The point is, the book is widespread enough that owning it or taking an interest in it should not be interpreted as evidence of potential terrorist activity. It is no more notable in this regard than an interest in St. Augustine.
The fact that you weren't there probably has more to do with your interpretation of events. I was completely up front and honest about what I was doing to the flight attendant but I didn't see the need to bore her with details and she didn't ask about them. I'm not blaming her though -- I found the whole thing terribly disconcerting, and that certainly showed, and I can't say I was giving my best performance as a cooperative sheep. I was running on about 2 hours of sleep, a lot of caffeine, and I was also terribly annoyed by the whole situation; I tried to be on my best behavior but I was also fighting the urge to be confrontational. When I was ten years younger I probably would have made a stand, and that would have been worse. But in any case I don't think there was anything I could have done to make things turn out differently; even though they were reading over my shoulder none of these people seemed to really want to know what I had been reading. Even when the US Marshals interrogated me they pretty much glossed over when I talked about any details of my work (the quiet cop spent a good twenty or thirty minutes reading some of the article while I talked to the other cop, but I got the sense he was actually just looking at the pages and listening to the interrogation) and seemed far more interested in my body language and vocal intonation than in anything I actually had to say about it. I think the sad fact is, most people don't really care to think too much about such things and would rather cling to superficial opinions without further understanding of them.
There is a form to fill out for such losses. In my case the conference proceedings book they removed from my baggage was never returned to me, but I complained and filled out the form, and they sent money and a polite note to compensate for the loss. (My more paranoid suspicion is that they are using the book to investigate others who spoke about terrorism at the conference.) If the value is under $250 they don't even ask for receipts and my sense is that the compensation is issued routinely, so if you do lose something in a TSA search like this, it is worth complaining about it. I only wish I knew this when the guys working for airport security stole my iPod three years ago (coincidentally enough, also on my trip to Utah; but those guys took it at LAX).
It may be hard to believe, but I have heard this information before. Thanks, though, for your concern. I wasn't commenting on why the book was published so much (though I'm curious about your argument regarding the Ikea catalog now); rather, I was commenting on the investigation nightmare for any federal agency who considers anyone who reads this book a suspect of something.
"Printer's ink has been running a race against gunpowder these many, many years. Ink is handicapped, in a way, because you can blow up a man with gunpowder in half a second, while it may take twenty years to blow him up with a book. But the gunpowder destroys itself along with its victim, while a book can keep on exploding for centuries." --Chistopher Morley, "The Haunted Bookshop"
This book is actually the second-most published book in the world (well, third if you count the Ikea catalog), which means that if it is on some kind of watch list, the Feds really have their work cut out for them. If this is one of those books that can change the world, it already has, and there's little the Feds can do about it now by stopping people from writing papers about it at universities.
Sounds like this prof is actually trying to educate his students instead of being one of these pro-terrorist cranks the university system seems to enjoy hiring, but shouldn't we be wanting the Feds to go have a look for themselves to make sure everything was on the level? Be careful before tossing out the standard issue slashbot line, because when something eventually goes BOOM you won't be allowed to ask "Why didn't the spooks connect the dots and prevent it" if you are now howling that they shouldn't be looking for the dots.
First, what "pro-terrorist cranks" do universities "enjoy hiring"? Even Al-Arian in Florida, who is hardly in any way representative of the kinds of professors hired at most universities in the US, was acquitted of any wrongdoing. But he lost his job as a result of the controversy, and you can bet that professors likely to cause such controversy are going to be passed up by most hiring committees.
More importantly, however, can you please tell us what "dots" can possibly be "connected" to terrorism based on a professor checking out a book of quotations from a library? You make a big deal out of the fact that this guy wanted the right version of this book - as if a concern for accuracy makes one a terrorist suspect. This is ludicrous. I have no problem with the Feds monitoring purchases of large quantities of dangerous chemicals, but books? Full of quotations? By dead Chinese dictators? Come on.
As a professor who writes and teaches about war and terrorism (among other things), I often find myself checking out and buying books about terrorism, al Qaeda, and other things far more "threatening" than Mao's red book (not to mention visiting websites, etc.) My research interests have caught the attention of the feds before, but never from just checking out a book from the library. The idea that certain books are flagged simply for ideological content is a sign of significant problems in terms of academic freedom and freedom of thought generally.
The fact that a forty-year old book of vague quotations about "people's war" that is also the second most popular book in the world (second only to the Bible) is on that list just shows how surreal and absurd this war on terrorism has become.
They forgot to mention that they flushed the book down the toilet during the interrogation. Apparently throngs of Chinese citizens have been protesting....
I got paid a visit for reading material that was hardly "subversive" -- it was published by the U.S. military! Read all about it here and here... I was reading the literature on a plane, to be sure, but a home visit from the feds seemed way over the top. To their credit, however, the Marshals seemed to be nice enough and they didn't seem to think I was a threat to national security, and I haven't been bothered since the visit to my house. Though I wonder whether there are now federal files on me, and whether I'm being looked at funny at the airport.
The RAP team, as a precaution against this very circumstance, working with White Sands personnel had tied a rope to M2 before sending it into the work area.
Then the RAP team started throwing up gang signs and rhyming insults against the enemy....
They're buying Opera too, why not? As well as iCab and Internet Explorer, and they've even put up a bid for Amaya. And they're starting Google Music, funding a lab with Sun and Microsoft, and scanning every word that was ever printed. The USGS will soon be a subsidiary of Google Maps. Google will soon buy Microsoft, Intel, Apple, and the Louvre. Google won't actually buy the Library of Congress; rather, it will be given to Google in an act passed unanimously by the House and Senate.
And let's not forget, long before the Patriot Act, there was the Omnibus Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, which sailed through Congress in the wake of Oklahoma City, and contained many restrictions on privacy and civil liberties in the name of fighting terrorism. I like the Clintonistas better than the current crop of imbeciles too, but let's not paint his administration as some kind of bastion of civil liberties.
It's from a column in Capitol Hill Blue called "The Rant" that seems to be satire or sarcasm; it does not seem to be real. Capitol Hill Blue published a lot of questionable stories that the rest of the media never picked up or even bothered to acknowledge, such as that Bush was popping pills like crazy and slipping into a paranoid delerium reminiscent of Richard Nixon; that he throws scary and obscene tirades (again, reminiscent of Nixon), and more. It's hard to tell if this stuff is a poor attempt at pulling the wool over people's eyes or some kind of obscure satire, though it certainly is repeated often enough on the internet. But in either case I would be hesitant about believing much of this stuff or spreading it around.
Lieberman is more than a Democrat, he's a Jewish democrat, and if you've heard the rhetoric coming out of Iran (from their president no less) directed towards Israel, you'll understand why he's behind our military's occupation of that region.
Odd, then, that he would support the military occupation of Iraq, which has had the effect of ushering in a Shiite-dominated coalition with heavy ties to Iran. One could easily argue that the greatest beneficiary of the invasion and occupation of Iraq has been Iran.
Oh please. Read the context of the discussion. The point I was responding to was the absurd argument that laws that restrict people's behavior are net reductions in freedom. There's no deception here; read the GPL yourself. It calls for restrictions on people's behavior. If you redistribute code, you must do so according to the terms of the GPL. Stop trying to distort the issue.
Slashdot Mirror
It is a lie.... As the Sugarhill Gang reminded us years ago, Superman just has a "little worm"; he can't compete with the "super sperm"!
The point is, the book is widespread enough that owning it or taking an interest in it should not be interpreted as evidence of potential terrorist activity. It is no more notable in this regard than an interest in St. Augustine.
The fact that you weren't there probably has more to do with your interpretation of events. I was completely up front and honest about what I was doing to the flight attendant but I didn't see the need to bore her with details and she didn't ask about them. I'm not blaming her though -- I found the whole thing terribly disconcerting, and that certainly showed, and I can't say I was giving my best performance as a cooperative sheep. I was running on about 2 hours of sleep, a lot of caffeine, and I was also terribly annoyed by the whole situation; I tried to be on my best behavior but I was also fighting the urge to be confrontational. When I was ten years younger I probably would have made a stand, and that would have been worse. But in any case I don't think there was anything I could have done to make things turn out differently; even though they were reading over my shoulder none of these people seemed to really want to know what I had been reading. Even when the US Marshals interrogated me they pretty much glossed over when I talked about any details of my work (the quiet cop spent a good twenty or thirty minutes reading some of the article while I talked to the other cop, but I got the sense he was actually just looking at the pages and listening to the interrogation) and seemed far more interested in my body language and vocal intonation than in anything I actually had to say about it. I think the sad fact is, most people don't really care to think too much about such things and would rather cling to superficial opinions without further understanding of them.
There must be some way to tap into the wind power generated by all the yapping on cell phones that takes place on the road.
There is a form to fill out for such losses. In my case the conference proceedings book they removed from my baggage was never returned to me, but I complained and filled out the form, and they sent money and a polite note to compensate for the loss. (My more paranoid suspicion is that they are using the book to investigate others who spoke about terrorism at the conference.) If the value is under $250 they don't even ask for receipts and my sense is that the compensation is issued routinely, so if you do lose something in a TSA search like this, it is worth complaining about it. I only wish I knew this when the guys working for airport security stole my iPod three years ago (coincidentally enough, also on my trip to Utah; but those guys took it at LAX).
It may be hard to believe, but I have heard this information before. Thanks, though, for your concern. I wasn't commenting on why the book was published so much (though I'm curious about your argument regarding the Ikea catalog now); rather, I was commenting on the investigation nightmare for any federal agency who considers anyone who reads this book a suspect of something.
"Printer's ink has been running a race against gunpowder these many, many years. Ink is handicapped, in a way, because you can blow up a man with gunpowder in half a second, while it may take twenty years to blow him up with a book. But the gunpowder destroys itself along with its victim, while a book can keep on exploding for centuries." --Chistopher Morley, "The Haunted Bookshop"
If you're really dealing with jack booted thugs, the only person these words are likely to make miserable is you.
This book is actually the second-most published book in the world (well, third if you count the Ikea catalog), which means that if it is on some kind of watch list, the Feds really have their work cut out for them. If this is one of those books that can change the world, it already has, and there's little the Feds can do about it now by stopping people from writing papers about it at universities.
First, what "pro-terrorist cranks" do universities "enjoy hiring"? Even Al-Arian in Florida, who is hardly in any way representative of the kinds of professors hired at most universities in the US, was acquitted of any wrongdoing. But he lost his job as a result of the controversy, and you can bet that professors likely to cause such controversy are going to be passed up by most hiring committees.
More importantly, however, can you please tell us what "dots" can possibly be "connected" to terrorism based on a professor checking out a book of quotations from a library? You make a big deal out of the fact that this guy wanted the right version of this book - as if a concern for accuracy makes one a terrorist suspect. This is ludicrous. I have no problem with the Feds monitoring purchases of large quantities of dangerous chemicals, but books? Full of quotations? By dead Chinese dictators? Come on.
As a professor who writes and teaches about war and terrorism (among other things), I often find myself checking out and buying books about terrorism, al Qaeda, and other things far more "threatening" than Mao's red book (not to mention visiting websites, etc.) My research interests have caught the attention of the feds before, but never from just checking out a book from the library. The idea that certain books are flagged simply for ideological content is a sign of significant problems in terms of academic freedom and freedom of thought generally.
The fact that a forty-year old book of vague quotations about "people's war" that is also the second most popular book in the world (second only to the Bible) is on that list just shows how surreal and absurd this war on terrorism has become.
They forgot to mention that they flushed the book down the toilet during the interrogation. Apparently throngs of Chinese citizens have been protesting....
I got paid a visit for reading material that was hardly "subversive" -- it was published by the U.S. military! Read all about it here and here... I was reading the literature on a plane, to be sure, but a home visit from the feds seemed way over the top. To their credit, however, the Marshals seemed to be nice enough and they didn't seem to think I was a threat to national security, and I haven't been bothered since the visit to my house. Though I wonder whether there are now federal files on me, and whether I'm being looked at funny at the airport.
I'm baaaack.....
You've obviously never used a spud gun.
It's just a bunch of round spheres!
Then the RAP team started throwing up gang signs and rhyming insults against the enemy....
Actually, in purchasing AOL, they seem to be aiming for the Googhoul.
They're buying Opera too, why not? As well as iCab and Internet Explorer, and they've even put up a bid for Amaya. And they're starting Google Music, funding a lab with Sun and Microsoft, and scanning every word that was ever printed. The USGS will soon be a subsidiary of Google Maps. Google will soon buy Microsoft, Intel, Apple, and the Louvre. Google won't actually buy the Library of Congress; rather, it will be given to Google in an act passed unanimously by the House and Senate.
So what is Google Talk about then?
And let's not forget, long before the Patriot Act, there was the Omnibus Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, which sailed through Congress in the wake of Oklahoma City, and contained many restrictions on privacy and civil liberties in the name of fighting terrorism. I like the Clintonistas better than the current crop of imbeciles too, but let's not paint his administration as some kind of bastion of civil liberties.
It's from a column in Capitol Hill Blue called "The Rant" that seems to be satire or sarcasm; it does not seem to be real. Capitol Hill Blue published a lot of questionable stories that the rest of the media never picked up or even bothered to acknowledge, such as that Bush was popping pills like crazy and slipping into a paranoid delerium reminiscent of Richard Nixon; that he throws scary and obscene tirades (again, reminiscent of Nixon), and more. It's hard to tell if this stuff is a poor attempt at pulling the wool over people's eyes or some kind of obscure satire, though it certainly is repeated often enough on the internet. But in either case I would be hesitant about believing much of this stuff or spreading it around.
Odd, then, that he would support the military occupation of Iraq, which has had the effect of ushering in a Shiite-dominated coalition with heavy ties to Iran. One could easily argue that the greatest beneficiary of the invasion and occupation of Iraq has been Iran.
Hmmm... why pay a hooker for a handjob when you can just jerk off for free?
Oh please. Read the context of the discussion. The point I was responding to was the absurd argument that laws that restrict people's behavior are net reductions in freedom. There's no deception here; read the GPL yourself. It calls for restrictions on people's behavior. If you redistribute code, you must do so according to the terms of the GPL. Stop trying to distort the issue.
You misspelled "everyone."
Seriously. Pop-up ads on cereal boxes? I can't fucking wait.
The epileptics have it easy; once they go into a seizure they will be able to stop paying attention to the damn ads.