They may not take away scholarship funds but they take away enrollment slots in the school from someone who actually wants to be there to learn and not to place their entire future in the hands of professional sports scouts.
You're assuming that all college athletes a) don't care about academics, b) are worse students than the average non-athlete and c) all aspire to be professional athletes. This is only true for high profile sports programs, such as football and basketball. You're also assuming that somehow, athletes deny better academically qualified applicants. At my undergrad university, a NCAA D1 school, the average athlete GPA and graduation rate was higher than the school average.
And those are exactly the kind of people who should not be allowed within ten kilometers from any university. Then suddenly there would be enough scholarships available for people who actually can and want to study, as opposed to becoming an underpaid professional athlete with a student ID, and after retirement/graduation a fraud (and optionally a cripple).
Athletic scholarships at American universities are almost entirely funded by alumni. These athletic scholarships aren't taking away any money from academic scholarships.
I was on an athletic scholarship which gave me an undergraduate education at almost no cost. I had both a successful athletic and academic undergraduate career; however there aren't many well paid professional opportunities for track athletes, so with the additional encouragement of an injury, I had to give that part up. I'm now in a Computer Science PhD program with several first author publications in A-level conferences. Being an athlete taught me the discipline and time management skills that have allowed me to succeed as a graduate student. As an undergrad, I was always practicing or traveling to competitions, so I learned to spend every bit of free time studying. Now, in graduate school, I can't believe how lazy many of the other students are -- they have nothing else to do but study, yet they waste so much of their time shooting the breeze.
The lesson: only you can ensure the integrity and persistence of your data. If even your employer can't, then who can?
Isn't that what he hired you to do? If he loses his data because he doesn't respect it, that's his problem, isn't it?
I don't quite understand your question. I'm not a system administrator, if that's what you mean. I'm a university employee; the system administrators in our department give us a small amount of space on one partition that's backed up. If we need more space, we use a non-backed up partition at our own peril. Conversely, I've also worked for a privately held corporation that was extremely diligent about backups, requiring us to use only company equipment for our work with everything backed up nightly. At the university, if I lose my data, I am the one who suffers most. At the company, if I lost my data, the company would probably suffer more.
No one is going to care as much about your data as you do. Next question please.
This. My employer only backs up one of several disk partitions on my work computer. The non-backed up partitions were hosed during a routine system upgrade last summer. Fortunately, I had backed up the data using my own resources but others hadn't and lost months of work.
The lesson: only you can ensure the integrity and persistence of your data. If even your employer can't, then who can?
As an American, I think more countries (and the rest of the Canadian provinces too) should enact laws like this.
I recently applied for a job in Canada. The one I applied for as well as several others I saw said that precedent is given to Canadians over foreign nationals. I've never seen an American government or industry job make the same disclaimer. President is the only thing that comes to mind.
Uhhhhh - it's called "idiotic groupthink" because it is exactly that. The group decides what is good, and everyone conforms, or else. Kinda like in high school, where the most popular kid's ideas were always right, and the least popular kid's ideas were always wrong, no matter what the actual merits of the ideas.
It's probably a good thing that comments don't get moderated past +5.
This is a problem inherent with single-blind peer review. In the academic community, anonymous reviewers have the power to reject non-anonymous submissions simply because they don't like the author. Double blind reviews fix this, where both the reviewers and authors are unknown to each other, but it seems that most journals and conferences are single blind.
The solution to Slashdot would be to have a similar double blind system. If you wish to mod comments on a story, you shouldn't be able to see who the poster is. From the story link on the main page, you'll get an option to either comment on the story and see who the other commenters are or mod comments and not know who the authors are. If you choose the comment option, you won't be able to go back and mod later.
Nice subtle job of mis-framing, there. Lemme fix that for you: since corporations are in fact already comprised of people who individually are already represented in Congress, why should those people receive twice the representation as anyone who doesn't work for said corporation, by allowing the corporation itself explicit representation?
Gee, how fair-minded of you to propose that one tribe of people should be allowed more representation than others not in that tribe. Is that really your idea of equal representation?
In some cases, I'd say it's a lot more than twice the representation.
I attend a university with a particularly strong liberal arts program. Nearly all of my friends who were liberal arts majors (and graduated within the past 5 years) have been quickly scooped up by various government agencies in Washington.
One can be illegal, the other is upholding the law. It is going way out of bounds and probably can be fought in court if your employer attempts to control your non-work-related speech through threats about your salary. It is completely legal for Knopf Books to sue you into the ground for reproducing The Golden Compass without securing permission from them or the author. One is censorship, one is just called "suing".
Whether they are employees or not absolutely makes a difference, and you will note that the wikipedia article referenced explicitly mentioned categories of people who had a business relationship with the corporation. People who do not have a business relationship cannot be subject to "corporate censorship".
I'll concede that the definition of corporate censorship is too narrow for this case. However, this proposal affects more that just alleged copyright infringers which is why people have been screaming censorship. It provides the government with the power to shut down any site with ties to copyright infringement even though the vast majority of the content may not be infringing. When content is removed even though it wasn't infringing material, that is censorship. Corporations will now able to lean on the government to remove entire sites they don't like, not just content that may be in violation of copyright.
Furthermore, internet sites only need to be shut down with the consent of a judge. No trial, no settlements -- only a court order is needed to take a site offline. This is a serious stretch of due process as the accused loses his or her right to a trial. A party accused of infringement will have little defense to stop a site from being taken offline; the potential for abuse here is huge -- anything can be taken offline and there is almost nothing the accused can do to stop it. If you don't think this is censorship, I'd really like to know what your definition is.
Theyre talking about people who work for or are associated with the company-- that is, if your company told you "dont write a review of Brillo pads, or we will slash your salary". That would be corporate censorship.
RIAA / MPAA being litigious and nasty because people are pirating their stuff isnt censorship at all.
I don't see how these two are different. Based on their desire to maintain revenue and profits, these content industries are clamping down on those who don't follow their rules. Whether they are employees, customers, or just random individuals doesn't matter.
"Corporate censorship is censorship by corporations, the sanctioning of speech by spokespersons, employees, and business associates by threat of monetary loss, loss of employment, or loss of access to the marketplace."
Looking back to when I was in high school, I had no idea what I wanted out of college or what I really wanted to do with my life. By my last year in high school, I had been an unpaid summer intern at a software company and taken AP Computer Science, but even then, I really wasn't sure. I _thought_ I wanted to study Computer Science, but I had no idea how hard the theory courses would be or if I had any hope of becoming a competent programmer. When I was in high school, I thought that after a semester or two of college CS courses, I might change my major after deciding it wasn't what I had hoped for. In the end, everything turned out well and I did get a CS degree, but that doesn't happen to everyone.
As a highschooler, I also was misinformed about the quality of education I would receive at different schools. The misconception is that only at an ivy league school or other similarly ranked private school will I get a solid education. I applied to several top-level CS schools but ultimately went to an in-state highly ranked public school since it was much cheaper. There are plenty of good public schools that offer strong CS programs -- MIT, Stanford, et. al. are good, but there are many others that also meet a high quality threshold. I came out of undergrad as a strong programmer with a solid understanding of the theory of computation, in part because of my schooling, but also because I was willing to learn. Internships also helped -- these were especially helpful in gaining employment.
I remember at least two incidents where I've nearly been hit by a hybrid while I was crossing an intersection (two different intersections in completely different towns). In both cases, the property owners adjacent to the intersecting road had erected a hedge or fence right up against the road. This is illegal because you can't see, but plenty of property owners do it just the same. Because I couldn't see unless I stepped into the road, I listened for oncoming cars first. Hearing nothing, I proceeded to walk into the intersection where I was nearly mauled. Since I was paying attention, I was able to jump out of the way just in time.
It's more than not paying attention, it's that everyone has to realize that hearing can't be relied upon to tell whether or not a vehicle is approaching. I've learned my lesson and remember that when I'm crossing a street that I might not be able to hear what's coming.
Garbage disposal in transit is a problem, stuff you throw out the airlock follows you to your destination.
How so? Assuming you throw it at greater than the escape velocity of your craft (how big is this craft?) surely it will continue to diverge from your path at the same velocity?
Throw it with enough force and you start to significantly impact the course of the spacecraft. If photons from the sun are enough to noticeably affect the course of space probes over long periods of time, tossing garbage could be much worse.
I tend to agree with this. I always laugh at people wasting time installing 'the club' on their steering wheel. It jsut screams "Im desperate and have no means to recover from losses."
It's not that it's impossible to dismantle such anti-theft systems but that the anti-theft systems provide enough incentive for the thieves to move on and steal the low hanging fruit. Given two identical cars parked next to each other, where one has a club and the other doesn't, which one will the thief steal?
Innovation needs to be rewarded. How many of you have signed contracts that give *any* invention you create to your employer as a condition of having a job? How may of you have the means to quit to pursue making a business out of your invention? (Hint: You ALL signed one, and you can't if you have a family). And if you did manage to start a business, would you have a legal fund to defend yourself from getting "wallet-whipped" form the inevitable lawsuits?
I never have signed a contract containing such terms. I don't plan to, either. Given by the other responses to your post, I don't think that clause is as common as you think it is.
I've worked for several different employers, with my current one being a public university. Every contract I've signed allows my employer to assert ownership of anything I create using company time or resources. There are some universities that allow their paid employees/faculty/researchers ownership of their work, but this is unheard of in the corporate world. However, I do think it is unusual if an employer would demand ownership of everything I create, whether I create it on company time or on my own at home -- I definitely wouldn't sign that contract.
This about sums up my group sharing experience as well. We also considered using a wiki, but dropbox won out. Either way, the group has to agree on some kind of standard for what kinds of files are shared, directory structures, and who has write access. Otherwise, it's a huge mess.
Also there should be trades like continuing education that is not just Masters or PHD CS. No continuing education on new OS's, systems, and so on.
In addition to the usual systems and theory courses, most schools have "hot topic" classes that cover the latest stuff like cloud computing, robotics, mobile application development, etc. Many employers just don't want to fork over the time or money to keep their employees up to speed. I was fortunate enough to work for a company that did pay for continuing education, but cases like that seem to be the exception, not the rule.
Yup. You would have to make it have a bad signal to noise ratio. Tell the truth about the things that are obviously verifiable, tell lies about everything in between in such a way that it's still plausible, and keep in straight in your head so they don't catch you in the lie when they question you about it later. And even then, your algorithm for generating the lies better be practically flawless or they'll find something like "you can't get across town in an hour" or something and the whole system comes crashing down.
I've read a few research papers that propose this to provide privacy in a social networking type scenario. Basically, the "lies" are drawn from the population trends and applied to each individual. That way, individual data is obfuscated while still preserving whatever trend the data is used to represent. They even create fake users based on these general trends so that nobody who is looking through the data can tell if an individual is a real person or a fake one.
A lot of work is required to thread together the thousands of available points of information.
No, it is not. Data-mining is real and getting better every day. Huge amounts of data are no hindrance. It is certainly not harder to find a specific piece of information about you just because you put much more online.
It's a hot research area right now. As I'm on the job market myself, I've found gobs of academic and industry positions that are searching for candidates with a focus in "big data" and data mining. If information saturation is a problem today, you can be sure that tons of people are working hard to make sure that tomorrow it isn't.
To justify spending $300,000, which puts $290,000+ in his pocket
Wish I was joking about the price. This ebay powerseller sells large (man-sized) R/C helicopters for $1,500-$2,000 with motor, batteries, radio, etc
http://www.ebay.com/itm/200660268060http://www.ebay.com/itm/200657942941
I understand that the helicopter from Vanguard has a remote camera and screen which I'm sure increases the price but $298,000 for a remote camera seems high.
Service or support? Someone has to train the deputies how to fly it as well as fix it when it breaks. Not to say that that justifies the cost either.
I drove from Seattle to Vancouver a few years back. The Canadians authorities at the border pretty much waved me through. On the way back, I faced a surly US Border Patrol agent that pretty much threw the book at me for no reason I was aware of. He ran mirrors under the car, peered in every window, asked to search the trunk, and asked a whole bunch of questions about my hometown on the East Coast, trying to trip me up. The agent even had a thick foreign accent which betrayed his immigrant status, yet I was the one being treated as an illegal alien or foreign terrorist.
The problem is too many people just agree with these searches like sheep. Unfortunately, airports and Amtrak are government-owned, so if you refuse the search the TSA can refuse to let you board. But buses and ferries are private, and the TSA has no authority to prevent you from boarding if you refuse the search. (Though the bus or ferry company could refuse on the advice of the TSA if the ticket contract allows it.)
Most major commercial airports are owned and administrated by a port authority, which is controlled by municipalities and/or states. The states could try to remove the TSA but it probably wouldn't get far because of the commerce clause.
Slashdot Mirror
They may not take away scholarship funds but they take away enrollment slots in the school from someone who actually wants to be there to learn and not to place their entire future in the hands of professional sports scouts.
You're assuming that all college athletes a) don't care about academics, b) are worse students than the average non-athlete and c) all aspire to be professional athletes. This is only true for high profile sports programs, such as football and basketball. You're also assuming that somehow, athletes deny better academically qualified applicants. At my undergrad university, a NCAA D1 school, the average athlete GPA and graduation rate was higher than the school average.
And those are exactly the kind of people who should not be allowed within ten kilometers from any university. Then suddenly there would be enough scholarships available for people who actually can and want to study, as opposed to becoming an underpaid professional athlete with a student ID, and after retirement/graduation a fraud (and optionally a cripple).
Athletic scholarships at American universities are almost entirely funded by alumni. These athletic scholarships aren't taking away any money from academic scholarships.
I was on an athletic scholarship which gave me an undergraduate education at almost no cost. I had both a successful athletic and academic undergraduate career; however there aren't many well paid professional opportunities for track athletes, so with the additional encouragement of an injury, I had to give that part up. I'm now in a Computer Science PhD program with several first author publications in A-level conferences. Being an athlete taught me the discipline and time management skills that have allowed me to succeed as a graduate student. As an undergrad, I was always practicing or traveling to competitions, so I learned to spend every bit of free time studying. Now, in graduate school, I can't believe how lazy many of the other students are -- they have nothing else to do but study, yet they waste so much of their time shooting the breeze.
The lesson: only you can ensure the integrity and persistence of your data. If even your employer can't, then who can? Isn't that what he hired you to do? If he loses his data because he doesn't respect it, that's his problem, isn't it?
I don't quite understand your question. I'm not a system administrator, if that's what you mean. I'm a university employee; the system administrators in our department give us a small amount of space on one partition that's backed up. If we need more space, we use a non-backed up partition at our own peril. Conversely, I've also worked for a privately held corporation that was extremely diligent about backups, requiring us to use only company equipment for our work with everything backed up nightly. At the university, if I lose my data, I am the one who suffers most. At the company, if I lost my data, the company would probably suffer more.
No one is going to care as much about your data as you do. Next question please.
This. My employer only backs up one of several disk partitions on my work computer. The non-backed up partitions were hosed during a routine system upgrade last summer. Fortunately, I had backed up the data using my own resources but others hadn't and lost months of work.
The lesson: only you can ensure the integrity and persistence of your data. If even your employer can't, then who can?
you get more then 2 parties. Make it cheaper to get on the ballot for governor and senate races.
Not only that, but remove primaries.
As an American, I think more countries (and the rest of the Canadian provinces too) should enact laws like this.
I recently applied for a job in Canada. The one I applied for as well as several others I saw said that precedent is given to Canadians over foreign nationals. I've never seen an American government or industry job make the same disclaimer. President is the only thing that comes to mind.
Uhhhhh - it's called "idiotic groupthink" because it is exactly that. The group decides what is good, and everyone conforms, or else. Kinda like in high school, where the most popular kid's ideas were always right, and the least popular kid's ideas were always wrong, no matter what the actual merits of the ideas.
It's probably a good thing that comments don't get moderated past +5.
This is a problem inherent with single-blind peer review. In the academic community, anonymous reviewers have the power to reject non-anonymous submissions simply because they don't like the author. Double blind reviews fix this, where both the reviewers and authors are unknown to each other, but it seems that most journals and conferences are single blind.
The solution to Slashdot would be to have a similar double blind system. If you wish to mod comments on a story, you shouldn't be able to see who the poster is. From the story link on the main page, you'll get an option to either comment on the story and see who the other commenters are or mod comments and not know who the authors are. If you choose the comment option, you won't be able to go back and mod later.
Nice subtle job of mis-framing, there. Lemme fix that for you: since corporations are in fact already comprised of people who individually are already represented in Congress, why should those people receive twice the representation as anyone who doesn't work for said corporation, by allowing the corporation itself explicit representation?
Gee, how fair-minded of you to propose that one tribe of people should be allowed more representation than others not in that tribe. Is that really your idea of equal representation?
In some cases, I'd say it's a lot more than twice the representation.
The CIA regularly hires history majors.
I attend a university with a particularly strong liberal arts program. Nearly all of my friends who were liberal arts majors (and graduated within the past 5 years) have been quickly scooped up by various government agencies in Washington.
One can be illegal, the other is upholding the law. It is going way out of bounds and probably can be fought in court if your employer attempts to control your non-work-related speech through threats about your salary. It is completely legal for Knopf Books to sue you into the ground for reproducing The Golden Compass without securing permission from them or the author. One is censorship, one is just called "suing".
Whether they are employees or not absolutely makes a difference, and you will note that the wikipedia article referenced explicitly mentioned categories of people who had a business relationship with the corporation. People who do not have a business relationship cannot be subject to "corporate censorship".
I'll concede that the definition of corporate censorship is too narrow for this case. However, this proposal affects more that just alleged copyright infringers which is why people have been screaming censorship. It provides the government with the power to shut down any site with ties to copyright infringement even though the vast majority of the content may not be infringing. When content is removed even though it wasn't infringing material, that is censorship. Corporations will now able to lean on the government to remove entire sites they don't like, not just content that may be in violation of copyright.
Furthermore, internet sites only need to be shut down with the consent of a judge. No trial, no settlements -- only a court order is needed to take a site offline. This is a serious stretch of due process as the accused loses his or her right to a trial. A party accused of infringement will have little defense to stop a site from being taken offline; the potential for abuse here is huge -- anything can be taken offline and there is almost nothing the accused can do to stop it. If you don't think this is censorship, I'd really like to know what your definition is.
Theyre talking about people who work for or are associated with the company-- that is, if your company told you "dont write a review of Brillo pads, or we will slash your salary". That would be corporate censorship.
RIAA / MPAA being litigious and nasty because people are pirating their stuff isnt censorship at all.
I don't see how these two are different. Based on their desire to maintain revenue and profits, these content industries are clamping down on those who don't follow their rules. Whether they are employees, customers, or just random individuals doesn't matter.
From Wikipedia:
"Corporate censorship is censorship by corporations, the sanctioning of speech by spokespersons, employees, and business associates by threat of monetary loss, loss of employment, or loss of access to the marketplace."
So yes, this is censorship.
Looking back to when I was in high school, I had no idea what I wanted out of college or what I really wanted to do with my life. By my last year in high school, I had been an unpaid summer intern at a software company and taken AP Computer Science, but even then, I really wasn't sure. I _thought_ I wanted to study Computer Science, but I had no idea how hard the theory courses would be or if I had any hope of becoming a competent programmer. When I was in high school, I thought that after a semester or two of college CS courses, I might change my major after deciding it wasn't what I had hoped for. In the end, everything turned out well and I did get a CS degree, but that doesn't happen to everyone.
As a highschooler, I also was misinformed about the quality of education I would receive at different schools. The misconception is that only at an ivy league school or other similarly ranked private school will I get a solid education. I applied to several top-level CS schools but ultimately went to an in-state highly ranked public school since it was much cheaper. There are plenty of good public schools that offer strong CS programs -- MIT, Stanford, et. al. are good, but there are many others that also meet a high quality threshold. I came out of undergrad as a strong programmer with a solid understanding of the theory of computation, in part because of my schooling, but also because I was willing to learn. Internships also helped -- these were especially helpful in gaining employment.
I remember at least two incidents where I've nearly been hit by a hybrid while I was crossing an intersection (two different intersections in completely different towns). In both cases, the property owners adjacent to the intersecting road had erected a hedge or fence right up against the road. This is illegal because you can't see, but plenty of property owners do it just the same. Because I couldn't see unless I stepped into the road, I listened for oncoming cars first. Hearing nothing, I proceeded to walk into the intersection where I was nearly mauled. Since I was paying attention, I was able to jump out of the way just in time.
It's more than not paying attention, it's that everyone has to realize that hearing can't be relied upon to tell whether or not a vehicle is approaching. I've learned my lesson and remember that when I'm crossing a street that I might not be able to hear what's coming.
Garbage disposal in transit is a problem, stuff you throw out the airlock follows you to your destination.
How so? Assuming you throw it at greater than the escape velocity of your craft (how big is this craft?) surely it will continue to diverge from your path at the same velocity?
Throw it with enough force and you start to significantly impact the course of the spacecraft. If photons from the sun are enough to noticeably affect the course of space probes over long periods of time, tossing garbage could be much worse.
I tend to agree with this. I always laugh at people wasting time installing 'the club' on their steering wheel. It jsut screams "Im desperate and have no means to recover from losses."
It's not that it's impossible to dismantle such anti-theft systems but that the anti-theft systems provide enough incentive for the thieves to move on and steal the low hanging fruit. Given two identical cars parked next to each other, where one has a club and the other doesn't, which one will the thief steal?
I never have signed a contract containing such terms. I don't plan to, either. Given by the other responses to your post, I don't think that clause is as common as you think it is.
I've worked for several different employers, with my current one being a public university. Every contract I've signed allows my employer to assert ownership of anything I create using company time or resources. There are some universities that allow their paid employees/faculty/researchers ownership of their work, but this is unheard of in the corporate world. However, I do think it is unusual if an employer would demand ownership of everything I create, whether I create it on company time or on my own at home -- I definitely wouldn't sign that contract.
This about sums up my group sharing experience as well. We also considered using a wiki, but dropbox won out. Either way, the group has to agree on some kind of standard for what kinds of files are shared, directory structures, and who has write access. Otherwise, it's a huge mess.
Also there should be trades like continuing education that is not just Masters or PHD CS. No continuing education on new OS's, systems, and so on.
In addition to the usual systems and theory courses, most schools have "hot topic" classes that cover the latest stuff like cloud computing, robotics, mobile application development, etc. Many employers just don't want to fork over the time or money to keep their employees up to speed. I was fortunate enough to work for a company that did pay for continuing education, but cases like that seem to be the exception, not the rule.
Yup. You would have to make it have a bad signal to noise ratio. Tell the truth about the things that are obviously verifiable, tell lies about everything in between in such a way that it's still plausible, and keep in straight in your head so they don't catch you in the lie when they question you about it later. And even then, your algorithm for generating the lies better be practically flawless or they'll find something like "you can't get across town in an hour" or something and the whole system comes crashing down.
I've read a few research papers that propose this to provide privacy in a social networking type scenario. Basically, the "lies" are drawn from the population trends and applied to each individual. That way, individual data is obfuscated while still preserving whatever trend the data is used to represent. They even create fake users based on these general trends so that nobody who is looking through the data can tell if an individual is a real person or a fake one.
A lot of work is required to thread together the thousands of available points of information.
No, it is not. Data-mining is real and getting better every day. Huge amounts of data are no hindrance. It is certainly not harder to find a specific piece of information about you just because you put much more online.
It's a hot research area right now. As I'm on the job market myself, I've found gobs of academic and industry positions that are searching for candidates with a focus in "big data" and data mining. If information saturation is a problem today, you can be sure that tons of people are working hard to make sure that tomorrow it isn't.
To justify spending $300,000, which puts $290,000+ in his pocket Wish I was joking about the price. This ebay powerseller sells large (man-sized) R/C helicopters for $1,500-$2,000 with motor, batteries, radio, etc http://www.ebay.com/itm/200660268060 http://www.ebay.com/itm/200657942941 I understand that the helicopter from Vanguard has a remote camera and screen which I'm sure increases the price but $298,000 for a remote camera seems high.
Service or support? Someone has to train the deputies how to fly it as well as fix it when it breaks. Not to say that that justifies the cost either.
I drove from Seattle to Vancouver a few years back. The Canadians authorities at the border pretty much waved me through. On the way back, I faced a surly US Border Patrol agent that pretty much threw the book at me for no reason I was aware of. He ran mirrors under the car, peered in every window, asked to search the trunk, and asked a whole bunch of questions about my hometown on the East Coast, trying to trip me up. The agent even had a thick foreign accent which betrayed his immigrant status, yet I was the one being treated as an illegal alien or foreign terrorist.
The problem is too many people just agree with these searches like sheep. Unfortunately, airports and Amtrak are government-owned, so if you refuse the search the TSA can refuse to let you board. But buses and ferries are private, and the TSA has no authority to prevent you from boarding if you refuse the search. (Though the bus or ferry company could refuse on the advice of the TSA if the ticket contract allows it.)
Most major commercial airports are owned and administrated by a port authority, which is controlled by municipalities and/or states. The states could try to remove the TSA but it probably wouldn't get far because of the commerce clause.