I can't see any rational reason for a fishing expedition that reveals association data [among other things] in his criminal case. And uncovering who he "associates" with is a direct affront to the freedoms guaranteed in the constitution and amendments.
IMO it's not relevant to the case at all and grabbing for it is simply harassment, or worse, by law enforcement.
It's all the data Twitter holds on the user. Location data. Friends who follow, association or links with others etc.
To portray this as only revealing the public tweets is wrong. I'm not sure if that's deliberate or intentional, but it's a misstatement of fact. The WP article as light as it is on details makes clear that Harris was most concerned about user information, not the public tweets.
If Romney was pres, would Dems stand up and complain loudly [and with maximum hypocrisy] about Romney's transgressions on civil liberties? Probably yeah.
And if we'd had nursing-home-fodder McCain instead of B.O. - would have Dems done that [complained vigorously]? Yup - they sure would have.
And the result would have been that violating civil liberties [what a meek description for a "kill/murder your own citizens without any judicial oversight," among other things.] would have been a one-party Republican supported mess. But now it is the new "normal." Both Dems and Reps think it's "great" and we're stuck with it.
I don't like that line of thinking any better than any other progressives do, but it's something to consider.
--- Lastly, anyone that uses the "They are worse." is simply a moron. Hitler was probably worse than Stalin - but I'm not voting for Stalin no matter how much better he was than Hitler.
"Harold over there shoots little children and *eats* them. We only shoot them. You ought to side with us!" Sheesh.
If the attacker already knows the PSK, then your whole network is screwed and individual session security, while important, becomes far less important.
So, yes, individual sessions are important - but this really isn't any/much different than ARP poisoning on a switched network. You shouldn't rely on such methods for real security.
However, for small networks - ergo home/small business networks - using WPA2-PSK is perfectly fine - just be careful who you share the key with, just like you'll be careful who you let plug into your ethernet switch.
PSK isn't very appropriate for larger more sophisticated networks with more complicated security issues.
WPA2-PSK is insecure due to a separate issue entirely (see Firesheep).
Citation needed.
--- Not to be harsh, but WPA2-PSK has NOTHING to do with firesheep. JUST NOTHING.
Firesheep is a takover of a non SSL wrapped session. So, someone on a non-switched ethernet network can take-over a session. Same is true for any shared medium network, like wireless.However, since WPA2 uses weak individual session encryption you can perhaps determine the PWMK and then sniff all other sessions.
But to determine the PWMK you need the PSK to start with. This doesn't mean that the whole WPA2-PSK is broken. It does mean individual session security is bad if you already know the PSK.
If you don't have the PSK, I'm not aware of any non-brute force method of hacking WPA2-PSK, especially AES. [There are some cases where you can inject packets in a TKIP encrypted session.]
So, I guess I think your claim that WPA2-PSK is broken requires a citation.
You can't claim negligence if you don't have the copyright for the works you're suing about...
At least that seems to be the problem here...
In short, the referenced documents on Beckerman's page, indicate that ScumSuckingRodent (TM) (C) plaintiff sued for infringement of "Some stupid pron title" but the registered title was "Some Horny gay guys - some stupid pron title"
So, the infringement suit was dismissed.
As a result, you can't claim negligence on an infringement that didn't occur.
Did I miss something more nuanced - because it seems Beckerman is implying there's something more fundamental here?
I can only speak for me...but the scummy thing I see is they really want it both ways.
1) You can pay more for higher speeds 2) You can pay more for more bandwidth.
And we'll be really slow about moving the boundaries so as to capture as much money as possible.
Higher speed should just be included, and fine, charge a reasonable amount for bandwidth. OR You charge by the speed tier and however much bandwidth I consume you live with it. [The pricing seems high too, IMO.]
But no, they want to make you pay both ways. [And pay again when you can't stream data (without meter) from other vendors - you have to pay extra to CC.]
Wireless carriers do it like this too.
Them: "No, you can't tether, that costs extra." Me: "Why? You're capping my data consumption anyway. If it's not unlimited, then I should get to choose where I use my data - the phone, a tablet, or my laptop."
Either it's unlimited to a single device, in which case, I can stream netflicks 24x7 - or I pay for X amount of data and I can use it in any way, with any device I like.
But no. We'll pick the terms we like when it benefits us, and then mix and match to make even more. Screw you customer! Just keep forking over the cash.
I'll summarize: --- The grandmother of a 4-year-old girl who became hysterical during a security screening at a Kansas airport said Wednesday that the child was forced to undergo a pat-down after hugging her, with security agents yelling and calling the crying girl an uncooperative suspect.
The child's grandmother, Lori Croft, told The Associated Press that Brademeyer and her daughter, Isabella, initially passed through security at the Wichita airport without incident. The girl then ran over to briefly hug Croft, who was awaiting a pat-down after tripping the alarm, and that's when TSA agents insisted the girl undergo a physical pat-down.
Isabella had just learned about "stranger danger" at school, her grandmother said, adding that the girl was afraid and unsure about what was going on.
"She started to cry, saying 'No I don't want to,' and when we tried talking to her she ran," Croft said. "They yelled, 'We are going to shut down the airport if you don't grab her.'" --- Massive stupidity ensues on the part of the TSA.
Now, once it becomes a widely read story, does the TSA apologize and essentially say - "We're sorry. We could have done this in a lot better, less traumatic, thoughtful and professional way?"
No, they say: "TSA has reviewed the incident and determined that our officers followed proper screening procedures in conducting a modified pat-down on the child," the agency said.
(sarcasm) Ah, what tact and professionalism. (/sarcasm)
No, IMO, these people, in general, as viewed from the pronouncements from the very top *are* thugs.
What they did was legal. But it wasn't necessary, reasonable or the way any reasonable person would handle things. The fact that they take every opportunity to defend what's indefensible in any reasonable person's mind just show the "thug" mentality they have.
Sure, I'd guess there's quite a few nice TSA people. But the thuggishness comes from the top. I think much is the same with most police forces.
They can, so they do. And not only that, they defend their actions to the maximum.
That's the definition of a thug, IMO. "I can, legally, be a total ass, and I know that the top brass will defend my "assish-ness" to the maximum. So, FOAD, ya powerless loser!"
Perhaps your definition of "thug" doesn't include the above, but I think for most of us, the reasonable definition of a thug certainly includes this kind of attitude and behavior. And this thugish behavior is vigorously defended to the maximum by the people all the way to the top.
If we were seeing people get fired and publicly so - taking strong legal action against them, and very strongly defending the dignity of the passengers - then perhaps there'd be some argument about them being the "government's thugs." But as it is, they do most everything they do without any serious push back from anyone senior at the TSA.
In my world, that means they're doing what the TSA wants them to do - and thus, these thugs *are* government thugs.
Nixon covered up a conspiracy that by its nature was a threat the the fabric of democracy. Namely he was using the power of the executive branch to commit crimes [felonies] in order to subvert a free and fair election.
While killing people is not a good thing, I think the threat to the democracy that Nixon posed was far greater than that posed by the ATF and their gun-running scheme.
Given that the threat to the fabric of democracy was threatened in such a way, I'd have to go with Nixon being a bigger problem than some stupid ATF people.
That absolutely should not be taken as my "giving a pass" to the ATF. It isn't. But I don't think the threat posed by the two acts is anywhere remotely equally grave in the context of the republic and its strength. [Which appears to be the point you're making - which IMO, is glue huffing territory.]
I believe you intended to be funny or sarcastic here, but many of the replies down-stream also seem to miss the point.
Provided you can believe the article... There are *patterns* of thinking that indicate a student is about to make a mistake, that they otherwise may well be capable of solving correctly.
It's not that they can't handle that difficulty, or don't know the subject matter; it's that their brain is going into patterns that indicate it will simply be unable to reproduce the known material, and the student will fail on that problem, even if they have the requisite knowledge and skill to successfully answer the question.
It would seem a monumental failure to test someone and not actually measure the skill they have accurately.
Now, the solution? There are a myriad of them, and some are obviously better than others.
The prime solution, it seems in my mind, is to then give the subject a view of their brain and thinking that produced this likelihood of failure. You'd teach them how to recognize the onset of the thinking/brain patterns, and how to re-direct their thinking to help alleviate this bad construct.
Teaching someone how to do that would be incredible. It wouldn't involve "going easy" on them, and wouldn't give them results they couldn't achieve on their own. Once they were able to move out of the "bad" patterns, they could go right back to doing the test and you would get a much more accurate measurement of what the test-taker actually knew.
Further, almost certainly some people are much worse at getting stuck in these brain patterns - and their results from testing are probably much worse than the rest of the population and they are measured very inaccurately.
In spite of all the "humor" and snowflake BS thrown at the concept, I see this as something that could greatly improve the quality and skill of the people who utilized it. It could allow us to tap the potential of people who otherwise would be lost as "not very good" who really only fail the measurement system. [Or more accurately, the measurement system fails them.]
Why throw away many who *do* have the requisite knowledge - simply because we don't know how to help them perform better? Why not help people perform better and learn where their brain limitations cost them - and better yet, teach them how to modify their thinking and work output to give them better results?
As alleged by our government, who we all *know,* could never, ever tell a lie. (cough) (cough) (cough)
But given due processes these days, and the nature of our tiered justice system, why don't we just skip with the trial and lynch him already.
Really, when the executive branch (and all serious important people too) can blatantly commit serious felonies and we're to "look forward, not backward" - well, it's not surprising that we'd be attempting to break down the few brave people who actually leak the details about the felonious [not to mention morally repugnant] behavior of our government.
(sarcasm) I mean, he was defending *brown* people from torture and we all know those *brown* people. [wink wink] They hate us for our freedoms! They're evildooers and teerrissts! Think of the children! (/sarcasm)
@Jerry - while you have a point; the quote was out of context, you actually commit the offense you rail against in your defense.
Seriously!
Yes, the wording was changed - that is wrong. But the context as @willaien points out was Foreign policy experience, and proximity to Russia was a total misdirection. Proximity to Russia gave Palin absolutely no real experience in foreign policy.
Frankly the quote, while factually wrong, did maintain the logical fallacy and stupidity of the original Palin response.
So, hats off to hypocrisy. Raise a massive misdirection, to defend against a technically incorrect quote, which still maintains the vapid and empty-headed statement from Palin herself.
I know many believe that's the case, but there's no conclusive evidence - at least none that isn't the "just trust us wink-wink, our all knowing leaders would never lie to you, and we're perfectly trust-worthy" kind. You know, don't let the problem of actual *evidence* worry your pretty little head. Leave that to the big serious folks. [Who incidentally have financial ties to the military-industrial complex and are hauling home cash by the truck-load.]
Second - they have a right to pursue a nuclear program. [They've signed agreements not to pursue a weapons program.]
So, it seems really crazy to demand that the Iranians prove the impossible. True or not, they will NEVER be able to prove they aren't working on a nuclear weapons program. I mean, sheesh, if Iraq couldn't prove there was no WMD program when there really WAS NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE WHAT-SO-EVER that they were, how could Iran hope for any better?
Proving a negative is always a losing battle... [You know why Elephants paint their toenails red, don't you? Because they can hide in Cherry trees! You've never seen one, have you? See, it works!]
What Iran is really doing, I'm not sure. But I don't think anyone else is SURE either. So, we simply have to live with not knowing for sure.
Finally, I'm really not sure what gives the rest of the world the right to demand that a sovereign country stop doing developing any nuclear program. It's OK if the west, or our friends do it, but you're EEEEVVVIIILL brown skinned muslims, so everyone must be *very* afraid!
I'm sure it won't be a good thing, but frankly, ANYONE having nuclear weapons is a bad thing. But it's kind of hard to ask "them" to give up the opportunity when you and all your friends have so thoroughly enjoyed it yourselves.
Further, the US and its partners discovered 700,000 tons of non-WMD UN-banned weapons when we invaded. Iraq was in violation of not one, not two, but THREE binding and in-force UN Security council resolutions, any one of which allowed for the use of force with no further justification.
Then it would need to be the appropriate law enforcement from THAT country that would have an indictment.
It would be REALLY odd (nay, not within the law) for the US Department of Justice to be holding a sealed indictment for crimes under Australian law or any other country's laws. Ironic huh? That the US Justice Department would be involved in an extra-judicial, not-within-the-law process?!? Not really I guess, but "For Great Justice" - erm, lets lynch the SOB. Trust us, the president says he's an eeeeevilll-dooer, AND a terrorist!
And don't get me started on our great constitutional law scholar who is assassinating American citizens and their minor children without due process.
Summary: If you think pretty much anything the US government does these days is within the law, you aren't paying attention.
I agree with the other poster here: You vastly inflate the ability of the LCD to handle high ambient light conditions, and vastly deflate the capability and functionality of the PQ screens. Perhaps you do that innocently, but it's hard to grant you credibility when your descriptions are so one-sided.
I have a hard time reading my OLED phone screen in the *car* when it's at all bright out. That's far from full sun.
When really outside, on a moderately bright day? Forget using the phone except in the most rudimentary way - or by shading and tilting the phone until you find just the right combination of low-glare and enough brightness to handle things. Even then, it's barely more than enough to make a call. You certainly wouldn't be using the device with ANY ease for more than 2-3 minutes. You'd shortly find another way to accomplish the task some other way - unless the pain of finding another way was really very high.
I've seen the PQ screens in full light, and it's not "dark gray on silver." It's probably not as good as a Kindle screen, but it's easily readable. [I'm glad to admit that there's little color content, but I don't consider that a huge issue - given the trade-off, namely, either be able to use the device or not.]
Again, I think if people were offered an option for this, I suspect you'd see very significant uptake. But that's hard to prove or even really know until it happens.
Basically it has one tiny advantage... actually being able to _use_ your device in some setting where ambient light is better than minimal.
FTFY.
All kidding aside, I don't consider being able to use my device in high ambient light conditions "one tiny advantage."
I consider that to be a very large portion of available use that simply isn't possible.
At the current time, since nearly no-one has actually been able to use a tablet at the beach, or at the park etc, it SEEMS like a tiny advantage. Just like how a tablet didn't seem that impressive BEFORE the iPad came out.
But once people got a taste of a good tablet and saw the possibilities, that "tiny advantage" turned out to be a lot bigger than anyone thought. I think a reasonable decent reflective screen will have similar impact.
IMO, PixelQi [or related], screens that actually allow people to use devices outside are a HUGE deal, and eventually they will catch on. I can't speak for everyone, but for myself, I'm glad to give up a LOT of perfect color saturation, glitz and related for outside use.
Sure, I'd love my pictures to look fabulous, but I'd rather be able to use my device where I want. If I were to give up something, it would be something other than reflective mode.
I'd buy a decent quality PixelQi display on a decent tablet today if it were available....and Notion Ink wasn't there, IMO. Perhaps 2nd gen, or a major vendor here would step in and improve things.
Short of Glenn Greenwald, can you name me some prominent people on the left who have been "howling with rage?" [And yes, I read GG nearly daily.]
Perhaps you don't mean prominent, but just average people. Even then, I have yet to meet anyone I'd consider "on the left" in my circles who is "howling with rage." There just doesn't seem to be much enthusiasm on the left to criticize BO. In fact, there is a host of people who are enabling him. Just view the tide of "Oh, GG loves Ron Paul and things we ought to dump BO, for mentioning the superior civil liberties positions of Ron Paul."
It's like - "Oh, We hated it when Bush did it, but now that our [I voted for the guy too] constitutional scholar is doing it, it's ok now."
So, excuse me while I take your claims with a truck-load, nay train-load of salt.
However I think what the poster meant by "live every day like it's your last" is different than you're imagining. [I know it's different than what I intend by that phrase.]
In short, I think one needs to assess whet in life is important enough to keep doing. Do you like your job? If not, then find a way to do something different. [Ah, but you say. 'I need money, I can't quit.' And I'm sure that's true. But then, what you like enough to keep doing is living the way you are now. Or keeping your kids living the way they are now etc. And that's fair enough.
But realize that, and relish in the satisfaction that you ARE doing what you want to keep doing. Don't let the lousy job get you too down. Sure it sucks, but you're doing what you care enough about to keep doing.
That's a *great* thing. [In that example] You're becoming and acting as your best self. What more honorable and wonderful thing could you do?
There are a million different variations and they're certainly not as black and white as the above example, but the principles still apply.
1) Decide what really matters to you. 2) Find a way to really engage on what matters. 3) Really enjoy and take pride in your involvement in what really mattered. 4) Try not to sweat the "small" stuff that had to fall away to engage in the "big stuff." 5) Live like every day is your last. Doing what really matters and enjoying that pursuit.
If you find you can't do that, perhaps you need to re-asses what really mattered in step #1.
While this may be mildly satisfying for all of a day or so, it does not do anything for my business.
From a business perspective, this is officially true - I'm sure Ford thought the same thing about their Pinto and how it _could_ catch fire in a crash. [But not very often, so why bother doing much - it would cost more than it was worth. In short - "It didn't do anything for their business."]
And if your only basis for judging what is the moral best for you and your customers, and the world is "how well it does for your business" than I'm sure you're probably making the right choice.
However, I choose to run my life by other metrics than just "how well it does my business." And so for me, and others like me, I suspect that not supporting a scummy jerk who has ideals that seem to mesh quite well with yours [namely "It must do something for my business."] is more important than making a buck.
I find such people objectionable and find that continuing to support them and enable them to continue said morally questionable practices is really pretty much a bone-headed thing to do. So, while it might not help my business, I think it will probably help the planet not to support such people and take action, even if it costs me something - perhaps even a lot.
In summary, remaining true to my honor, my moral code and what I consider altruistic and reasonable behavior is far more valuable than just "...what it does for my business."
I even think you'd probably be a happier individual if you'd consider such things valuable as well. But perhaps not. I guess you'll have to decide.
The AZW format got broken a long time ago, and while I don't purchase a lot of content from Amazon, I don't buy ANYTHING I can't break the DRM on so I can move it [sell it, give it away, etc] at my convenience.
I'm sure not going to purchase a bunch of content on Amazon that's lost/stuck because I decided I wanted to get a different device to read it with.
So, hows the cracking with the new format going? Once it's cracked, I'll consider buying it, at least once I decide to buy a KF.
Seriously, once books move into a more reasonable price range in general, I'd guess that it clearly doesn't make sense to use DRM. MP3's made this transition once the vendors realized that $20 for a CD wasn't going to fly for MP3's. Books are going to do it too, I suspect, and sooner rather than later.
But until then, I'll avail myself of the tools to do what the publisher failed to do right - and if that's not possible - well, I just won't buy it at all.
I'm not sure if you're really trolling or not... So let me risk wasting a little time...
You're right that Iran isn't being constructive about their reaction and actions - they're acting childish too.
But does that give us a pass? Surely it doesn't mean that assassination of their scientists, supporting the proxy war, flying spy drones over their country, supporting the MEK etc is all well and good. [They shot my dog, so I can shoot their kids?]
Surely you wouldn't make that argument, right?!
I can't easily change Iran - it's hard enough changing the thinking and actions of MY country.
Rather than futilely trying to force someone else to act different, I need to constrain myself.
Perhaps if I look at MY actions first, I may find reasons for the *reaction* I get from those I interact with.
So, Yes - Iran is doing lots of stupid things too. They're at least partially responsible for the bad relationship. [But if I look at the magnitude of the insults and bad-blood over the years - it's pretty obvious to me [and perhaps you'll disagree] that we [the US] are way more than 50% responsible.]
Further I know that I can only change *my* actions, *my* character - and *my* country. I can't change you, or your character, or Iran.
So, as in any bad relationship, change YOURSELF first and see what happens. You may [almost certainly will] find that change in your character and actions for the better has very magnified impacts on the others in that relationship. It may not lead to a place where everything is just "peachy keen" - but it's different. Then you can decide what you'll do different next.
However, THE recipe for total loss, stalemate, and disaster is to wait for the other side to do it different first.
It would seem from your posting above that you're going to wait by for the other side to change first. Sort of like the two little kids yelling at each other; "he hit me first." It might even be true - but taking that approach only means the war continues forever.
Change starts right here.
* with Me *
If I'm not willing to admit my faults and character flaws, why should anyone else start first?
I'm making the point that WE [the US] are a serious part of the problem, and demonizing the Iranians and their government won't solve a thing. It will just mean that more Americans and more Iranians end up dead or otherwise injured [mentally, physically, emotionally, financially] somewhere. We can complain about how badly the Iranians treated us, or we can recognize the horrible things OUR government has done in our name - and without a lot of complaint from the population. We can strive to learn the lesson.
Or we can continue to keep repeating the same lesson again, paying the high price each time in blood and treasure.
I, personally, strive to learn my lessons the first time.
Slashdot Mirror
To expand.
I can't see any rational reason for a fishing expedition that reveals association data [among other things] in his criminal case. And uncovering who he "associates" with is a direct affront to the freedoms guaranteed in the constitution and amendments.
IMO it's not relevant to the case at all and grabbing for it is simply harassment, or worse, by law enforcement.
But this isn't just the tweets.
It's all the data Twitter holds on the user. Location data. Friends who follow, association or links with others etc.
To portray this as only revealing the public tweets is wrong. I'm not sure if that's deliberate or intentional, but it's a misstatement of fact.
The WP article as light as it is on details makes clear that Harris was most concerned about user information, not the public tweets.
An interesting side note:
If Romney was pres, would Dems stand up and complain loudly [and with maximum hypocrisy] about Romney's transgressions on civil liberties?
Probably yeah.
And if we'd had nursing-home-fodder McCain instead of B.O. - would have Dems done that [complained vigorously]? Yup - they sure would have.
And the result would have been that violating civil liberties [what a meek description for a "kill/murder your own citizens without any judicial oversight," among other things.] would have been a one-party Republican supported mess. But now it is the new "normal." Both Dems and Reps think it's "great" and we're stuck with it.
I don't like that line of thinking any better than any other progressives do, but it's something to consider.
---
Lastly, anyone that uses the "They are worse." is simply a moron. Hitler was probably worse than Stalin - but I'm not voting for Stalin no matter how much better he was than Hitler.
"Harold over there shoots little children and *eats* them. We only shoot them. You ought to side with us!"
Sheesh.
-Greg
To amplify that:
If the attacker already knows the PSK, then your whole network is screwed and individual session security, while important, becomes far less important.
So, yes, individual sessions are important - but this really isn't any/much different than ARP poisoning on a switched network. You shouldn't rely on such methods for real security.
However, for small networks - ergo home/small business networks - using WPA2-PSK is perfectly fine - just be careful who you share the key with, just like you'll be careful who you let plug into your ethernet switch.
PSK isn't very appropriate for larger more sophisticated networks with more complicated security issues.
Citation needed.
---
Not to be harsh, but WPA2-PSK has NOTHING to do with firesheep. JUST NOTHING.
Firesheep is a takover of a non SSL wrapped session. So, someone on a non-switched ethernet network can take-over a session. Same is true for any shared medium network, like wireless.However, since WPA2 uses weak individual session encryption you can perhaps determine the PWMK and then sniff all other sessions.
But to determine the PWMK you need the PSK to start with. This doesn't mean that the whole WPA2-PSK is broken.
It does mean individual session security is bad if you already know the PSK.
If you don't have the PSK, I'm not aware of any non-brute force method of hacking WPA2-PSK, especially AES. [There are some cases where you can inject packets in a TKIP encrypted session.]
So, I guess I think your claim that WPA2-PSK is broken requires a citation.
You can't claim negligence if you don't have the copyright for the works you're suing about...
At least that seems to be the problem here...
In short, the referenced documents on Beckerman's page, indicate that ScumSuckingRodent (TM) (C) plaintiff sued for infringement of "Some stupid pron title" but the registered title was "Some Horny gay guys - some stupid pron title"
So, the infringement suit was dismissed.
As a result, you can't claim negligence on an infringement that didn't occur.
Did I miss something more nuanced - because it seems Beckerman is implying there's something more fundamental here?
-Greg
I can only speak for me...but the scummy thing I see is they really want it both ways.
1) You can pay more for higher speeds
2) You can pay more for more bandwidth.
And we'll be really slow about moving the boundaries so as to capture as much money as possible.
Higher speed should just be included, and fine, charge a reasonable amount for bandwidth.
OR
You charge by the speed tier and however much bandwidth I consume you live with it.
[The pricing seems high too, IMO.]
But no, they want to make you pay both ways. [And pay again when you can't stream data (without meter) from other vendors - you have to pay extra to CC.]
Wireless carriers do it like this too.
Them: "No, you can't tether, that costs extra."
Me: "Why? You're capping my data consumption anyway. If it's not unlimited, then I should get to choose where I use my data - the phone, a tablet, or my laptop."
Either it's unlimited to a single device, in which case, I can stream netflicks 24x7 - or I pay for X amount of data and I can use it in any way, with any device I like.
But no. We'll pick the terms we like when it benefits us, and then mix and match to make even more.
Screw you customer! Just keep forking over the cash.
-Greg
See:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/tsa-defends-pat-year-kan-airport-16215862#.T6RGaqv2agQ
I'll summarize:
---
The grandmother of a 4-year-old girl who became hysterical during a security screening at a Kansas airport said Wednesday that the child was forced to undergo a pat-down after hugging her, with security agents yelling and calling the crying girl an uncooperative suspect.
The child's grandmother, Lori Croft, told The Associated Press that Brademeyer and her daughter, Isabella, initially passed through security at the Wichita airport without incident. The girl then ran over to briefly hug Croft, who was awaiting a pat-down after tripping the alarm, and that's when TSA agents insisted the girl undergo a physical pat-down.
Isabella had just learned about "stranger danger" at school, her grandmother said, adding that the girl was afraid and unsure about what was going on.
"She started to cry, saying 'No I don't want to,' and when we tried talking to her she ran," Croft said. "They yelled, 'We are going to shut down the airport if you don't grab her.'"
---
Massive stupidity ensues on the part of the TSA.
Now, once it becomes a widely read story, does the TSA apologize and essentially say - "We're sorry. We could have done this in a lot better, less traumatic, thoughtful and professional way?"
No, they say: "TSA has reviewed the incident and determined that our officers followed proper screening procedures in conducting a modified pat-down on the child," the agency said.
(sarcasm) Ah, what tact and professionalism. (/sarcasm)
No, IMO, these people, in general, as viewed from the pronouncements from the very top *are* thugs.
What they did was legal. But it wasn't necessary, reasonable or the way any reasonable person would handle things.
The fact that they take every opportunity to defend what's indefensible in any reasonable person's mind just show the "thug" mentality they have.
Sure, I'd guess there's quite a few nice TSA people. But the thuggishness comes from the top. I think much is the same with most police forces.
They can, so they do. And not only that, they defend their actions to the maximum.
That's the definition of a thug, IMO. "I can, legally, be a total ass, and I know that the top brass will defend my "assish-ness" to the maximum. So, FOAD, ya powerless loser!"
Perhaps your definition of "thug" doesn't include the above, but I think for most of us, the reasonable definition of a thug certainly includes this kind of attitude and behavior. And this thugish behavior is vigorously defended to the maximum by the people all the way to the top.
If we were seeing people get fired and publicly so - taking strong legal action against them, and very strongly defending the dignity of the passengers - then perhaps there'd be some argument about them being the "government's thugs." But as it is, they do most everything they do without any serious push back from anyone senior at the TSA.
In my world, that means they're doing what the TSA wants them to do - and thus, these thugs *are* government thugs.
-Greg
Nixon covered up a conspiracy that by its nature was a threat the the fabric of democracy. Namely he was using the power of the executive branch to commit crimes [felonies] in order to subvert a free and fair election.
While killing people is not a good thing, I think the threat to the democracy that Nixon posed was far greater than that posed by the ATF and their gun-running scheme.
Given that the threat to the fabric of democracy was threatened in such a way, I'd have to go with Nixon being a bigger problem than some stupid ATF people.
That absolutely should not be taken as my "giving a pass" to the ATF. It isn't. But I don't think the threat posed by the two acts is anywhere remotely equally grave in the context of the republic and its strength. [Which appears to be the point you're making - which IMO, is glue huffing territory.]
I believe you intended to be funny or sarcastic here, but many of the replies down-stream also seem to miss the point.
Provided you can believe the article...
There are *patterns* of thinking that indicate a student is about to make a mistake, that they otherwise may well be capable of solving correctly.
It's not that they can't handle that difficulty, or don't know the subject matter; it's that their brain is going into patterns that indicate it will simply be unable to reproduce the known material, and the student will fail on that problem, even if they have the requisite knowledge and skill to successfully answer the question.
It would seem a monumental failure to test someone and not actually measure the skill they have accurately.
Now, the solution? There are a myriad of them, and some are obviously better than others.
The prime solution, it seems in my mind, is to then give the subject a view of their brain and thinking that produced this likelihood of failure. You'd teach them how to recognize the onset of the thinking/brain patterns, and how to re-direct their thinking to help alleviate this bad construct.
Teaching someone how to do that would be incredible. It wouldn't involve "going easy" on them, and wouldn't give them results they couldn't achieve on their own. Once they were able to move out of the "bad" patterns, they could go right back to doing the test and you would get a much more accurate measurement of what the test-taker actually knew.
Further, almost certainly some people are much worse at getting stuck in these brain patterns - and their results from testing are probably much worse than the rest of the population and they are measured very inaccurately.
In spite of all the "humor" and snowflake BS thrown at the concept, I see this as something that could greatly improve the quality and skill of the people who utilized it. It could allow us to tap the potential of people who otherwise would be lost as "not very good" who really only fail the measurement system. [Or more accurately, the measurement system fails them.]
Why throw away many who *do* have the requisite knowledge - simply because we don't know how to help them perform better?
Why not help people perform better and learn where their brain limitations cost them - and better yet, teach them how to modify their thinking and work output to give them better results?
-Greg
As alleged by our government, who we all *know,* could never, ever tell a lie. (cough) (cough) (cough)
But given due processes these days, and the nature of our tiered justice system, why don't we just skip with the trial and lynch him already.
Really, when the executive branch (and all serious important people too) can blatantly commit serious felonies and we're to "look forward, not backward" - well, it's not surprising that we'd be attempting to break down the few brave people who actually leak the details about the felonious [not to mention morally repugnant] behavior of our government.
(sarcasm)
I mean, he was defending *brown* people from torture and we all know those *brown* people. [wink wink]
They hate us for our freedoms!
They're evildooers and teerrissts!
Think of the children!
(/sarcasm)
-Greg
! THIS !
@Jerry - while you have a point; the quote was out of context, you actually commit the offense you rail against in your defense.
Seriously!
Yes, the wording was changed - that is wrong. But the context as @willaien points out was Foreign policy experience, and proximity to Russia was a total misdirection. Proximity to Russia gave Palin absolutely no real experience in foreign policy.
Frankly the quote, while factually wrong, did maintain the logical fallacy and stupidity of the original Palin response.
So, hats off to hypocrisy. Raise a massive misdirection, to defend against a technically incorrect quote, which still maintains the vapid and empty-headed statement from Palin herself.
What program? What evidence.
I know many believe that's the case, but there's no conclusive evidence - at least none that isn't the "just trust us wink-wink, our all knowing leaders would never lie to you, and we're perfectly trust-worthy" kind. You know, don't let the problem of actual *evidence* worry your pretty little head. Leave that to the big serious folks. [Who incidentally have financial ties to the military-industrial complex and are hauling home cash by the truck-load.]
Second - they have a right to pursue a nuclear program. [They've signed agreements not to pursue a weapons program.]
So, it seems really crazy to demand that the Iranians prove the impossible. True or not, they will NEVER be able to prove they aren't working on a nuclear weapons program. I mean, sheesh, if Iraq couldn't prove there was no WMD program when there really WAS NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE WHAT-SO-EVER that they were, how could Iran hope for any better?
Proving a negative is always a losing battle...
[You know why Elephants paint their toenails red, don't you? Because they can hide in Cherry trees! You've never seen one, have you? See, it works!]
What Iran is really doing, I'm not sure. But I don't think anyone else is SURE either. So, we simply have to live with not knowing for sure.
Finally, I'm really not sure what gives the rest of the world the right to demand that a sovereign country stop doing developing any nuclear program.
It's OK if the west, or our friends do it, but you're EEEEVVVIIILL brown skinned muslims, so everyone must be *very* afraid!
I'm sure it won't be a good thing, but frankly, ANYONE having nuclear weapons is a bad thing. But it's kind of hard to ask "them" to give up the opportunity when you and all your friends have so thoroughly enjoyed it yourselves.
Further, the US and its partners discovered 700,000 tons of non-WMD UN-banned weapons when we invaded. Iraq was in violation of not one, not two, but THREE binding and in-force UN Security council resolutions, any one of which allowed for the use of force with no further justification.
Citation needed.
Then it would need to be the appropriate law enforcement from THAT country that would have an indictment.
It would be REALLY odd (nay, not within the law) for the US Department of Justice to be holding a sealed indictment for crimes under Australian law or any other country's laws. Ironic huh? That the US Justice Department would be involved in an extra-judicial, not-within-the-law process?!? Not really I guess, but "For Great Justice" - erm, lets lynch the SOB. Trust us, the president says he's an eeeeevilll-dooer, AND a terrorist!
And don't get me started on our great constitutional law scholar who is assassinating American citizens and their minor children without due process.
Summary: If you think pretty much anything the US government does these days is within the law, you aren't paying attention.
-Greg
I'm not exactly trying to knock you or your missionary friend...but let me say this.
There are just as many scammers that live in the USA or anywhere else for that matter.
There are just as many honest Nigerians too.
People are people.
Some are greedy liars, some are really nice folks.
It doesn't really matter if they're black, white, male, female, gay, straight, or whatever.
I do wish we'd start to question the premise of thoughts like this more.
Rather than "Why are Nigerians such scammers..." perhaps we ought to ask ourselves - "what has gone wrong that causes people to do these things.
The answers probably would be a lot more useful.
-Greg
Three would be even better. ATI has a _fairly_ cheap triple-head video card, last I checked. (~$200) - it's a 3GL card.
-Greg
I agree with the other poster here:
You vastly inflate the ability of the LCD to handle high ambient light conditions, and vastly deflate the capability and functionality of the PQ screens. Perhaps you do that innocently, but it's hard to grant you credibility when your descriptions are so one-sided.
I have a hard time reading my OLED phone screen in the *car* when it's at all bright out. That's far from full sun.
When really outside, on a moderately bright day? Forget using the phone except in the most rudimentary way - or by shading and tilting the phone until you find just the right combination of low-glare and enough brightness to handle things. Even then, it's barely more than enough to make a call. You certainly wouldn't be using the device with ANY ease for more than 2-3 minutes. You'd shortly find another way to accomplish the task some other way - unless the pain of finding another way was really very high.
I've seen the PQ screens in full light, and it's not "dark gray on silver." It's probably not as good as a Kindle screen, but it's easily readable. [I'm glad to admit that there's little color content, but I don't consider that a huge issue - given the trade-off, namely, either be able to use the device or not.]
Again, I think if people were offered an option for this, I suspect you'd see very significant uptake. But that's hard to prove or even really know until it happens.
Time will tell I think.
Basically it has one tiny advantage...
actually being able to _use_ your device in some setting where ambient light is better than minimal.
FTFY.
All kidding aside, I don't consider being able to use my device in high ambient light conditions "one tiny advantage."
I consider that to be a very large portion of available use that simply isn't possible.
At the current time, since nearly no-one has actually been able to use a tablet at the beach, or at the park etc, it SEEMS like a tiny advantage. Just like how a tablet didn't seem that impressive BEFORE the iPad came out.
But once people got a taste of a good tablet and saw the possibilities, that "tiny advantage" turned out to be a lot bigger than anyone thought. I think a reasonable decent reflective screen will have similar impact.
IMO, PixelQi [or related], screens that actually allow people to use devices outside are a HUGE deal, and eventually they will catch on. I can't speak for everyone, but for myself, I'm glad to give up a LOT of perfect color saturation, glitz and related for outside use.
Sure, I'd love my pictures to look fabulous, but I'd rather be able to use my device where I want. If I were to give up something, it would be something other than reflective mode.
I'd buy a decent quality PixelQi display on a decent tablet today if it were available. ...and Notion Ink wasn't there, IMO. Perhaps 2nd gen, or a major vendor here would step in and improve things.
-Greg
{Citation needed]
Short of Glenn Greenwald, can you name me some prominent people on the left who have been "howling with rage?"
[And yes, I read GG nearly daily.]
Perhaps you don't mean prominent, but just average people. Even then, I have yet to meet anyone I'd consider "on the left" in my circles who is "howling with rage."
There just doesn't seem to be much enthusiasm on the left to criticize BO. In fact, there is a host of people who are enabling him. Just view the tide of "Oh, GG loves Ron Paul and things we ought to dump BO, for mentioning the superior civil liberties positions of Ron Paul."
It's like - "Oh, We hated it when Bush did it, but now that our [I voted for the guy too] constitutional scholar is doing it, it's ok now."
So, excuse me while I take your claims with a truck-load, nay train-load of salt.
-Greg
I think I understand your sentiment...
However I think what the poster meant by "live every day like it's your last" is different than you're imagining.
[I know it's different than what I intend by that phrase.]
In short, I think one needs to assess whet in life is important enough to keep doing.
Do you like your job? If not, then find a way to do something different.
[Ah, but you say. 'I need money, I can't quit.' And I'm sure that's true.
But then, what you like enough to keep doing is living the way you are now. Or keeping your kids living the way they are now etc. And that's fair enough.
But realize that, and relish in the satisfaction that you ARE doing what you want to keep doing. Don't let the lousy job get you too down. Sure it sucks, but you're doing what you care enough about to keep doing.
That's a *great* thing. [In that example] You're becoming and acting as your best self. What more honorable and wonderful thing could you do?
There are a million different variations and they're certainly not as black and white as the above example, but the principles still apply.
1) Decide what really matters to you.
2) Find a way to really engage on what matters.
3) Really enjoy and take pride in your involvement in what really mattered.
4) Try not to sweat the "small" stuff that had to fall away to engage in the "big stuff."
5) Live like every day is your last. Doing what really matters and enjoying that pursuit.
If you find you can't do that, perhaps you need to re-asses what really mattered in step #1.
HTH
-Greg
I'll take the bait.
From a business perspective, this is officially true - I'm sure Ford thought the same thing about their Pinto and how it _could_ catch fire in a crash. [But not very often, so why bother doing much - it would cost more than it was worth. In short - "It didn't do anything for their business."]
And if your only basis for judging what is the moral best for you and your customers, and the world is "how well it does for your business" than I'm sure you're probably making the right choice.
However, I choose to run my life by other metrics than just "how well it does my business." And so for me, and others like me, I suspect that not supporting a scummy jerk who has ideals that seem to mesh quite well with yours [namely "It must do something for my business."] is more important than making a buck.
I find such people objectionable and find that continuing to support them and enable them to continue said morally questionable practices is really pretty much a bone-headed thing to do. So, while it might not help my business, I think it will probably help the planet not to support such people and take action, even if it costs me something - perhaps even a lot.
In summary, remaining true to my honor, my moral code and what I consider altruistic and reasonable behavior is far more valuable than just "...what it does for my business."
I even think you'd probably be a happier individual if you'd consider such things valuable as well. But perhaps not. I guess you'll have to decide.
-Greg
Best freeking summary of the problem I've ever read. Excellent Sir!!
Mod parent UP - WAY UP!
-Greg
The AZW format got broken a long time ago, and while I don't purchase a lot of content from Amazon, I don't buy ANYTHING I can't break the DRM on so I can move it [sell it, give it away, etc] at my convenience.
I'm sure not going to purchase a bunch of content on Amazon that's lost/stuck because I decided I wanted to get a different device to read it with.
So, hows the cracking with the new format going? Once it's cracked, I'll consider buying it, at least once I decide to buy a KF.
Seriously, once books move into a more reasonable price range in general, I'd guess that it clearly doesn't make sense to use DRM. MP3's made this transition once the vendors realized that $20 for a CD wasn't going to fly for MP3's. Books are going to do it too, I suspect, and sooner rather than later.
But until then, I'll avail myself of the tools to do what the publisher failed to do right - and if that's not possible - well, I just won't buy it at all.
-Greg
I'm not sure if you're really trolling or not...
So let me risk wasting a little time...
You're right that Iran isn't being constructive about their reaction and actions - they're acting childish too.
But does that give us a pass? Surely it doesn't mean that assassination of their scientists, supporting the proxy war, flying spy drones over their country, supporting the MEK etc is all well and good. [They shot my dog, so I can shoot their kids?]
Surely you wouldn't make that argument, right?!
I can't easily change Iran - it's hard enough changing the thinking and actions of MY country.
Rather than futilely trying to force someone else to act different, I need to constrain myself.
Perhaps if I look at MY actions first, I may find reasons for the *reaction* I get from those I interact with.
So, Yes - Iran is doing lots of stupid things too. They're at least partially responsible for the bad relationship. [But if I look at the magnitude of the insults and bad-blood over the years - it's pretty obvious to me [and perhaps you'll disagree] that we [the US] are way more than 50% responsible.]
Further I know that I can only change *my* actions, *my* character - and *my* country. I can't change you, or your character, or Iran.
So, as in any bad relationship, change YOURSELF first and see what happens. You may [almost certainly will] find that change in your character and actions for the better has very magnified impacts on the others in that relationship. It may not lead to a place where everything is just "peachy keen" - but it's different. Then you can decide what you'll do different next.
However, THE recipe for total loss, stalemate, and disaster is to wait for the other side to do it different first.
It would seem from your posting above that you're going to wait by for the other side to change first. Sort of like the two little kids yelling at each other; "he hit me first." It might even be true - but taking that approach only means the war continues forever.
Change starts right here.
* with Me *
If I'm not willing to admit my faults and character flaws, why should anyone else start first?
I'm making the point that WE [the US] are a serious part of the problem, and demonizing the Iranians and their government won't solve a thing. It will just mean that more Americans and more Iranians end up dead or otherwise injured [mentally, physically, emotionally, financially] somewhere. We can complain about how badly the Iranians treated us, or we can recognize the horrible things OUR government has done in our name - and without a lot of complaint from the population. We can strive to learn the lesson.
Or we can continue to keep repeating the same lesson again, paying the high price each time in blood and treasure.
I, personally, strive to learn my lessons the first time.
-Greg