Outlook 2010 has something pretty close to that, including reading in from multiple folders. It's not perfect, but it's miles ahead of what previous versions of Outlook and just about every other standalone client have (at least in Windows).
The document states explicitly that, absent a Federal Flight Deck Officer ID and presence of a TSA-issued weapon, aircraft crew are to be subjected to normal screening. An FFDO that is unarmed is also screened.
The exemptions that you're talking about are exemptions from selectee screening (Section 4.3.15 B). Military, FEMA, forest firefighters, etc., are exempted from selectee screening. They're not exempted from standard screening.
They capture them now when they can. Most of the navies involved in the area attempt to deter the pirates rather than open fire on them. Even when shots are fired, they're warning shots, and they are frequently not followed up with anything more.
A Saudi super-tanker was released a little while back for about $2 million. It carried 2 million barrels of oil. The market value at the time was around $100 million. Replacing the cargo and the vessel would have cost a quarter-billion dollars.
The US is party to treaties signed by almost every nation, and accepted by the UN, that piracy by any entity against any vessel of any flag is subject to action by any nation's navy. Jurisdiction does not end until the short. If a US Navy destroyer sees a Malaysian-flagged vessel take over a Korean-flagged vessel that tries to disappear into Indonesian waters, it is fully in its rights to pursue, even if it means entering Indonesian waters. If necessary, it may even open fire in those waters to stop the piracy.
There aren't many things that readily cross national borders without much question, but fighting piracy on the high seas is certainly one of them.
Certain cargoes could be worse than others. Imagine pirates sinking a super-tanker carrying two million barrels of crude. Not only would it be an ecological disaster that might be impossible to clean, but it would also spike the world oil markets because they'd get jittery. Remember that two million barrels is a tenth of the US daily consumption, and about 2.5% of the world daily consumption. It's not a lot over a year, but the threat that it could happen to other super-tankers would send some panic through the markets.
They are taking up arms on those they believe are ruining their country -- those opposing the warlords. Every time the "government" tries to assert itself -- most recently backed by Ethiopian troops -- the civilians with the AKs come out of the woodwork. Many become cannon fodder, but government control is only established in a few very small areas, and that's more by an absence of insurgents than by support of the people.
In their minds, the warlords, who are backed by the local imams for either ideological or financial reasons, are those best-suited to lead the country. The interloping government wants to spread a foreign concept of human rights that disregards what they're taught by the imams.
Indian crews would beg to differ. They'll fire at just about anything that moves.
Consider also the three pirates whose heads went "squish" like grape when they all stuck their heads out at the same time when the captain of the Maersk Alabama was being held hostage.
Where do they land the copter carrying armed personnel? They could land them at a ship at sea, but that would be a lot of ships that would have to be maintained outside of a lot of ports.
Some insurance companies will not insure ships that have armed personnel aboard. They believe that it gives an incentive to fight, which may increase the damage to the vessel and result in additional (insured) lives being lost, increasing the payouts required if the ship escapes the pirates.
Part of the problem has been researchers who won't let others see their data, except under NDA. You can't effectively attack that which you can't see, so frustrations go astray and lead to attacks on the researchers and their backers.
Those of us who are still skeptical but willing to listen have been asking for the raw data to be released for a very long time, and getting a lot of groups sending back the response, "You can trust us. You don't need to see the data." I can (unhappily) live with that for privately-funded research, but if it's happening at a public university or with public funds, the data should be made available on the basis that public money paid for it, so the public should be able to see it. If it's happening, there are things we can do. If it's not happening, some of the tech coming about as a result of the fear of it happening are still good ideas, like converting coal plants to run on natural gas or moving to alternative hydrocarbon fuel resources.
Openness is all that the honest among us ever asked.
Allocation of resources. Most of the time, no serious information (such as a fingerprint) is left behind, because crooks know better. (My car has been broken into before and the police checked, which is how I know.) Minimal information means that it would take far too much effort to pursue a loss of a few hundred dollars worth of equipment when they can be pursuing larger crimes.
I was raised to believe that possession is 9/10 the law.
You were raised incorrectly in that sense, because the law is a whole lot more complicated than that. Try running that line past a judge and see how far it gets you.
(I was raised incorrectly, too. Most of the family still believes in that platitude.)
There have been some half-hearted attempts at transparency. Unfortunately, they've exposed what many of us have seen from the inside, with fudged (or completely fabricated) numbers. I trust the CBO and GAO, in part because they're largely staffed by people who know what they're talking about, and because their work usually holds up to external review. The fact that they have also managed to embarrass every president and every session of Congress that I can remember helps boost their trustworthiness in my view. They're helping to provide some of that transparency. I sometimes wonder if some of them aren't getting so tired of the lies and manipulation from all sides that they're trying to tear down the curtain one thread at a time.
They may not get all that much credit. If GDP improves but the unemployment rate is still high, angry eyes will still be upon them. Recent government forecasts of reasonably strong increases in GDP next year have also said that unemployment rates would probably remain flat, and that has caused a great deal of consternation. People are willing to have a little less recovery if it means a little better employment, as it's hard to be happy with where the country will be in two or three years when it's not certain where your meals will come from next week.
Digital camera vs. film -> except that it costs more, film, though at about 21MP i might start leaning the other way.
The professional photographers that I know have been quite happy with their digital cameras since 8MP was the level no one could afford. They're up in the 12MP and 15MP levels now, but they produce prints for their customers, and they're indistinguishable to all but the trained eye from what would have been done on film. Even an 8x12 at 8MP makes for 83,000 dots per square inch, or 1/288 of an inch (.088mm) across. Given that the same lenses are being used in many cases (Nikon lenses from a decade or more past fit on current Nikon SLRs), it comes down to the sensor, and the difference just isn't there.
Landlines don't go dead from battery drain, leading to problems when trying to dial 911. (Cordless phones might, but that's why it's a good idea to keep a traditional corded phone around, too.)
I've seen some Blackberries with this problem. It happens when they lose contact with the network, and revert to a local clock. Settings have to be manually changed back to using the network.
My mom quit smoking ahead of a hysterectomy probably around 20 years ago. To this day, stress makes her want to smoke. By this time, I'm certain that it's a psychological need that drives the desire, not a physical one, but it's a powerful reminder of the hold cigarettes can have.
It takes about two years to compile the data. The IEA released 2007 numbers not long ago, and the 2006 numbers were released in 2008.
Incidentally, the US production of CO2 went up in 2007 from 5778.5Gt to 5853.5Gt from 2006 to 2007. The trend is, and has been since at least 2000, definitely upward in the United States. It's not as sharp as Iran, Venezuela, Canada, or Mexico, but it is most definitely higher.
It doesn't necessarily negate AGW because, as many skeptics (like myself) point out, the Earth is a very complex system. There have been upwellings of cold water in the Pacific and unexpected changes in the El Nino/La Nina phenomena. These, among other things, have shifted around the heat balance of the planet.
I'm not a supporter of most of the drastic actions that AGW supporters demand. I'm also not a fan of those who would keep us going as we have been for the last half-century. There's a middle ground that I think is much more appropriate, and it will result in cleaner air and water, fewer razed mountains, more manufacturing jobs, and -- if the AGW crowd is right -- a cooler planet than we might have otherwise. If the AGW crowd is wrong, then we just get the better environment and manufacturing jobs, which I think is a fair trade.
Slashdot Mirror
Outlook 2010 has something pretty close to that, including reading in from multiple folders. It's not perfect, but it's miles ahead of what previous versions of Outlook and just about every other standalone client have (at least in Windows).
The document states explicitly that, absent a Federal Flight Deck Officer ID and presence of a TSA-issued weapon, aircraft crew are to be subjected to normal screening. An FFDO that is unarmed is also screened.
The exemptions that you're talking about are exemptions from selectee screening (Section 4.3.15 B). Military, FEMA, forest firefighters, etc., are exempted from selectee screening. They're not exempted from standard screening.
They capture them now when they can. Most of the navies involved in the area attempt to deter the pirates rather than open fire on them. Even when shots are fired, they're warning shots, and they are frequently not followed up with anything more.
They did ask for $20 million. It was bargained downward significantly.
A Saudi super-tanker was released a little while back for about $2 million. It carried 2 million barrels of oil. The market value at the time was around $100 million. Replacing the cargo and the vessel would have cost a quarter-billion dollars.
Which is more cost effective?
The US is party to treaties signed by almost every nation, and accepted by the UN, that piracy by any entity against any vessel of any flag is subject to action by any nation's navy. Jurisdiction does not end until the short. If a US Navy destroyer sees a Malaysian-flagged vessel take over a Korean-flagged vessel that tries to disappear into Indonesian waters, it is fully in its rights to pursue, even if it means entering Indonesian waters. If necessary, it may even open fire in those waters to stop the piracy.
There aren't many things that readily cross national borders without much question, but fighting piracy on the high seas is certainly one of them.
Certain cargoes could be worse than others. Imagine pirates sinking a super-tanker carrying two million barrels of crude. Not only would it be an ecological disaster that might be impossible to clean, but it would also spike the world oil markets because they'd get jittery. Remember that two million barrels is a tenth of the US daily consumption, and about 2.5% of the world daily consumption. It's not a lot over a year, but the threat that it could happen to other super-tankers would send some panic through the markets.
They are taking up arms on those they believe are ruining their country -- those opposing the warlords. Every time the "government" tries to assert itself -- most recently backed by Ethiopian troops -- the civilians with the AKs come out of the woodwork. Many become cannon fodder, but government control is only established in a few very small areas, and that's more by an absence of insurgents than by support of the people.
In their minds, the warlords, who are backed by the local imams for either ideological or financial reasons, are those best-suited to lead the country. The interloping government wants to spread a foreign concept of human rights that disregards what they're taught by the imams.
When I read that, it jumped out as the ultimate symbol of what is wrong in that part of the world.
In most countries, she gets the house, some money, maybe a car, and the kids.
In Somalia, she gets an RPG round.
WTF?
Indian crews would beg to differ. They'll fire at just about anything that moves.
Consider also the three pirates whose heads went "squish" like grape when they all stuck their heads out at the same time when the captain of the Maersk Alabama was being held hostage.
Didn't he bang Pocahontas in that Disney movie?
Where do they land the copter carrying armed personnel? They could land them at a ship at sea, but that would be a lot of ships that would have to be maintained outside of a lot of ports.
Some insurance companies will not insure ships that have armed personnel aboard. They believe that it gives an incentive to fight, which may increase the damage to the vessel and result in additional (insured) lives being lost, increasing the payouts required if the ship escapes the pirates.
That kind of situation is a problem. Minor smash-and-grab I can understand. Loss of a car is a whole other issue.
Part of the problem has been researchers who won't let others see their data, except under NDA. You can't effectively attack that which you can't see, so frustrations go astray and lead to attacks on the researchers and their backers.
Those of us who are still skeptical but willing to listen have been asking for the raw data to be released for a very long time, and getting a lot of groups sending back the response, "You can trust us. You don't need to see the data." I can (unhappily) live with that for privately-funded research, but if it's happening at a public university or with public funds, the data should be made available on the basis that public money paid for it, so the public should be able to see it. If it's happening, there are things we can do. If it's not happening, some of the tech coming about as a result of the fear of it happening are still good ideas, like converting coal plants to run on natural gas or moving to alternative hydrocarbon fuel resources.
Openness is all that the honest among us ever asked.
Allocation of resources. Most of the time, no serious information (such as a fingerprint) is left behind, because crooks know better. (My car has been broken into before and the police checked, which is how I know.) Minimal information means that it would take far too much effort to pursue a loss of a few hundred dollars worth of equipment when they can be pursuing larger crimes.
You were raised incorrectly in that sense, because the law is a whole lot more complicated than that. Try running that line past a judge and see how far it gets you.
(I was raised incorrectly, too. Most of the family still believes in that platitude.)
There have been some half-hearted attempts at transparency. Unfortunately, they've exposed what many of us have seen from the inside, with fudged (or completely fabricated) numbers. I trust the CBO and GAO, in part because they're largely staffed by people who know what they're talking about, and because their work usually holds up to external review. The fact that they have also managed to embarrass every president and every session of Congress that I can remember helps boost their trustworthiness in my view. They're helping to provide some of that transparency. I sometimes wonder if some of them aren't getting so tired of the lies and manipulation from all sides that they're trying to tear down the curtain one thread at a time.
They may not get all that much credit. If GDP improves but the unemployment rate is still high, angry eyes will still be upon them. Recent government forecasts of reasonably strong increases in GDP next year have also said that unemployment rates would probably remain flat, and that has caused a great deal of consternation. People are willing to have a little less recovery if it means a little better employment, as it's hard to be happy with where the country will be in two or three years when it's not certain where your meals will come from next week.
Digital camera vs. film -> except that it costs more, film, though at about 21MP i might start leaning the other way.
The professional photographers that I know have been quite happy with their digital cameras since 8MP was the level no one could afford. They're up in the 12MP and 15MP levels now, but they produce prints for their customers, and they're indistinguishable to all but the trained eye from what would have been done on film. Even an 8x12 at 8MP makes for 83,000 dots per square inch, or 1/288 of an inch (.088mm) across. Given that the same lenses are being used in many cases (Nikon lenses from a decade or more past fit on current Nikon SLRs), it comes down to the sensor, and the difference just isn't there.
Landlines don't go dead from battery drain, leading to problems when trying to dial 911. (Cordless phones might, but that's why it's a good idea to keep a traditional corded phone around, too.)
I've seen some Blackberries with this problem. It happens when they lose contact with the network, and revert to a local clock. Settings have to be manually changed back to using the network.
My mom quit smoking ahead of a hysterectomy probably around 20 years ago. To this day, stress makes her want to smoke. By this time, I'm certain that it's a psychological need that drives the desire, not a physical one, but it's a powerful reminder of the hold cigarettes can have.
It takes about two years to compile the data. The IEA released 2007 numbers not long ago, and the 2006 numbers were released in 2008.
Incidentally, the US production of CO2 went up in 2007 from 5778.5Gt to 5853.5Gt from 2006 to 2007. The trend is, and has been since at least 2000, definitely upward in the United States. It's not as sharp as Iran, Venezuela, Canada, or Mexico, but it is most definitely higher.
It doesn't necessarily negate AGW because, as many skeptics (like myself) point out, the Earth is a very complex system. There have been upwellings of cold water in the Pacific and unexpected changes in the El Nino/La Nina phenomena. These, among other things, have shifted around the heat balance of the planet.
I'm not a supporter of most of the drastic actions that AGW supporters demand. I'm also not a fan of those who would keep us going as we have been for the last half-century. There's a middle ground that I think is much more appropriate, and it will result in cleaner air and water, fewer razed mountains, more manufacturing jobs, and -- if the AGW crowd is right -- a cooler planet than we might have otherwise. If the AGW crowd is wrong, then we just get the better environment and manufacturing jobs, which I think is a fair trade.