and hold ground" principal still applied in Iraq though it was more of a walk in and hold ground. The problem before the surge was we would send patrols out now and then and then disappear to the safety of the central bases at night leaving the insurgency free to move around, conduct operations and extract vengeance on anyone who collaborated or wouldn't help the insurgency. Having enough troops to station them in the towns and be walking patrols all the time makes a big difference in combating a hidden insurgencies ability to move freely, recruit and intimidate the local populace.
As a conservative I'd like to point out your argument about the Afghanistan war becoming bloodier under Obama and this surge of troops is the same argument many liberals used during the Iraq Surge. Guess what, when you send more troops in to take and hold ground and fight the enemy more troops get hurt. But that doesn't mean the strategy is a failure. It's a war, if you want to win people end up dying before that happens.
It's absofuckinglutely ridiculous that the vehement liberals razed Petraeus for the surge under the Bush administration and now the right wingers want to make the same mistake and go AGAINST the commanders on the ground just so they can bash a Dem President. Keep your political bashing out of war strategy, the lives of our troops and future of those countries is more important than scoring political points.
Don't be asinine, I can't begin to comprehend the differences in the world had the South won that war. How long would slavery have persisted? How would the two countries have expanded west? Two different American foreign policies during the World Wars? Everyone loses in most wars but to pretend the results make no difference to the world we live in is foolhardy at best.
Well said, wish I hadn't already posted so I still could use my mod points. I wish people on all sides and in even those in the aisle could be more open and honest like that all the time. It was nice to see when it came down to brass tax that both administrations supported the strategies of the commanders on the ground when it came to the surge rather than trying to push political goals which would help their popularity.
With all the political posturing people seem to forget we're all in this together and we all want the same thing. Dems don't want to see us lose a war under a Republican administration any more than Republicans want to see us destroy our economy under a Democratic one. The political capital gained isn't worth the cost. Just cause we have different views on how we should go about doing those things doesn't mean both sides can see when something worked and support it. Both our sides have a tendency of trying to make everything out to be worse than it is when the other side is in charge and we need to do a better job of calling them on it.
Sums of 5 years worth of casualties can hardly be used to analyze the on the ground competence and readiness of the current forces in such a rapidly changing environment. Hell, any environment. Check out the Civil War casualties, did the North apparently lose?
The whole market place benefits
Correction: The people involved in producing and buying electric cars benefit, the rest of the market place is taxed and receives no monetary benefit. Many people will be having their tax money support the production and purchasing of green technology cars they themselves can not afford. I agree with the reasoning for doing so and I think you already addressed those reasons well but we have to be honest about the trade-off.