If the Iran's caused it, it would have had to been a disruption of some sort to avoid much damage to the drone. While we know that the downlink from drones tends to be unencrypted (for good reasons)
Out of curiosity, what are the good reasons for not encrypting the downlink?
These drones do have a self-destruct as well as other "things are going wrong" modes. One of them is to just circle waiting for control communications to be re-established. Another one is an automatic safe landing mode. Some people suspect that this drone may have gone into auto landing mode which would explain why it appears undamaged. For such a sensitive device leading to such horrible PR if captured, I feel perhaps the self-destruct should be the default failure mode
if it's still able to fly, why not a "turn around and go home mode"? No matter how much electronic jamming it's experiencing, initial guidance sensors should be able to steer it in the general location of "home", and presumably once it gets away from enemy territory and the jamming, it will find the GPS satellites again and be able to navigate normally. Having it fly in circles when its control channels are jammed just means it will eventually run out of fuel and crash, so why not have it try to get back to safety after X minutes of jamming? If it's experiencing jamming for 15 minutes, it's likely that it will continue to experiencing jamming indefinitely.
In January 2007, the encryption method was fully reverse-engineered by Andreas Naive[3] and Nicola Salmoria. It has been determined that the encryption employs two four-round Feistel ciphers with a 64-bit key.[4][5] The algorithm was thereafter implemented in this state for all known CPS-2 games in MAME.
Encryption can be broken, especially when you have physical access to the device that needs to do the decryption. There are all sorts of controls and booby-traps you can implement to restrict physical access, but a knowledgable and well funded lab can get around the controls.
Adequate physical destruction cannot be reverse engineered - once you destroy a chip with a high energy, high temperature explosion, not even all of the kings horses and all of the kings men will be able to put it back together again.
Hmm. All I'm gonna say is much as its possible to buy an ipod touch and stuff it full of legal and illegal content without ever purchasing anything from the ITMS, its is a nearly perfect analogy that you can buy a kindle and stuff it full of legal and illegal content without ever purchasing anything from amazon.
Yes, it's possible to buy a kindle and fill it with non-Amazon content, but the original poster who said he was boycotting Amazon didn't do that since he already said he'd bought some gift cards and would likely buy a few more books.
And suggesting buying a Sony product as part of a boycott?
It all depends what you're trying to boycott. The original poster wanted to boycott Amazon because of their sales-tax policies. So in that case, buying a Sony reader lets you obey that boycott, while you can't really boycott Amazon by buying their reader and their content. He's not taking a stance against electronics manufacturers in general, just against Amazon.
This is a really poor car analogy. What, precisely, about your computing experience is free?
Warning... my question is bait; with exceptionally rare exceptions, nothing about your computing experience is free (as in beer, or otherwise).
Almost all of the content I view on my computer is free and advertiser supported. Slashdot, Google, News sites, Hulu, etc.
Though I guess a more apt analogy would be you pay for the car, but every time you want to get on a freeway you have to stop and watch a 30 second ad first to pay for the road.
In my experience, the biggest difference in outsourcing operation of key software is that it forces internal customers to rethink their expectations. If software is maintained in-house, they expect it to fulfill their every whim. When the IT dept says "It will take 3 of our developers 6 months to do what you want", then say "Ok, we need it! Do it now!". But when they are dealing with a software vendor, and they say "It will cost you $175K to do what you want", they say "Hmm...well, that's kind of expensive, I'm not sure we need it".
When you have your own developers, they can tailor the technology to meet the needs of your business. When you purchase pre-packaged software, the business tailors its needs around the software.
As a car enthusiast, it makes me sad that you've never driven a car that's actually fun to drive.
Are you serious? It actually makes you sad that some people don't share enthusiasm for the same things as you? I've driven cars that other people have said were fun to drive (including a weekend with a Ferrari with a former race car driver), but driving a car is just not that fun for me. When I'm in a car, I'm just interested in getting to my destination.
Give me a motorcycle and a windy road, however, and *then* I'll be having fun.
If you're seeking bland and unexciting, get an Accord or Camry and you'll still save a lot of money over the BMW.
FTFY
You say that as if it's a bad thing -- I don't want any surprises when I'd driving, bland and unexciting is just what I'm looking for. I don't need to feel every nuance of the road - I try to avoid pushing my car to its limits. My car (and my driving style) doesn't define me, nor do I see the road as a place to work out my frustrations by driving as if the road is a racetrack.
There are some states with 6 lane wide freeways that are practically deserted after midnight.
I'd be more concerned with a blowout at those speeds than a slow moving truck. YMMV
Yeah, back when I was an EMT I responded to a few rural accidents where drivers found out that "practically deserted" is not the same as "completely deserted".
As my partner used to say, speed doesn't kill, it's the sudden deceleration that gets you.
As other posters have stated, the maintenance sucks. I doubt I will ever buy another BMW for that fact alone. When the car is running I love it though. Unlike an Accord or Camry, it feels stable at 100mph+.
Few people have (or want) access to a track where we can drive 100+ mph. My Accord is quite stable at 75mph. Driving 100+ mph on a public road is ludicrous. The USA has no autobahn where cars are expected to drive that fast (or faster). Some day that 100mph driver is going to be surprised when he crests a hill and finds a truck driving 55mph in front of him.
On/. of all places... believe it or not, its possible to download stuff for free off the internet. Not just music and movies, either.
Yes, it's obviously possible to have an e-book reader and stick with all free content, and I should have said "uses unprotected content..." instead of "buys..." but his girlfriend is obviously not the kind of person who would wants only what's available for free... otherwise why would he have bought her the Amazon gift cards to go along with her Kindle and "maybe a few more books"?
If he really wanted to boycott Amazon he would have gotten her a Nook and some B&N gift cards. Buying a gift card is one of the worst ways to boycott a company - they get to hold on to your money while you tell them that you're going to protest them by not purchasing any content.
My point is that you don't boycott a company buy purchasing their device and purchasing their content. If you really want to make a stand against Amazon, support only their competition (which doesn't have to be B&N, buy a Sony reader, or one of the other competing products). I went the opposite direction - I bought a Nook and installed CM7 and Amazon's Kindle app, so I can read my Kindle content on the Nook.
Who the fuck are you to tell people what they should do with their money? Let me look into your life a bit and I'm sure I'll find something I consider an expensive luxury. Are you going to opt out of what you like just because I say so?
I thought I was being Mr Obvious in stating that if you want comfort and reliability, stick with a quality Japanese car, not a BMW. Even among my friends that are huge BMW fans, they all admit that they love the car for the driving experience, not for the expensive trips to the repair shop. For many people, a comfortable ride is not the same as a good driving experience.
I don't care what you do with your money - feel free to spend it on a BMW or even a Ferrari, but don't tell me that you're doing it for the comfortable ride or the reliability.
You may have a point on the mechanical reliability between the two, but try sitting in both a Kia and a BMW. The Kia is complete shit compared to the BMW in ride quality, comfort and finish. Try riding in one for over a hundred miles or so and tell me you'd prefer the Kia. Don't get me wrong, I'm no dash-stroker, but if I had a commute over 20 miles, I'd take even a used BMW over the Kia any day.
If you're seeking comfort and reliability, get an Accord or Camry and you'll still save a lot of money over the BMW.
I've been boycotting Amazon ever since they started bullying states into dropping sales taxes.
I think they're just trying to keep from having to report taxes in thousands of local tax districts - many of which span zip codes, making it difficult and expensive to comply. Amazon does support a national proposal to simplify and streamline state sales tax collection.
I bought my girlfriend a Kindle and a couple gift cards, but aside from maybe a few more books for her Kindle, Amazon won't be getting any more of my money.
That's not much of a boycott - by buying a Kindle you've locked her into purchasing further e-books from Amazon (unless she buys all unprotected content that can be viewed on the Kindle). You should have gone for a Nook.
I'm arguing that TSA is spending billions of dollars on an unwinnable battle, not that they need to be doing more of the same. But if what you are arguing is that TSA is doing the right thing now, how can you argue that it shouldn't be expanded to all airports?
Screening passengers only at the airports with the most travelers is great if what they are trying to do is stop some average traveler from accidentally carrying a gun onboard.
And sure, maybe there's some moderate security advantage to keeping guns off the plane, but what they really need to be doing is stopping passengers that want to cause harm. Targeting the biggest airports means that there's a greater chance that they'll find the most people who inadvertantly bring a prohibited article past security. But a terrorist isn't a random individual - he will have studied airport security and know where the weak points are. Even if TSA had air-tight security at the 100 largest airports (but they don't of course, there are too many holes to plug - passengers are just one hole), a terrorist would just board a plane at an airport with less security.
All it takes is one employee at one airport anywhere in the USA that can be bribed to let an explosive device slip through screening (maybe with the idea that he's earning $25K to "only" help smuggle drugs through) and all of that tight security at larger airports goes to waste.
And all of the security so far ignores the fact that there's an obvious body cavity that would allow a pound or more of high explosives to be slipped through security. The drug smugglers have been taking advantage of this for years. Are you willing to submit to a body cavity search, an ultrasound, or a more powerful x-ray to get on a plane?
, want to complain about the TSA, security theater, etc without a clear idea of how to fix it.
I'm complaining about the billions of dollars being spent by TSA with no clear evidence that they are doing anything to stop or reduce terrorism with arbitrary rules that often seem to make no sense. Why can I only take 3.4 ounces of liquid onboard, unless I put it in a 32 ounce bottle that says "Prescription Shampoo", then I can take as much as I want? Why does TSA rely on a piece of paper that I can print at home to decide if I can go past a checkpoint? Do they think terrorists don't have printers? If I'm supposed to believe that terrorists are out to get me, why should I feel safe standing in a densely packed security line for 30 minutes with 200 other people?
Lots of difficult and expensive things are done in practice - like deploying ineffectual x-ray machines that may or may not cause cancer to thousands of airports.
Yeah, that would be difficult, since there's only about 100 airports in the US that have them. If it's difficult to the point that it won't happen, seems pretty close to the definition of impractical.
Oh good, now you understand the "theater" part of TSA's security theater.
If these devices are effective at finding bombs, then we need them in all airports, not just the 100 largest ones. A terrorist that wants to bring a bomb onto a large jet is not going to let a scanner in JFK deter him when he can drive to a small airport in New York that doesn't have scanner and take a direct flight into JFK with his bomb.
However if they aren't needed in the small airports because other screening methods work well there, why are they needed in the larger airports? I've never had a pat-down at a small airport, but have been screened dozens of times through full-body scanners at larger airports.
It's time to make the switch to better speed, performance and reliability.
SSDs will remain the toys of those who want large e-penises (replace with organ of choice) and those few who really "need" the speed until the price comes down to something less than gold pressed diamonds.
Not to say they're worthless. Just vastly overpriced and overrated for the vast majority of people.
With a 64GB or 120GB SSD costing around the same as a 1TB had drive, I think the hard drive is the big e-penis, and the SSD is for people that know that size doesn't matter (for most people).
Despite the less-than-Christian wording of the title of your comment, I must agree with your overall sentiment. It pains me that during the season of Christ's birth, consumers are complaining of a shortage of a material luxury when there are so many people who lost loved-ones and the basic necessities they need to survive because of the flooding. My prayers go out to those affected and those who wanted Santa to bring them that extra 10TB RAID 0+1 array; may the Lord provide the former with what they need, and may the latter be cured of their addiction to pornography.
Your respectful peer, Jake
No Christian needs a 10TB RAID0+1 array - Jesus would use RAID6 (with a battery backed caching RAID controller)
That's silly. Even with the current rise in hard drive prices, SSDs are still terribly expensive by comparison. Otherwise, SSDs would have already been seen as competitive against hard drives even before this supply problem.
Only 2x or 3x for a lot better performance? Not everyone would have jumped on it but there still would have been plenty of performance minded consumers lining up to buy them.
Even with limited supply, it still makes much more sense to escalate to larger drive sizes before going to SSD.
Terribly expensive if you look at price per GB, but not terribly expensive if you're just interested in getting a nice, high performance, low power, quiet drive, and don't need a ton of disk space, then SSD's are quite reasonable.
Newegg sells a 120GB SSD for about the same price as a 1TB hard disk drive. Most people (well, maybe not the Slashdot crowd) don't need a TB of disk space and the SSD will work quite nicely for them.
When I upgraded from a 1TB drive to a 64GB SSD in my desktop, I kept the 1TB drive for my large storage needs. It turns out that except for a single DVD that I ripped a few months ago, I haven't stored anything on the 1TB drive, and still have lots of room on the 64GB drive. My 8GB of photos and 12GB of music still leave me lots of room to grow. I imaging that by the time I do outgrow the 64GB drive, I'll be able to buy a 256GB or even 512GB SSD for the same or less price than I paid for the 64GB drive.
I think the problem that computer manufacturers face is that when a consumer sees a computer with a 500GB hard drive next to one with a 120GB SSD, they are going to go for the 500GB hard drive since bigger numbers are better.
If anyone wanted to cause megadeaths in the US, I can roll off the top of my head dozens of ways not involving airplanes or airports.
Which wouldn't be TSA's responsibility, the subject of this conversation. Stay focused.
I think that's the whole point - we're spending billions on TSA and air security, but it's very unlikely that we'll have a similar attack - the passengers alone will make sure that it won't be successful.
Maybe the next attack will target crowded security checkpoints - what will TSA do then? Will we have a security checkpoint before the checkpoint?
Um, you did. It doesn't scale well and it requires a massive highly educated workforce, which takes many years to implement. We have a couple more airports than Israel. Like a few thousand. Seems pretty impractical to me. Cost and tactics aside, it has no chance of working.
That doesn't make it impractical, it just makes it difficult. Lots of difficult and expensive things are done in practice - like deploying ineffectual x-ray machines that may or may not cause cancer to thousands of airports.
But I agree that it has no chance of working because no matter how well you screen passengers, there are so many other ways a terrorist get contraband on a plane. And why assume that the next terrorist attack will attack a plane? Maybe they'll send suicide bombers to crowded airline security checkpoints. Maybe the next attack will be commuter train(s). Or maybe they'll attack the water supply. Or maybe they'll bring down the power grid. Or maybe they'll target major internet inter exchange points. There are nearly endless ways a terrorist organization could cause large-scale terror and damage without ever setting foot on a plane.
Imagine the damage that could be done with a dozen suicide truck drivers that all randomly ran into other cars on the road or ran over passengers at the roadside. No one would feel safe on the highways. Truck commerce would come to a crawl as every truck is forced through checkpoints (with no real idea what to even look for at the checkpoints - not all terrorists are middle eastern) Grocery stores and gas stations would run low on supplies since if you suddenly double the time it takes to get a delivery to its destination, there aren't enough trucks to go around.
Law enforcement is our best defense against many of these kinds of attacks - let's stop feeding so much money into TSA and use it for general law enforcement where it can do more good (since it won't just combat terrorism, but can also help reduce general crime).
Where did you get the stats for the five guns per day? Very curious about the accuracy of that one. Not saying you are incorrect, but I would like to check your source(s).
then I'd have to point to Israel, who has faced terrorist threats much longer than we have. Their system is not cheap to implement or easy to scale up since it hinges on a highly trained workforce (and no one will get rich from hardware sales), but it seems to work well. Those selected for secondary screening may find it much less pleasant than TSA's most invasive screening, and it may even go beyond the bounds of constitutionality)
So, other than it being impractical, expensive, more invasive, and unconstitutional, it's the right solution? Brilliant.
Who said it's impractical? And is it more expensive than the billions we now waste on TSA? I don't know the answer.
It's more invasive to some people while being less invasive to the rest. Your 80 year old grandma who can barely stand up from her wheelchair is not likely to get groped.
I said it *may* be unconstitutional, perhaps Israeli tactics could be molded to fit within our laws. And are the TSA's forced groping and non-tested X-ray machines really legal?
In any case, their security has been proven to be effective, at least the Israeli's can point to a thwarted terrorist plan - that's better that TSA's "We've confiscated a million toenail clippers, so you are safe!" claims.
Bitch bitch bitch. What do you propose as an alternative to what TAS does? Please outline a plan to keep dangerous people/articles off of planes with near certain precision without invasive searches.
Why would I try to do the impossible (while spending billions of dollars claiming that I can)?
There are many thousands of airport and airline employees and many thousands (millions?) of tons of airport and airline support goods that are largely uninspected as they flow into airport secure areas (try to find a gun hiding in a 5 ton jet engine the size of a bus or a folding knife hiding in a tin of Altoids at the bottom of a box). Airports have many miles of largely isolated fences. Contraband smuggled past security in some tiny rural airport in Nebraska can end up in any airport in the USA.
Even if someone could guarantee that every passenger walking into a large airport is adequately screened, tens of millions of million people pass through that airport annually, many from other cities in the USA and throughout the world. Any one of those people can be a security risk.
But if you're going to really press me into recommending an alternative, then I'd have to point to Israel, who has faced terrorist threats much longer than we have. Their system is not cheap to implement or easy to scale up since it hinges on a highly trained workforce (and no one will get rich from hardware sales), but it seems to work well. Those selected for secondary screening may find it much less pleasant than TSA's most invasive screening, and it may even go beyond the bounds of constitutionality)
TSA catches on average about 5 guns PER DAY at airport screenings, and that's not including knives, explosives, and other prohibited objects.
So if they are 99% effective at finding guns, that means that 18 guns/year are slipping through their screening.
Besides, that statistic tells us nothing about whether or not TSA is protecting us.
How many of those gun owners were purposely trying to hide them and smuggle them on the plane versus someone like an off duty cop who left one in his briefcase, or someone who left his pistol in his backpack after a day on the shooting range? Just because someone takes a gun on the plane doesn't mean they are going to use it.
TSA may be catching 100% of the guns that law abiding citizens accidentally tried to carry onboard, but maybe they are catching 0% of the guns that are purposely smuggled onboard.
I accidentally carried a 10 pack of single-edged razor blades on several cross country flights when I forgot they were at the bottom my carryon backpack. If TSA found them, they would have added it to their statistics of how safe they are making you by keeping sharp objects off the plane even though there was never any safety concern. Of course, if I really wanted to take a razor blade onboard, I'd just slip a couple in next to my laptop battery and TSA would never know. (I know that for a fact because a friend who bought an old laptop on eBay found that the seller had done just that to secure a loose battery (except they were double edged blades, not single edged), and he carried it through security several times)
Slashdot Mirror
If the Iran's caused it, it would have had to been a disruption of some sort to avoid much damage to the drone. While we know that the downlink from drones tends to be unencrypted (for good reasons)
Out of curiosity, what are the good reasons for not encrypting the downlink?
These drones do have a self-destruct as well as other "things are going wrong" modes. One of them is to just circle waiting for control communications to be re-established. Another one is an automatic safe landing mode. Some people suspect that this drone may have gone into auto landing mode which would explain why it appears undamaged. For such a sensitive device leading to such horrible PR if captured, I feel perhaps the self-destruct should be the default failure mode
if it's still able to fly, why not a "turn around and go home mode"? No matter how much electronic jamming it's experiencing, initial guidance sensors should be able to steer it in the general location of "home", and presumably once it gets away from enemy territory and the jamming, it will find the GPS satellites again and be able to navigate normally. Having it fly in circles when its control channels are jammed just means it will eventually run out of fuel and crash, so why not have it try to get back to safety after X minutes of jamming? If it's experiencing jamming for 15 minutes, it's likely that it will continue to experiencing jamming indefinitely.
In this day and age of readily available encryption, you don't even need that.
Hell, even the video game industry has been doing it since the 1990s - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CP_System_II
I don't think you read the entire article:
In January 2007, the encryption method was fully reverse-engineered by Andreas Naive[3] and Nicola Salmoria. It has been determined that the encryption employs two four-round Feistel ciphers with a 64-bit key.[4][5] The algorithm was thereafter implemented in this state for all known CPS-2 games in MAME.
Encryption can be broken, especially when you have physical access to the device that needs to do the decryption. There are all sorts of controls and booby-traps you can implement to restrict physical access, but a knowledgable and well funded lab can get around the controls.
Adequate physical destruction cannot be reverse engineered - once you destroy a chip with a high energy, high temperature explosion, not even all of the kings horses and all of the kings men will be able to put it back together again.
Hmm. All I'm gonna say is much as its possible to buy an ipod touch and stuff it full of legal and illegal content without ever purchasing anything from the ITMS, its is a nearly perfect analogy that you can buy a kindle and stuff it full of legal and illegal content without ever purchasing anything from amazon.
Yes, it's possible to buy a kindle and fill it with non-Amazon content, but the original poster who said he was boycotting Amazon didn't do that since he already said he'd bought some gift cards and would likely buy a few more books.
And suggesting buying a Sony product as part of a boycott?
It all depends what you're trying to boycott. The original poster wanted to boycott Amazon because of their sales-tax policies. So in that case, buying a Sony reader lets you obey that boycott, while you can't really boycott Amazon by buying their reader and their content. He's not taking a stance against electronics manufacturers in general, just against Amazon.
This is a really poor car analogy. What, precisely, about your computing experience is free?
Warning... my question is bait; with exceptionally rare exceptions, nothing about your computing experience is free (as in beer, or otherwise).
Almost all of the content I view on my computer is free and advertiser supported. Slashdot, Google, News sites, Hulu, etc.
Though I guess a more apt analogy would be you pay for the car, but every time you want to get on a freeway you have to stop and watch a 30 second ad first to pay for the road.
In my experience, the biggest difference in outsourcing operation of key software is that it forces internal customers to rethink their expectations. If software is maintained in-house, they expect it to fulfill their every whim. When the IT dept says "It will take 3 of our developers 6 months to do what you want", then say "Ok, we need it! Do it now!". But when they are dealing with a software vendor, and they say "It will cost you $175K to do what you want", they say "Hmm...well, that's kind of expensive, I'm not sure we need it".
When you have your own developers, they can tailor the technology to meet the needs of your business. When you purchase pre-packaged software, the business tailors its needs around the software.
As a car enthusiast, it makes me sad that you've never driven a car that's actually fun to drive.
Are you serious? It actually makes you sad that some people don't share enthusiasm for the same things as you? I've driven cars that other people have said were fun to drive (including a weekend with a Ferrari with a former race car driver), but driving a car is just not that fun for me. When I'm in a car, I'm just interested in getting to my destination.
Give me a motorcycle and a windy road, however, and *then* I'll be having fun.
If you're seeking bland and unexciting, get an Accord or Camry and you'll still save a lot of money over the BMW.
FTFY
You say that as if it's a bad thing -- I don't want any surprises when I'd driving, bland and unexciting is just what I'm looking for. I don't need to feel every nuance of the road - I try to avoid pushing my car to its limits. My car (and my driving style) doesn't define me, nor do I see the road as a place to work out my frustrations by driving as if the road is a racetrack.
There are some states with 6 lane wide freeways that are practically deserted after midnight.
I'd be more concerned with a blowout at those speeds than a slow moving truck. YMMV
Yeah, back when I was an EMT I responded to a few rural accidents where drivers found out that "practically deserted" is not the same as "completely deserted".
As my partner used to say, speed doesn't kill, it's the sudden deceleration that gets you.
As other posters have stated, the maintenance sucks. I doubt I will ever buy another BMW for that fact alone. When the car is running I love it though. Unlike an Accord or Camry, it feels stable at 100mph+.
Few people have (or want) access to a track where we can drive 100+ mph. My Accord is quite stable at 75mph. Driving 100+ mph on a public road is ludicrous. The USA has no autobahn where cars are expected to drive that fast (or faster). Some day that 100mph driver is going to be surprised when he crests a hill and finds a truck driving 55mph in front of him.
On /. of all places... believe it or not, its possible to download stuff for free off the internet. Not just music and movies, either.
Yes, it's obviously possible to have an e-book reader and stick with all free content, and I should have said "uses unprotected content..." instead of "buys..." but his girlfriend is obviously not the kind of person who would wants only what's available for free... otherwise why would he have bought her the Amazon gift cards to go along with her Kindle and "maybe a few more books"?
If he really wanted to boycott Amazon he would have gotten her a Nook and some B&N gift cards. Buying a gift card is one of the worst ways to boycott a company - they get to hold on to your money while you tell them that you're going to protest them by not purchasing any content.
My point is that you don't boycott a company buy purchasing their device and purchasing their content. If you really want to make a stand against Amazon, support only their competition (which doesn't have to be B&N, buy a Sony reader, or one of the other competing products). I went the opposite direction - I bought a Nook and installed CM7 and Amazon's Kindle app, so I can read my Kindle content on the Nook.
Who the fuck are you to tell people what they should do with their money? Let me look into your life a bit and I'm sure I'll find something I consider an expensive luxury. Are you going to opt out of what you like just because I say so?
I thought I was being Mr Obvious in stating that if you want comfort and reliability, stick with a quality Japanese car, not a BMW. Even among my friends that are huge BMW fans, they all admit that they love the car for the driving experience, not for the expensive trips to the repair shop. For many people, a comfortable ride is not the same as a good driving experience.
I don't care what you do with your money - feel free to spend it on a BMW or even a Ferrari, but don't tell me that you're doing it for the comfortable ride or the reliability.
You may have a point on the mechanical reliability between the two, but try sitting in both a Kia and a BMW. The Kia is complete shit compared to the BMW in ride quality, comfort and finish. Try riding in one for over a hundred miles or so and tell me you'd prefer the Kia. Don't get me wrong, I'm no dash-stroker, but if I had a commute over 20 miles, I'd take even a used BMW over the Kia any day.
If you're seeking comfort and reliability, get an Accord or Camry and you'll still save a lot of money over the BMW.
I've been boycotting Amazon ever since they started bullying states into dropping sales taxes.
I think they're just trying to keep from having to report taxes in thousands of local tax districts - many of which span zip codes, making it difficult and expensive to comply. Amazon does support a national proposal to simplify and streamline state sales tax collection.
I bought my girlfriend a Kindle and a couple gift cards, but aside from maybe a few more books for her Kindle, Amazon won't be getting any more of my money.
That's not much of a boycott - by buying a Kindle you've locked her into purchasing further e-books from Amazon (unless she buys all unprotected content that can be viewed on the Kindle). You should have gone for a Nook.
I'm arguing that TSA is spending billions of dollars on an unwinnable battle, not that they need to be doing more of the same. But if what you are arguing is that TSA is doing the right thing now, how can you argue that it shouldn't be expanded to all airports?
Screening passengers only at the airports with the most travelers is great if what they are trying to do is stop some average traveler from accidentally carrying a gun onboard.
And sure, maybe there's some moderate security advantage to keeping guns off the plane, but what they really need to be doing is stopping passengers that want to cause harm. Targeting the biggest airports means that there's a greater chance that they'll find the most people who inadvertantly bring a prohibited article past security. But a terrorist isn't a random individual - he will have studied airport security and know where the weak points are. Even if TSA had air-tight security at the 100 largest airports (but they don't of course, there are too many holes to plug - passengers are just one hole), a terrorist would just board a plane at an airport with less security.
All it takes is one employee at one airport anywhere in the USA that can be bribed to let an explosive device slip through screening (maybe with the idea that he's earning $25K to "only" help smuggle drugs through) and all of that tight security at larger airports goes to waste.
And all of the security so far ignores the fact that there's an obvious body cavity that would allow a pound or more of high explosives to be slipped through security. The drug smugglers have been taking advantage of this for years. Are you willing to submit to a body cavity search, an ultrasound, or a more powerful x-ray to get on a plane?
, want to complain about the TSA, security theater, etc without a clear idea of how to fix it.
I'm complaining about the billions of dollars being spent by TSA with no clear evidence that they are doing anything to stop or reduce terrorism with arbitrary rules that often seem to make no sense. Why can I only take 3.4 ounces of liquid onboard, unless I put it in a 32 ounce bottle that says "Prescription Shampoo", then I can take as much as I want? Why does TSA rely on a piece of paper that I can print at home to decide if I can go past a checkpoint? Do they think terrorists don't have printers? If I'm supposed to believe that terrorists are out to get me, why should I feel safe standing in a densely packed security line for 30 minutes with 200 other people?
Lots of difficult and expensive things are done in practice - like deploying ineffectual x-ray machines that may or may not cause cancer to thousands of airports.
Yeah, that would be difficult, since there's only about 100 airports in the US that have them. If it's difficult to the point that it won't happen, seems pretty close to the definition of impractical.
Oh good, now you understand the "theater" part of TSA's security theater.
If these devices are effective at finding bombs, then we need them in all airports, not just the 100 largest ones. A terrorist that wants to bring a bomb onto a large jet is not going to let a scanner in JFK deter him when he can drive to a small airport in New York that doesn't have scanner and take a direct flight into JFK with his bomb.
However if they aren't needed in the small airports because other screening methods work well there, why are they needed in the larger airports? I've never had a pat-down at a small airport, but have been screened dozens of times through full-body scanners at larger airports.
It's time to make the switch to better speed, performance and reliability.
SSDs will remain the toys of those who want large e-penises (replace with organ of choice) and those few who really "need" the speed until the price comes down to something less than gold pressed diamonds.
Not to say they're worthless. Just vastly overpriced and overrated for the vast majority of people.
With a 64GB or 120GB SSD costing around the same as a 1TB had drive, I think the hard drive is the big e-penis, and the SSD is for people that know that size doesn't matter (for most people).
My fellow-believer,
Despite the less-than-Christian wording of the title of your comment, I must agree with your overall sentiment. It pains me that during the season of Christ's birth, consumers are complaining of a shortage of a material luxury when there are so many people who lost loved-ones and the basic necessities they need to survive because of the flooding. My prayers go out to those affected and those who wanted Santa to bring them that extra 10TB RAID 0+1 array; may the Lord provide the former with what they need, and may the latter be cured of their addiction to pornography.
Your respectful peer,
Jake
No Christian needs a 10TB RAID0+1 array - Jesus would use RAID6 (with a battery backed caching RAID controller)
That's silly. Even with the current rise in hard drive prices, SSDs are still terribly expensive by comparison. Otherwise, SSDs would have already been seen as competitive against hard drives even before this supply problem.
Only 2x or 3x for a lot better performance? Not everyone would have jumped on it but there still would have been plenty of performance minded consumers lining up to buy them.
Even with limited supply, it still makes much more sense to escalate to larger drive sizes before going to SSD.
Terribly expensive if you look at price per GB, but not terribly expensive if you're just interested in getting a nice, high performance, low power, quiet drive, and don't need a ton of disk space, then SSD's are quite reasonable.
Newegg sells a 120GB SSD for about the same price as a 1TB hard disk drive. Most people (well, maybe not the Slashdot crowd) don't need a TB of disk space and the SSD will work quite nicely for them.
When I upgraded from a 1TB drive to a 64GB SSD in my desktop, I kept the 1TB drive for my large storage needs. It turns out that except for a single DVD that I ripped a few months ago, I haven't stored anything on the 1TB drive, and still have lots of room on the 64GB drive. My 8GB of photos and 12GB of music still leave me lots of room to grow. I imaging that by the time I do outgrow the 64GB drive, I'll be able to buy a 256GB or even 512GB SSD for the same or less price than I paid for the 64GB drive.
I think the problem that computer manufacturers face is that when a consumer sees a computer with a 500GB hard drive next to one with a 120GB SSD, they are going to go for the 500GB hard drive since bigger numbers are better.
If anyone wanted to cause megadeaths in the US, I can roll off the top of my head dozens of ways not involving airplanes or airports.
Which wouldn't be TSA's responsibility, the subject of this conversation. Stay focused.
I think that's the whole point - we're spending billions on TSA and air security, but it's very unlikely that we'll have a similar attack - the passengers alone will make sure that it won't be successful.
Maybe the next attack will target crowded security checkpoints - what will TSA do then? Will we have a security checkpoint before the checkpoint?
Who said it's impractical?
Um, you did. It doesn't scale well and it requires a massive highly educated workforce, which takes many years to implement. We have a couple more airports than Israel. Like a few thousand. Seems pretty impractical to me. Cost and tactics aside, it has no chance of working.
That doesn't make it impractical, it just makes it difficult. Lots of difficult and expensive things are done in practice - like deploying ineffectual x-ray machines that may or may not cause cancer to thousands of airports.
But I agree that it has no chance of working because no matter how well you screen passengers, there are so many other ways a terrorist get contraband on a plane. And why assume that the next terrorist attack will attack a plane? Maybe they'll send suicide bombers to crowded airline security checkpoints. Maybe the next attack will be commuter train(s). Or maybe they'll attack the water supply. Or maybe they'll bring down the power grid. Or maybe they'll target major internet inter exchange points. There are nearly endless ways a terrorist organization could cause large-scale terror and damage without ever setting foot on a plane.
Imagine the damage that could be done with a dozen suicide truck drivers that all randomly ran into other cars on the road or ran over passengers at the roadside. No one would feel safe on the highways. Truck commerce would come to a crawl as every truck is forced through checkpoints (with no real idea what to even look for at the checkpoints - not all terrorists are middle eastern) Grocery stores and gas stations would run low on supplies since if you suddenly double the time it takes to get a delivery to its destination, there aren't enough trucks to go around.
Law enforcement is our best defense against many of these kinds of attacks - let's stop feeding so much money into TSA and use it for general law enforcement where it can do more good (since it won't just combat terrorism, but can also help reduce general crime).
Where did you get the stats for the five guns per day? Very curious about the accuracy of that one. Not saying you are incorrect, but I would like to check your source(s).
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=tsa+5+guns+a+day
then I'd have to point to Israel, who has faced terrorist threats much longer than we have. Their system is not cheap to implement or easy to scale up since it hinges on a highly trained workforce (and no one will get rich from hardware sales), but it seems to work well. Those selected for secondary screening may find it much less pleasant than TSA's most invasive screening, and it may even go beyond the bounds of constitutionality)
So, other than it being impractical, expensive, more invasive, and unconstitutional, it's the right solution? Brilliant.
Who said it's impractical? And is it more expensive than the billions we now waste on TSA? I don't know the answer.
It's more invasive to some people while being less invasive to the rest. Your 80 year old grandma who can barely stand up from her wheelchair is not likely to get groped.
I said it *may* be unconstitutional, perhaps Israeli tactics could be molded to fit within our laws. And are the TSA's forced groping and non-tested X-ray machines really legal?
In any case, their security has been proven to be effective, at least the Israeli's can point to a thwarted terrorist plan - that's better that TSA's "We've confiscated a million toenail clippers, so you are safe!" claims.
Bitch bitch bitch. What do you propose as an alternative to what TAS does? Please outline a plan to keep dangerous people/articles off of planes with near certain precision without invasive searches.
Why would I try to do the impossible (while spending billions of dollars claiming that I can)?
There are many thousands of airport and airline employees and many thousands (millions?) of tons of airport and airline support goods that are largely uninspected as they flow into airport secure areas (try to find a gun hiding in a 5 ton jet engine the size of a bus or a folding knife hiding in a tin of Altoids at the bottom of a box). Airports have many miles of largely isolated fences. Contraband smuggled past security in some tiny rural airport in Nebraska can end up in any airport in the USA.
Even if someone could guarantee that every passenger walking into a large airport is adequately screened, tens of millions of million people pass through that airport annually, many from other cities in the USA and throughout the world. Any one of those people can be a security risk.
But if you're going to really press me into recommending an alternative, then I'd have to point to Israel, who has faced terrorist threats much longer than we have. Their system is not cheap to implement or easy to scale up since it hinges on a highly trained workforce (and no one will get rich from hardware sales), but it seems to work well. Those selected for secondary screening may find it much less pleasant than TSA's most invasive screening, and it may even go beyond the bounds of constitutionality)
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2011/01/whats_so_great_about_israeli_security.html
TSA catches on average about 5 guns PER DAY at airport screenings, and that's not including knives, explosives, and other prohibited objects.
So if they are 99% effective at finding guns, that means that 18 guns/year are slipping through their screening.
Besides, that statistic tells us nothing about whether or not TSA is protecting us.
How many of those gun owners were purposely trying to hide them and smuggle them on the plane versus someone like an off duty cop who left one in his briefcase, or someone who left his pistol in his backpack after a day on the shooting range? Just because someone takes a gun on the plane doesn't mean they are going to use it.
TSA may be catching 100% of the guns that law abiding citizens accidentally tried to carry onboard, but maybe they are catching 0% of the guns that are purposely smuggled onboard.
I accidentally carried a 10 pack of single-edged razor blades on several cross country flights when I forgot they were at the bottom my carryon backpack. If TSA found them, they would have added it to their statistics of how safe they are making you by keeping sharp objects off the plane even though there was never any safety concern. Of course, if I really wanted to take a razor blade onboard, I'd just slip a couple in next to my laptop battery and TSA would never know. (I know that for a fact because a friend who bought an old laptop on eBay found that the seller had done just that to secure a loose battery (except they were double edged blades, not single edged), and he carried it through security several times)