Bah. Semantics. Defining what is legal is the same as defining what is illegal.
Laws change over time. 200 years doesn't mean anything. The Supreme Court legalized salavery and a host of other things. 200 years ago the majority of people who could legally vote in the U.S. were white male landowners.
Besides, you're trying to change the discussion to avoid the truth. Bill Clinton said he would only nominate judges who were pro-abortion. That is an ideological position, not a legal position. Period. Dot.
The Supreme Court's decision to legalize abortion is just as subject to review and change as any other decision. Such as...denying voting rights to women, minorities and non-landowners, slavery, income tax, etc.
Quote: I dont recall Clinton ever trying to push school prayer and promising to pick judges based on ideology to satisfy some prolife groups.
Do you recall Clinton's government never prosecuting anyone for pornography? I wonder why you don't recall him "pushing" school prayer. In many places it's not "pushing" it's making sure prayer is not prohibited.
You might not remember, but Clinton said he'd only nominate judges who were pro-abortion. That IS an ideological issue, especially since the law was illegally created by the Supreme Court and not the representative branch of the US government.
Quote: This - their genetic differences become so great that they cannot breed with each other. They are thus, by definition, two different species! Viola!
What about dogs and wolves? Horses and donkeys? Horses and zebras?
Either you're statement is incorrect or those aren't different species. They're still the same basic body type, for lack of a better term.
My house cats couldn't physically mate with a lion because of size, that's for sure.
The main problems are lack of HTML support for embedded video and PowerPoint's reliance on the M$ Office runtime.
MediaPlayerConnectivity works just fine for linked media. That's where VideoLan Client would function, not on embedded video.
That's the challenge.
I'm about ready to replace all embedded video with animated GIFs alternating between frame 1 and text (Click here to watch video) which does a direct link to the video file. Maybe that's the best option, anyhow, because it would show all the controls for a media player so people can use the position slider.
That leaves only the CSS issue which is analagous to a Master Slide in PowerPoint. I wonder if there's a "genericizer" for M$ Office CSS...
I must admit I haven't tried OpenOffice 2.0 as a way to generate more "friendly" HTML from PowerPoint. I'll try that.
This thread got me poking around again. FrontPage 2002 (I hate the never one and haven't learned Dreamweaver yet...) shows something very interesting. The "normal" tab display looks just like Firefox for the slides with the scaling issue. The "preview" window looks like the original slide. Having removed all the script calls, it now seems this is a CSS issue.
Maybe, just maybe, some tweaking can be done there to make the elements scale and position properly within frames. Given the CSS files from exported PowerPoint are "generic", maybe this will work.
Embedded video is a different issue. Firefox doesn't like the seamless embedding using the Office runtime. Even so, presentations have to be viewable by as many people as possible unless you have a controlled environment. I've been amazed at how often companies really lock down computers. It's one thing for people like us to grab a java runtime or flash player, quite another in the commercial world. People get fired for stuff like that. If that's required to view the presentations and the intended viewer can't view them, you're hosed.
The reason I like PowerPoint so much is the portability from a business sense. Any meeting place supports it. The HTML export also gives a real nice 3-paned layout including an index and the notes for each slide which means a single presentation can be used for large meetings or menu-driven by a single person. That's a fantastic return on time invested making presentations.
I've struggled with this for a long time. Firefox has the wonderful ability to be put on a disc as a kiosk which is fantastic for setting a known baseline for presentations exported from PowerPoint. It would be a wonderful way to avoid all the security/configuration issues you run into with distributed presentations in the real world, especially if something more capable than MPEG1 can be used such as Flash.
However, Windows Media and M$ Office embedded media use a lot of M$-specific stuff to make it work properly. It's not just windows media that is a problem, it's also scaling graphics.
Here is a sample with IE and Firefox screenshots showing both image scaling problems and embedded media problems. This is from a few months ago but the problems persist with Firefox.
Quote: Also, you believe bad things don't matter, as long as it's to a small portion of the population.
Those are your words, the are most certainly not mine.
I said it's not statistically significant. It does not, as the original FUD-monger claimed, show "significant FBI abuses." There will always be mistakes/misuse of any process. That doesn't mean accountability for or repurcussions from actions are absolved, it means it is not a "significant" issue/flaw/problem.
I did make it clear the numbers used were over-simplified for ease of calculation. How you could miss that comment, or fail to see the result grossly overstates the percentage, is...baffling.
Any process with a 99.9999992% success rate is pretty darn good. It makes six sigma look like throwing mud against a wall.
If that success rate were to be the standard for life situations, it would mean you would NEVER run out of gas, be in a car wreck, walk into a dirty bathroom, experience burned food, have a cold, stub your toe, get a papercut or dial a wrong telephone number.
let's be more generous than yoru source and start with an assumed 200 investigations. Then lets assume there are only 250 million citizens of the U.S.
That means an investigation (not a proven violation, just an investigation) for every 1,250,000 people. Viewed another way that is 0.0000008 % contribution to an investigation per citizen.
How much does that drop when the numbers are changed to reflect the actual population and the number of actual violations? Pffff...
This is miniscule and an incredibly weak attempt at FUD. At least try something plausible next time.
'Even those critics who understand that copyright law is not absolute argue that making a full copy of a given work, even just to index it, can never constitute fair use. If this were so, you wouldn't be able to record a TV show to watch it later or use a search engine that indexes billions of Web pages.'
That makes no sense, whatsoever. The sentences are mutually exclusive but used in a way to make them inclusive. This makes sense:
'Even those critics who understand that copyright law is not absolute argue that making a full copy of a given work, even just to index it, can never constitute fair use.' If this were so, you wouldn't be able to record a TV show to watch it later or use a search engine that indexes billions of Web pages.
But with the technology infrastructure in place, what happens if congress decides to relax court order requirements in the future 'in their fight against criminals, terrorists and spies?'"
-- "What happens if (insert bogey-man phrase/villain of the moment here) happens?"
What happens in the case of change is chage. Your question can be applied to anything, that makes the question a worthless waste of time.
The article very clearly states the issue is time for compliance, not application of a law THIRTEEN YEARS after it was created. Oh, whoa for the schools, they sat on their butts for eleven years. Boo hoo. My heart aches for them. How much money from the government did they chose NOT to take over that time period? The procrastinated and now they're complaining about a situation they allowed happen. Boo hoo.
This came out of alzheimer's research about 15 years ago.
Your brain optimizes to think what it thinks about a lot. (Why Slashdot readers don't morph into female genitalia or came controllers shows that human thought can't change matter.)
When you try to "break" an old habit, it's easy at first. After a few days, the brain realizes the optimizations are starting to disappear and it works to reinforce those structures.
The good side of this is that you don't have to re-learn how to use the toilet, eat, talk, etc. The bad side is you can't choose which thoughts are reinforced other than brute force to get past the recovery period. Even so, it's easy to go back to old optimizations. Think of it as being similar to a fold in a piece of paper. The fold can't ever be removed, just made less prominent. The paper will still have the tendency to fold at that position.
Fluid dynamics apply to the Earth which is subject to, among other things, solar radiation, centrifugal force and gravity from external celestial forces.
A globe is quite round, like a ball, because that is an easy model. A globe is not the Earth.
I'm a former ICBM launch officer. I've participated in numerous exercises and tests. Did I ever actually launch an ICBM? No. Have we ever actually launched active nuclear ICBMs? No. Does that mean they aren't tested or are unreliable? No.
War games, tests and simulations are just that, simulations. Equipment is tested without actually using it in an offensive manner. Critical environment equipment, military or civilian, is not tested "thousands upon thousands" of times in an active situation to prove it works.
Were "thousands upon thousands" of artificial hears and pacemakers "tested" inside people to see if they would function properly? Nope.
In my 3 years as a launch officer I never launched an actual missile but I sure ran a lot of test and simulations, multiple times per month. So did every other launch officer I knew, probably 150 people over that period. None of the solid-fuel ICBMs have been launched other than those from Vandenberg AFB in California which is a test facility. None of the nuclear warheads in use have been detonated "thousands upon thousands of times." Not a one, not once. Nor, for that matter, have nuce torpedos, backpacks, artillery shells, missiles or bombs.
If you're going to FUD, at least make it plausible.
I seriously doubt that anyone would ever tell someone that they cannot have a child because the embryo needs to be used for stem cells. That is assuming way too much about how far scientists would go. If embryonic stem cells are ever used, they would have to be donated or, possibly as suggested above, be created from the eggs that are being thrown out from fertility clinics.
I wasn't making assumptions about "how far scientists would go". I was thinking about laws, bureaucrats and predatory business practices. My knowledge of fertility clinic practices is next to nil. I was just trying to answer the question with a simple response while trying to avoid the all-too-typical Slashdot creation/evolution/abortion/murder flamefest.
Why are fertilized eggs "thrown out"? I don't know. Maybe some of them are truly beyond the point of being possible babies, maybe some of it is purely economics when there is no payment to keep them. I was thinking about fertilized eggs which have a reasonable chance of being babies, not the bad ones, so to speak.
We have enough "bad eggs" walking around in society:P
The ethical question is similar to that of harvesting "unused" organs. At what point does the fertilized egg, which is life, become created solely because it can be sold as research or source material?
THAT's the issue. Once it becomes legal to create human beings to kill them the society has legalized ghouls.
That statement also shows the inextricably parallel issue of defining when human life begins. By definition, the choice to end a human life, especially one which has viable potential, is...shall we say...controversial.
Under legal definitions which were decided by U.S. courts, not the U.S. society, human life starts after the baby's head exits the mother. That's an over-simplification, true.
Rhetorical point: When does a baby truly become a person? When does a minor truly become an adult?
Can you see it from the perspective I just described?
--
On a related note, given the huge number of people who want to adopt babies and can't find them as well as the people with fertility challenges, it seems to me a better way to "settle" the "issue" is to avoid it by making those fertilized embryos available to other people.
"No, that embryo will be destroyed (and you can't have it to have a baby of your own.)" is heartbreaking to a lot of people.
I've not been there myself and really don't know what would be involved. This is just an idea that came to me after watching friends struggle to have children.
--
Watch, 5 will get you 10 the bulk of replies to this will be flamefests.
Wrong. Hundreds of gallons of weaponized agents don't just diappear. Anthrax and smallpox strains, both of which were known to be under forced mutation by Iraqi scientists, would fit ina test tube. A single scab of highly virulent smallpox could be the size of a small pill and be more than enough to wipe out any major city. Saddam Hussein's regime had used chemical and biological weapons before and was known to have them. Wether or not YOU have access to real information, compared to what the news media tells you, or chose to acknowledge suck things as pox incubators and such, are another issue.
Iraw most certainly was trying to build nuclear weapons. The attempts to purchase yellow cake have been documented, Israel had bombed an enrichment facility before and enrichment equipment has been found.
What proof do you have that WMD material has never been found? Video of searches by troops with embedded journalists were all faked? You have access to all pertinent classified information? Chemical shells found and reported in the open press came from where?
Your claims are like the attempts in the 80s to excuse chem residue as bee droppings.
In other words, you don't know what you're talking about or your purposefully lying.
Antivenoms are usually made from venoms. Antipox is made from almost identical strains of pox. Any guess where anti-anthrax will come from or the toxicology of anthrax?
Research, in and of itself, doesn't make antitoxins. Anthrax and mutated poxes will wipe you out within a handful of days and they spread very, very quickly.
And your point would be...incoherent and irrelevant.
Justice is part of the Executive branch, it's not a law-creating functionary of the Representative branch.
All Amendments to the Constitution are limited and relate to the entire document. "Free exercise" of religion doesn't include Mayan human sacrifice nor does "freedom of speech" mean freedom from consequences. Freedom of speech is just that, speech, not dissemination of expression. Those are two very different things. The idea that they are the same is a perversion. If the founding fathers truly meant dissemination of expression they most certainly would have addressed the printed word given Great Britain's attempts to control all printing presses, the only viable method of mass communication in those times other than criers.
There is a distinction between the freedom of speech and imposing that speech on others. That's where it gets complicated and the "local norms" bit comes in.
Given that, I'm a little puzzled as to why the.xxx TLD was nixed (that's still the status, right?) It seems to me that would let the people who want that stuff find it, those who don't want it easily block it, and a clearly defined boundary on what is and is not the proper venue for Internet distribution. Then again, what is the exact dividing classification?
Typical of Slashdot for the topic to turn into biggoted attacks on Christians.
The fact that the overwhelming number of terrorists are now young Middle Eastern males has established a profile. Their ethnicity is a component of the profile, not the reason for it.
"Racial" profiling would be "Driving While Black", an entirely different situation.
--
Note the initial post is purely annecdotal.
I wear shoes on airplanes, travel alone, am a young male and take one-way trips. That means I fit the profile except I'm Caucasian. Does that mean I get searched more? Yup. Race is not the CAUSE of the search.
Slashdot Mirror
Bah. Semantics. Defining what is legal is the same as defining what is illegal.
Laws change over time. 200 years doesn't mean anything. The Supreme Court legalized salavery and a host of other things. 200 years ago the majority of people who could legally vote in the U.S. were white male landowners.
Besides, you're trying to change the discussion to avoid the truth. Bill Clinton said he would only nominate judges who were pro-abortion. That is an ideological position, not a legal position. Period. Dot.
The Supreme Court's decision to legalize abortion is just as subject to review and change as any other decision. Such as...denying voting rights to women, minorities and non-landowners, slavery, income tax, etc.
Horses and zebras can breed. Don't know how expensive they would be.
I'd like a horse like the one in The Wizard of Oz movie.
Quote: I dont recall Clinton ever trying to push school prayer and promising to pick judges based on ideology to satisfy some prolife groups.
Do you recall Clinton's government never prosecuting anyone for pornography? I wonder why you don't recall him "pushing" school prayer. In many places it's not "pushing" it's making sure prayer is not prohibited.
You might not remember, but Clinton said he'd only nominate judges who were pro-abortion. That IS an ideological issue, especially since the law was illegally created by the Supreme Court and not the representative branch of the US government.
Quote: This - their genetic differences become so great that they cannot breed with each other. They are thus, by definition, two different species! Viola!
What about dogs and wolves? Horses and donkeys? Horses and zebras?
Either you're statement is incorrect or those aren't different species. They're still the same basic body type, for lack of a better term.
My house cats couldn't physically mate with a lion because of size, that's for sure.
Bah, I meant the XML file, not the CSS file.
You mean VideoLAN client?
The main problems are lack of HTML support for embedded video and PowerPoint's reliance on the M$ Office runtime.
MediaPlayerConnectivity works just fine for linked media. That's where VideoLan Client would function, not on embedded video.
That's the challenge.
I'm about ready to replace all embedded video with animated GIFs alternating between frame 1 and text (Click here to watch video) which does a direct link to the video file. Maybe that's the best option, anyhow, because it would show all the controls for a media player so people can use the position slider.
That leaves only the CSS issue which is analagous to a Master Slide in PowerPoint. I wonder if there's a "genericizer" for M$ Office CSS...
I must admit I haven't tried OpenOffice 2.0 as a way to generate more "friendly" HTML from PowerPoint. I'll try that.
This thread got me poking around again. FrontPage 2002 (I hate the never one and haven't learned Dreamweaver yet...) shows something very interesting. The "normal" tab display looks just like Firefox for the slides with the scaling issue. The "preview" window looks like the original slide. Having removed all the script calls, it now seems this is a CSS issue.
Maybe, just maybe, some tweaking can be done there to make the elements scale and position properly within frames. Given the CSS files from exported PowerPoint are "generic", maybe this will work.
Embedded video is a different issue. Firefox doesn't like the seamless embedding using the Office runtime. Even so, presentations have to be viewable by as many people as possible unless you have a controlled environment. I've been amazed at how often companies really lock down computers. It's one thing for people like us to grab a java runtime or flash player, quite another in the commercial world. People get fired for stuff like that. If that's required to view the presentations and the intended viewer can't view them, you're hosed.
The reason I like PowerPoint so much is the portability from a business sense. Any meeting place supports it. The HTML export also gives a real nice 3-paned layout including an index and the notes for each slide which means a single presentation can be used for large meetings or menu-driven by a single person. That's a fantastic return on time invested making presentations.
I've struggled with this for a long time. Firefox has the wonderful ability to be put on a disc as a kiosk which is fantastic for setting a known baseline for presentations exported from PowerPoint. It would be a wonderful way to avoid all the security/configuration issues you run into with distributed presentations in the real world, especially if something more capable than MPEG1 can be used such as Flash.
n tHTMLTest.zip
However, Windows Media and M$ Office embedded media use a lot of M$-specific stuff to make it work properly. It's not just windows media that is a problem, it's also scaling graphics.
Here is a sample with IE and Firefox screenshots showing both image scaling problems and embedded media problems. This is from a few months ago but the problems persist with Firefox.
http://home.mindspring.com/~fredthompson/PowerPoi
Quote: Also, you believe bad things don't matter, as long as it's to a small portion of the population.
Those are your words, the are most certainly not mine.
I said it's not statistically significant. It does not, as the original FUD-monger claimed, show "significant FBI abuses." There will always be mistakes/misuse of any process. That doesn't mean accountability for or repurcussions from actions are absolved, it means it is not a "significant" issue/flaw/problem.
I did make it clear the numbers used were over-simplified for ease of calculation. How you could miss that comment, or fail to see the result grossly overstates the percentage, is...baffling.
Any process with a 99.9999992% success rate is pretty darn good. It makes six sigma look like throwing mud against a wall.
If that success rate were to be the standard for life situations, it would mean you would NEVER run out of gas, be in a car wreck, walk into a dirty bathroom, experience burned food, have a cold, stub your toe, get a papercut or dial a wrong telephone number.
let's be more generous than yoru source and start with an assumed 200 investigations. Then lets assume there are only 250 million citizens of the U.S.
That means an investigation (not a proven violation, just an investigation) for every 1,250,000 people. Viewed another way that is 0.0000008 % contribution to an investigation per citizen.
How much does that drop when the numbers are changed to reflect the actual population and the number of actual violations? Pffff...
This is miniscule and an incredibly weak attempt at FUD. At least try something plausible next time.
...where the people take apart a wooden steamship to feed the boilers so they can keep going...
It says:
'Even those critics who understand that copyright law is not absolute argue that making a full copy of a given work, even just to index it, can never constitute fair use. If this were so, you wouldn't be able to record a TV show to watch it later or use a search engine that indexes billions of Web pages.'
That makes no sense, whatsoever. The sentences are mutually exclusive but used in a way to make them inclusive. This makes sense:
'Even those critics who understand that copyright law is not absolute argue that making a full copy of a given work, even just to index it, can never constitute fair use.' If this were so, you wouldn't be able to record a TV show to watch it later or use a search engine that indexes billions of Web pages.
BFD. Why should the government subsidize jet research 40 years after the space age? What does that have to do with television? There's no linkage.
Quote: Patent laws should not cause the death of people.
During WWI the Germans paid patent royalties to the British inventor of a form of machine gun...
But with the technology infrastructure in place, what happens if congress decides to relax court order requirements in the future 'in their fight against criminals, terrorists and spies?'"
--
"What happens if (insert bogey-man phrase/villain of the moment here) happens?"
What happens in the case of change is chage. Your question can be applied to anything, that makes the question a worthless waste of time.
The article very clearly states the issue is time for compliance, not application of a law THIRTEEN YEARS after it was created. Oh, whoa for the schools, they sat on their butts for eleven years. Boo hoo. My heart aches for them. How much money from the government did they chose NOT to take over that time period? The procrastinated and now they're complaining about a situation they allowed happen. Boo hoo.
This came out of alzheimer's research about 15 years ago.
Your brain optimizes to think what it thinks about a lot. (Why Slashdot readers don't morph into female genitalia or came controllers shows that human thought can't change matter.)
When you try to "break" an old habit, it's easy at first. After a few days, the brain realizes the optimizations are starting to disappear and it works to reinforce those structures.
The good side of this is that you don't have to re-learn how to use the toilet, eat, talk, etc. The bad side is you can't choose which thoughts are reinforced other than brute force to get past the recovery period. Even so, it's easy to go back to old optimizations. Think of it as being similar to a fold in a piece of paper. The fold can't ever be removed, just made less prominent. The paper will still have the tendency to fold at that position.
Quote: Hint: the world is round like a ball.
No, the Earth is not round.
Fluid dynamics apply to the Earth which is subject to, among other things, solar radiation, centrifugal force and gravity from external celestial forces.
A globe is quite round, like a ball, because that is an easy model. A globe is not the Earth.
Bullshit.
I'm a former ICBM launch officer. I've participated in numerous exercises and tests. Did I ever actually launch an ICBM? No. Have we ever actually launched active nuclear ICBMs? No. Does that mean they aren't tested or are unreliable? No.
War games, tests and simulations are just that, simulations. Equipment is tested without actually using it in an offensive manner. Critical environment equipment, military or civilian, is not tested "thousands upon thousands" of times in an active situation to prove it works.
Were "thousands upon thousands" of artificial hears and pacemakers "tested" inside people to see if they would function properly? Nope.
In my 3 years as a launch officer I never launched an actual missile but I sure ran a lot of test and simulations, multiple times per month. So did every other launch officer I knew, probably 150 people over that period. None of the solid-fuel ICBMs have been launched other than those from Vandenberg AFB in California which is a test facility. None of the nuclear warheads in use have been detonated "thousands upon thousands of times." Not a one, not once. Nor, for that matter, have nuce torpedos, backpacks, artillery shells, missiles or bombs.
If you're going to FUD, at least make it plausible.
The ethical question is similar to that of harvesting "unused" organs. At what point does the fertilized egg, which is life, become created solely because it can be sold as research or source material?
THAT's the issue. Once it becomes legal to create human beings to kill them the society has legalized ghouls.
That statement also shows the inextricably parallel issue of defining when human life begins. By definition, the choice to end a human life, especially one which has viable potential, is...shall we say...controversial.
Under legal definitions which were decided by U.S. courts, not the U.S. society, human life starts after the baby's head exits the mother. That's an over-simplification, true.
Rhetorical point: When does a baby truly become a person? When does a minor truly become an adult?
Can you see it from the perspective I just described?
--
On a related note, given the huge number of people who want to adopt babies and can't find them as well as the people with fertility challenges, it seems to me a better way to "settle" the "issue" is to avoid it by making those fertilized embryos available to other people.
"No, that embryo will be destroyed (and you can't have it to have a baby of your own.)" is heartbreaking to a lot of people.
I've not been there myself and really don't know what would be involved. This is just an idea that came to me after watching friends struggle to have children.
--
Watch, 5 will get you 10 the bulk of replies to this will be flamefests.
Wrong. Hundreds of gallons of weaponized agents don't just diappear. Anthrax and smallpox strains, both of which were known to be under forced mutation by Iraqi scientists, would fit ina test tube. A single scab of highly virulent smallpox could be the size of a small pill and be more than enough to wipe out any major city. Saddam Hussein's regime had used chemical and biological weapons before and was known to have them. Wether or not YOU have access to real information, compared to what the news media tells you, or chose to acknowledge suck things as pox incubators and such, are another issue.
Iraw most certainly was trying to build nuclear weapons. The attempts to purchase yellow cake have been documented, Israel had bombed an enrichment facility before and enrichment equipment has been found.
What proof do you have that WMD material has never been found? Video of searches by troops with embedded journalists were all faked? You have access to all pertinent classified information? Chemical shells found and reported in the open press came from where?
Your claims are like the attempts in the 80s to excuse chem residue as bee droppings.
In other words, you don't know what you're talking about or your purposefully lying.
You don't know much about this, do you?
Antivenoms are usually made from venoms. Antipox is made from almost identical strains of pox. Any guess where anti-anthrax will come from or the toxicology of anthrax?
Research, in and of itself, doesn't make antitoxins. Anthrax and mutated poxes will wipe you out within a handful of days and they spread very, very quickly.
And your point would be...incoherent and irrelevant.
.xxx TLD was nixed (that's still the status, right?) It seems to me that would let the people who want that stuff find it, those who don't want it easily block it, and a clearly defined boundary on what is and is not the proper venue for Internet distribution. Then again, what is the exact dividing classification?
Justice is part of the Executive branch, it's not a law-creating functionary of the Representative branch.
All Amendments to the Constitution are limited and relate to the entire document. "Free exercise" of religion doesn't include Mayan human sacrifice nor does "freedom of speech" mean freedom from consequences. Freedom of speech is just that, speech, not dissemination of expression. Those are two very different things. The idea that they are the same is a perversion. If the founding fathers truly meant dissemination of expression they most certainly would have addressed the printed word given Great Britain's attempts to control all printing presses, the only viable method of mass communication in those times other than criers.
There is a distinction between the freedom of speech and imposing that speech on others. That's where it gets complicated and the "local norms" bit comes in.
Given that, I'm a little puzzled as to why the
Typical of Slashdot for the topic to turn into biggoted attacks on Christians.
"Racial" profiling?
Wrongo.
The fact that the overwhelming number of terrorists are now young Middle Eastern males has established a profile. Their ethnicity is a component of the profile, not the reason for it.
"Racial" profiling would be "Driving While Black", an entirely different situation.
--
Note the initial post is purely annecdotal.
I wear shoes on airplanes, travel alone, am a young male and take one-way trips. That means I fit the profile except I'm Caucasian. Does that mean I get searched more? Yup. Race is not the CAUSE of the search.
...another copied story from hackaday.
Please, someone, I beg you, finish out the day with a story about Beowulf clusters running MythTV, SETI and something about creation/evolution.