See, that's the exact type of comment I'm talking about...you admit you didn't have a clue about how Intellipedia works or who has provided the most information to it, and then you go on a rant about CIA. I'm guessing you're defense from the words you use, because I've heard it all a thousand times before. Maybe time for some introspection in ALL parties of the IC. These kinds of pissing matches are riduclous and quite frankly DANGEROUS to national security and a waste of taxpayer money.
"CIA reputation in the IC"... "they demand"... "absolute worst"... "not a single positive comment"
I absolutely stand by my tribal statement and I think you back it up pretty damn well. There's always a lot of jealousy, anger, and pettiness out there, and it frankly got unbearable. You just keep going propagating stories about how horrible CIA is and how everybody hates them (let me guess--you've worked in intel 1-3 years tops?) and then give yourself a big pat on the back for how you're improving work relations between IC agencies by hanging out on a chat channel and editing your intellipedia userpage.
Fifth, stealing data from outside a classified DOD network is terribly hard. Having a clearance means that the DOD thinks a given person is trustworthy, so unless a person decides to become a spy there is no way it's getting out.
That is the worst kind of hubris. Have you not been watching news over the past several weeks?
Yours points are much more fair in this post and I don't find myself disagreeing as much...however, I still think a decent hypothetical is--an American citizen places a call to a known terrorist in Pakistan. The American citizen is calling from US soil, and let's say has no previous record of contacting terrorists. Should the call be intercepted? Who should do it?
The core issue was government entities going outside of their mandates and how it never leads anywhere good.
Hah, well that's pretty much the story of the last 100 years! Are you as worried about government healthcare etc?
The whole question of jurisdiction just shows that clear lines need to be drawn. Any domestic activity at all on the part of the NSA is outside of their mandate and the FBI is ill-equipped to handle the situation. Do you fix the FBI? Or do you change the mandate of the NSA? Fixing the FBI will cost a lot more but safeguards the principles on which their agency was founded.
If it's me, I have absolutely no qualms about the wiretapping that the NSA has done (at least, that we know about). I'd rather have NSA and CIA focusing on transnational terror issues, even if it means tapping a call half of which is in the US, etc. Maybe there are better safeguards needed...I'm on the fence about that.
Operational secrecy is fine but the people need to be aware of who does what to protect them even if there aren't that many specifics.
My problem with that is that the two are often linked. It's a very fine line to walk, with many people arguing that spying organization are antithetical to the ideals of the US. I don't agree with that, and I also think we would be better served by spy agencies that didn't leak like sieves.
Ok "domestic spying" is pretty broad and non-specific.
I'm guessing you're talking about warrantless wiretaps? Or are you talking about all NSA FISA intercepts? Does that include any communication as long as one "end" of the conversation is by a US citizen in the US? For instance, a call from a US citizen in the United States to a known terrorist facilitator in Pakistan. Is that domestic spying or is it international? If it's domestic, does the FBI then have jurisdiction?
It's really impossible to discuss these issues without raising specific concerns. Jumping haphazardly from Clinton's rabid opponents to the mess in the middle east to illegality of spying etc just obfuscates the issues...
Actually, that's NOT their express purpose. Foreign Intelligence is not the same as domestic intelligence gathering. Look what a big deal the agency went through the last 10 years under Hayden with the limited domestic tapping they were only recently allowed to do. Lastly, who says they're not monitored?
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
p.s. if you're going to try to use a latin phrase to make yourself sound more authoritative or something, you might want to get the spelling right..
Long story short, this guy is an idiot. I could go on at great length, but I'll just leave at this. (If anyone does want to discuss specifics in greater detail...which I'm sure they won't...I'd be happy to reply)
First, a former CIA analyst from 10+ years ago doesn't know anything about the way NSA works. "CIA analysts" are the grunts of the intelligence community...more often than not they're the ones with english and political science degrees hired right out of college after having a grand time studying abroad in Prague or Barcelona. The author of this piece not only has CIA analyst on his resume but also Army...before making the jump to become a contractor (which could be anything from a security guard to copier technician). Anyway...
Additionally, what he thinks he knows is ludicrous, and I've just picked (IMHO) the most egregious example:
Whenever I met with my NSA counterparts, it was clear that they were stymied by new-generation Western-engineered telephone networks and mobile technologies that were then spreading like wildfire in the developing world and former Soviet satellite countries.
Total nonsense. The proliferation of cellphones/satellite phones/wifi etc around the world has been one of the best things to happen to the NSA in YEARS. To claim otherwise is nutty.
I'm not for anyone being anti- anything really, but, there is growing concern with the unregulated influx of muslims into EU, that if unchecked, the Europe as we know it culturally, will disappear...what happens when the muslims there become the majority and vote their way of life into law?
I actually really agree with you here. The problem (IMHO of course, and I am not European) with so many Western governments is that in this particular issue--immigration--they so totally ignore the popular opinions of the masses of people. Yes, immigration makes sense and in some cases is even totally vital for country's and region's economies. In parts of Europe after WW2 for instance, populations were so decimated that there was a vital NEED for (eg) Turkish laborers.
But when people see their countries being transformed around them--often in ways they don't like--they feel helpless. When people feel helpless, lots of bad things can happen, including electing the BNP in Britain. You take a reasonable concern--a desire to maintain traditional culture and values--ignore it, and you get something a whole lot more powerful and dangerous.
And sometimes protest votes are general disgust at incumbents, not any particular issue. Sometimes protest votes are for comedy, etc.
I again _basically_ agree with you. Some small group of people are annoyed over copyright laws being enforced, and a greater group of people are upset over the inevitable loss of privacy that we are in the midst of. More mainstream political parties will no doubt absorb--and in the process make mainstream.."normalize" if you will--specific planks of these protest platforms. I agree with will happen.
My original point in entering this thread was to dispute the statement that we are witnessing a "mass global rebellion" against copyright laws. Winning 7% of an almost record low 45% voter turnout in a single country whose population is only 2% of the EU hardly seems like a mass global rebellion.
A sign--maybe. I believe you're right that both the BNP and Pirate Party vote were both protest votes. The problem with protest voters is that they're inconsistent. Who knows if they'll want to protest next time, or who will have earned their ire in the meanwhile. Much like the fabled "independents" in the US who ultimately decide almost all elections.
A problem with--or a benefit of, depending on your POV--parliamentary systems is that fringe kooks get elected with absolute regularity. Whether people are actually interested in the tenets of the Pirate Party (or the BNP) or are just extremely anti-incumbent AND eurosceptic remains to be seen. I'm not holding my breath for a wave of PPers taking and substnatial percentage of the vote, but stranger things have happened.
Yes, and in Britain a white's only party managed to get two seats to the EU. Let's not make two seats more than they are, nor EU representation (and the lowest turnout ever) more than it is.
Yeah, I'm getting disheartened...I switched to an apple laptop as my primary in 2004 and am on a macbook pro now. I absolutely can't stand the glossy, and would have to think long and hard about a future computer that didn't have the matte option.
You need a source that the first iPhone OS "point upgrade" in a year is going to come with a newer browser? Really? Ok... here's one amongst many, many others:
Well of course, Apple "contributed" the source of KHTML to the WebKit repo!;-)
In all seriousness though, as Apple controls WebKit, they are naturally the biggest contributor. Given that since the original KHTML was pulled in Apple has added an all new javascript engine, made it pass Acid2/3, HTML5 support, apple-specific CSS extension support, etc, I think it's pretty safe to say that much of the WebKit code is Apple's original creation.
Not meaning to minimize the work of the KHTML at all...
The exact quote I questioned was "security theater is worse than no security at all" so I don't really think your point "A" is relevant (or really "B" for that matter)
Your point "B" assumes that security theater doesn't also convince the people who are the targets of security that they are less able to get stuff through security. If they *feel* they are less able to get illicit stuff onboard a plane, then that's a perfect example of security theater working.
Beyond that, I do question how much of TSA is security vs security theater, but as you say, that's another tangent:-)
No, it's really not. But you ARE missing the point here. Stopping weaponized planes is exactly what most of the security additions are about.
These same N terrorists (pick a number -- the lack of security won't prevent ten boxcutters from being brought on board any more than they'd not prevent 4 being brought on board) can threaten a LARGE number of innocent women, children, and men. Pilots will likely respond and land the plane. Sure, it won't be used as a weapon (but that was the 8-year-old plan... not tomorrow's plan). They can still get hundreds of hostages.
Yeah sure, terrorists being able to avoid watchlists, smuggle on boxcutters, and attempt to overcome any air marshall on board the plane to take the passengers hostage is a certain possibility. However, since nothing remotely close has happened since 9/11, you're talking in pure hypotheticals. The scenario of "planeful of hostages" versus "weaponized plane impacting urban area" I think is a tradeoff just about anybody would choose to make.
Again, the web site does not provide stronger security. The airlines do not provide stronger security. There is equal lack of realism in saying "I'd rather fly now than before 2001" as "I'd rather trust strongwebmail now rather than before they were hacked." Neither has improved their security.
I really think the onus is on you here--you keeping repeating the same things, so where's the proof. Let's see a comprehensive study of airline security before and after 9/11?
"Heightened awareness" of untrained personnel yield more chaos and more chaffe, not more data. Sorry. Body pat downs are security theater. The 9/11 terrorists didn't have boxcutters on them nor would that have been found in a pat down.
You know that's interesting--blanket statements without the slightest bit of supporting evidence. Retraining staff was a large part of post-9/11 reforms. Patdowns--which I've only ever had to go through once when I forgot my shoes had some metal in them (this was before proforma taking off of shoes)--are certainly effective as a layer of security. Should cops (etc) get rid of patdowns on criminals since it's jut security theater?
Newer equipment has only been installed in test markets to do the "puff" test. It detects gunpowder or explosive residue. Neither the "liquid explosive" (myth) nor the boxcutters can be detected by it.
I'm not sure where you're getting these facts--at my local airport shortly after 9/11 they added a new security step for all checked luggage -- a new machine that kind of jutted out into the departures area and that was a new addition. I don't know what it is. Additionally, they added what I assume is the"puff" test for when you are going through security (took swab samples of various parts of your luggage?). Lastly, they in the past year have added one of those obnoxious full body scanners. That seems like a good amount of new equipment to me...
Under-cover air-marshals board first, and keep their jackets on. IF THEY WERE ADEQUATELY TRAINED, NOT CORRUPT (see many news stories to the contrary) then they might make a difference but not for any real scenarios.
That, yet again, is utterly ludicrous. They're called undercover for a reason, and the slightest research would show that they haven't had to wear their uniforms in several years. Secondly, who cares if they are undercover or not--undercover or overt, it's still an official presence on flights.
You forgot to mention "reinforced cockpit doors" and "not congregating at the toilet." These also, like the former, do not prevent a terrorist with a boxcutter from putting it to the throat of a flight attendant (and four of them doing so to all four flight attendants) and threatening to kill them all.
I did neglect to mention them, you're correct. Yeah, reinforced doors may not save passengers or crew, but you can bet they save the pilots from being murdered and the plane flown as a weapon. You may remember that's what happened in 9/11 and is the ABSOLUTE WORST outcome of a terrorist hijacking.
Before you argue whether such an attack would be successful -- consider this -- if they can do it (which they can) then security since 9/11 has not increased which is exactly what I said.
Like I said, worst case scenario for a hijacking with reinforced cockpit doors is the passengers and crew are killed, and maybe a bomb or something is set off destroying the plane. It's absolutely effective for stopping a terrorist hijacking that planned to kill the pilots and use the plane itself as a weapon. That is the main goal of most of these security steps.
It's effective as mediocre entertainment if someone you don't like has to go through it.
I can't take nail clippers on the plane (because I might hijack it!), but its okay to leave a fire extinguisher sitting there. Ever see someone sprayed with a fire extinguisher?
Really? Do you REALLY ever fly? I've flown about a dozen times in the past year, have a normal sized stick of deodorant, travel shampoo, normal toothpaste, and nail scissors in my cosmetics bag and I've never once been stopped.
I guess you think that planes should not have fire extinguishers??
There was nothing done after 9/11 to raise the level of security for the flying public. That includes the period right after 9/11 up to and including today. Everything that was done was in the spirit of "security theater" (credit: Bruce Schneier).
That is such incredible BS. Disregarding the heightened awareness of airport personnel and stricter rules for metal detection, body pat downs, and newer equipment, what about air marshals? You can't possibly be claim that under cover air marshals are "security theater."
Yeah, some of it is no doubt security theater, that's not in dispute...who says security theater isn't effective?
The truth is, both parties spend like drunken frat boys at a strip club. Its just that the Republicans are worse, both in the amount and in the fact they claim its not them, but the other party at fault.
That chart means all of nothing. It says nothing about debt per capita which is a far more meaningful number. Secondly, comparing an individual decade like the 80s--we have the runup to the end of the Cold War and the massive spending that went along with it--is that a factor? Solidly democrat congress--is that a factor? Under Clinton we have Republican congress? Is that a factor? Under Clinton we have the dotcom boom and bust? Is that a factor? Of course they all are...and without looking at specifics--what I asked for--it's just generally useless.
I agree the Republicans were by no means good. To claim they are worse is perhaps a tad myopic--have you seen OBama's budgets?
I am certainly no fanatic, but Dubya is the former president's nickname, and he was fine with people using it. How does me using his nickname make me a fanatic in any way? Personally, I would have been overjoyed had some miraculous circumstance put Ron Paul into the White House. That would never have happened, though.
So you have no problem with people who call President Obama "BHO" or "Hussein" or "Barry" ? They are all his real name or real nickname. You don't see any issue with the connotations? Saying Dubya is like a shibboleth for fanatics...say as people who say Barry or Hussein or whatever else.
I donated to Ron Paul.
True we are in the middle of a war, but it was a war we were pushed into by Bush and Cheney's lies.
Thanks a lot for the reply, I enjoyed it. Having read your thoughts at greater length, I will say this--I agree with much of what you say and find it reasonable, yet when it comes to the conclusions I start to differ. I'll try to address a couple of your main points.
Yes, in the past ignoring genocide and supporting genocidal dictators was acceptable.
Yes, exactly--completely agree.
But in the context of the War on Terror and a nation still reeling and frightened after being attacked, it was a perfect time to put some neo-con philosophy into practice. Iraq was their perfect stepping stone into the Middle East: weak, secular and thus ripe for democracy(they thought), and with some convenient excuses that they could play up to a terrified public.
But you miss here what IMHO is the other important cornerstone...that is, cleaning up our mess. The, as you put it, reapolitik of the cold war era sucked. That's widely realized, and it had many negative consequences. Getting rid of Saddam got rid of one of those cold war vestiges. The Clark article you linked to has him saying as much in terms of Wolfowitiz/Cheney/etc having some level of guilt over how 1991 ended (or failed to end).
in the Axis of Evil, the two actual threats are still untouched!
True...and getting worse by the day now. I would put a different take on why of the three Iraq has been the only one dealt with directly. You're right--it was the weakest. It was the closest to a non-functioning state rife with smuggling and a mad dictator. Who else are you going to directly take on--70 million Iranians and the IRGC or Kim Jong-Il and nuclear north korea? Makes senese to me to pick Iraq, without sinister ulterior motives even.
To the extent that it was still, hypothetically if not practically, the right thing to do, it was still the wrong time and the wrong people. Invading Iraq while Afghanistan was ongoing was retarded beyond belief, not having a post-invasion plan was equally stupid, hell the whole thing was idiotic. When/if we finish with Afghanistan and prove that we're capable of that "nation building" thing Rummy said he doesn't do, then was the time to start worrying about Iraq. Instead, we let Afghanistan backslide while our attention was turned. Idiocy!
Perhaps. I still remain very hopeful for Iraq and think in the long run Iraq will be a successful country again. I'm less hopeful for Afghanistan for any number of reasons, cultural ones not least of all. I wish we had kept more people in Afghanistan.
All I've got to say is, that is one fucked up way of cleaning up your "mess", and don't fool yourself into thinking everything is okay now.
Of course everything is not ok today. Is it better than a year ago? Two years ago? Five years ago? I think the answer to each of those questions is yes. I remain optimistic. Yeah, it's dirty and it sucks and a lot of people died. Net positive or net negative? I'm sure you would say negative, I think I would say positive.
After "helping" the country by plunging it into chaos and violence, we've ended up with the most powerful groups inside and outside the government backed by Iran. So if you accept the realpolitiking of the 80s, then the biggest effect of this war was to undo all of that by removing the secular nation who held Iran in check despite being no threat to us, thereby empowering what has turned out to be a major threat!
This was the eventual outcome anyway. Looking at the historical and religious aspects of the area, Shia Islam has been strong in the area for a thousand years. If the spiritual center of gravity of the Muslim world as a whole is Mecca, the Shia are also weighted toward Karbala and Najaf. Despite the fact that the Iraq/Iran border is one of the oldest borders in the world, and despite the antagonism of the Iran/Iraq war, my argument is that in t
She never said a Latina would make better decisions than a white man. Allow me to quote you, horrendously mangling her quote:
I think you're taking my quote out of context! You've got to read that quote in the context of that post and the post before it!:p
First, take it in context. Second, it isn't about race but life experience, Third, she's basically saying she hopes she'll make good decisions and try to follow the law, not the feelings that growing up Latina create in her.
Really? Specifically saying "Latina" isn't about race? If the point she was making WAS solely about life experience, nobody would have the slightest problem with it. Unfortunately, that's not what she said. I don't think ANY judge intends to not follow the law. You really think there's any judge out there who writes decisions thinking "this is illegal?" I don't. Everybody wants to come to a good decision
If you have any interest in fairness, don't repeat that misquote. If you do want to quote her, at least do it accurately, if not in context.
Well given that I didn't quote her in the message you refer to--and indeed directly referenced my prior post which not only directly quoted several sentences but linked to the much longer source document, you're rather incorrect to claim I misquoted her. You can claim I misinterpreted her, but that's very different.
She never said a Latina would make better decisions than a white man
That's very arguable. At the very least--and this is the central point that I've been trying to convey to you for several posts now--the problem is how she couches her statements. She puts it very explicitly in terms of "white male" and "Latina woman." Again, as I said in my previous post--she's basically right, our personal biases do play an important role in decision making. That doesn't excuse the language of division and pidgeonholing people based on their race. What a slap to Alito--saying that his immigrant family experience is less authentic than hers??
As before, I stand by my statement that her statement and Alito's are very different.
Slashdot Mirror
See, that's the exact type of comment I'm talking about...you admit you didn't have a clue about how Intellipedia works or who has provided the most information to it, and then you go on a rant about CIA. I'm guessing you're defense from the words you use, because I've heard it all a thousand times before. Maybe time for some introspection in ALL parties of the IC. These kinds of pissing matches are riduclous and quite frankly DANGEROUS to national security and a waste of taxpayer money.
"CIA reputation in the IC" ... "they demand" ... "absolute worst" ... "not a single positive comment"
I absolutely stand by my tribal statement and I think you back it up pretty damn well. There's always a lot of jealousy, anger, and pettiness out there, and it frankly got unbearable. You just keep going propagating stories about how horrible CIA is and how everybody hates them (let me guess--you've worked in intel 1-3 years tops?) and then give yourself a big pat on the back for how you're improving work relations between IC agencies by hanging out on a chat channel and editing your intellipedia userpage.
Fifth, stealing data from outside a classified DOD network is terribly hard. Having a clearance means that the DOD thinks a given person is trustworthy, so unless a person decides to become a spy there is no way it's getting out.
That is the worst kind of hubris. Have you not been watching news over the past several weeks?
Yours points are much more fair in this post and I don't find myself disagreeing as much...however, I still think a decent hypothetical is--an American citizen places a call to a known terrorist in Pakistan. The American citizen is calling from US soil, and let's say has no previous record of contacting terrorists. Should the call be intercepted? Who should do it?
The core issue was government entities going outside of their mandates and how it never leads anywhere good.
Hah, well that's pretty much the story of the last 100 years! Are you as worried about government healthcare etc?
The whole question of jurisdiction just shows that clear lines need to be drawn. Any domestic activity at all on the part of the NSA is outside of their mandate and the FBI is ill-equipped to handle the situation. Do you fix the FBI? Or do you change the mandate of the NSA? Fixing the FBI will cost a lot more but safeguards the principles on which their agency was founded.
If it's me, I have absolutely no qualms about the wiretapping that the NSA has done (at least, that we know about). I'd rather have NSA and CIA focusing on transnational terror issues, even if it means tapping a call half of which is in the US, etc. Maybe there are better safeguards needed...I'm on the fence about that.
Operational secrecy is fine but the people need to be aware of who does what to protect them even if there aren't that many specifics.
My problem with that is that the two are often linked. It's a very fine line to walk, with many people arguing that spying organization are antithetical to the ideals of the US. I don't agree with that, and I also think we would be better served by spy agencies that didn't leak like sieves.
Ok "domestic spying" is pretty broad and non-specific.
I'm guessing you're talking about warrantless wiretaps? Or are you talking about all NSA FISA intercepts? Does that include any communication as long as one "end" of the conversation is by a US citizen in the US? For instance, a call from a US citizen in the United States to a known terrorist facilitator in Pakistan. Is that domestic spying or is it international? If it's domestic, does the FBI then have jurisdiction?
It's really impossible to discuss these issues without raising specific concerns. Jumping haphazardly from Clinton's rabid opponents to the mess in the middle east to illegality of spying etc just obfuscates the issues...
What power do they have that is "too much" and what power should be removed?
Please be as specific -- I'd like to reply, but would rather not speak in useless generalities.
Actually, that's NOT their express purpose. Foreign Intelligence is not the same as domestic intelligence gathering. Look what a big deal the agency went through the last 10 years under Hayden with the limited domestic tapping they were only recently allowed to do. Lastly, who says they're not monitored?
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
p.s. if you're going to try to use a latin phrase to make yourself sound more authoritative or something, you might want to get the spelling right..
Long story short, this guy is an idiot. I could go on at great length, but I'll just leave at this. (If anyone does want to discuss specifics in greater detail...which I'm sure they won't...I'd be happy to reply)
First, a former CIA analyst from 10+ years ago doesn't know anything about the way NSA works. "CIA analysts" are the grunts of the intelligence community...more often than not they're the ones with english and political science degrees hired right out of college after having a grand time studying abroad in Prague or Barcelona. The author of this piece not only has CIA analyst on his resume but also Army...before making the jump to become a contractor (which could be anything from a security guard to copier technician). Anyway...
Additionally, what he thinks he knows is ludicrous, and I've just picked (IMHO) the most egregious example:
Whenever I met with my NSA counterparts, it was clear that they were stymied by new-generation Western-engineered telephone networks and mobile technologies that were then spreading like wildfire in the developing world and former Soviet satellite countries.
Total nonsense. The proliferation of cellphones/satellite phones/wifi etc around the world has been one of the best things to happen to the NSA in YEARS. To claim otherwise is nutty.
I'm not for anyone being anti- anything really, but, there is growing concern with the unregulated influx of muslims into EU, that if unchecked, the Europe as we know it culturally, will disappear...what happens when the muslims there become the majority and vote their way of life into law?
I actually really agree with you here. The problem (IMHO of course, and I am not European) with so many Western governments is that in this particular issue--immigration--they so totally ignore the popular opinions of the masses of people. Yes, immigration makes sense and in some cases is even totally vital for country's and region's economies. In parts of Europe after WW2 for instance, populations were so decimated that there was a vital NEED for (eg) Turkish laborers.
But when people see their countries being transformed around them--often in ways they don't like--they feel helpless. When people feel helpless, lots of bad things can happen, including electing the BNP in Britain. You take a reasonable concern--a desire to maintain traditional culture and values--ignore it, and you get something a whole lot more powerful and dangerous.
And sometimes protest votes are general disgust at incumbents, not any particular issue. Sometimes protest votes are for comedy, etc.
I again _basically_ agree with you. Some small group of people are annoyed over copyright laws being enforced, and a greater group of people are upset over the inevitable loss of privacy that we are in the midst of. More mainstream political parties will no doubt absorb--and in the process make mainstream.."normalize" if you will--specific planks of these protest platforms. I agree with will happen.
My original point in entering this thread was to dispute the statement that we are witnessing a "mass global rebellion" against copyright laws. Winning 7% of an almost record low 45% voter turnout in a single country whose population is only 2% of the EU hardly seems like a mass global rebellion.
A sign--maybe. I believe you're right that both the BNP and Pirate Party vote were both protest votes. The problem with protest voters is that they're inconsistent. Who knows if they'll want to protest next time, or who will have earned their ire in the meanwhile. Much like the fabled "independents" in the US who ultimately decide almost all elections.
A problem with--or a benefit of, depending on your POV--parliamentary systems is that fringe kooks get elected with absolute regularity. Whether people are actually interested in the tenets of the Pirate Party (or the BNP) or are just extremely anti-incumbent AND eurosceptic remains to be seen. I'm not holding my breath for a wave of PPers taking and substnatial percentage of the vote, but stranger things have happened.
Yes, and in Britain a white's only party managed to get two seats to the EU. Let's not make two seats more than they are, nor EU representation (and the lowest turnout ever) more than it is.
Yeah, I'm getting disheartened...I switched to an apple laptop as my primary in 2004 and am on a macbook pro now. I absolutely can't stand the glossy, and would have to think long and hard about a future computer that didn't have the matte option.
Now with user posting histories and login names, people are doing it less often
Would be nice if that were the case, I'm not at all convinced it is...
You need a source that the first iPhone OS "point upgrade" in a year is going to come with a newer browser? Really? Ok... here's one amongst many, many others:
http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2009/03/javascript-to-get-3x-speed-boost-in-iphone-os-30.ars
Well of course, Apple "contributed" the source of KHTML to the WebKit repo! ;-)
In all seriousness though, as Apple controls WebKit, they are naturally the biggest contributor. Given that since the original KHTML was pulled in Apple has added an all new javascript engine, made it pass Acid2/3, HTML5 support, apple-specific CSS extension support, etc, I think it's pretty safe to say that much of the WebKit code is Apple's original creation.
Not meaning to minimize the work of the KHTML at all...
The exact quote I questioned was "security theater is worse than no security at all" so I don't really think your point "A" is relevant (or really "B" for that matter)
Your point "B" assumes that security theater doesn't also convince the people who are the targets of security that they are less able to get stuff through security. If they *feel* they are less able to get illicit stuff onboard a plane, then that's a perfect example of security theater working.
Beyond that, I do question how much of TSA is security vs security theater, but as you say, that's another tangent :-)
Best of luck to you argumentative types -- I've got some racing to go watch.
Touche ;-)
Cheers
That's a red herring.
No, it's really not. But you ARE missing the point here. Stopping weaponized planes is exactly what most of the security additions are about.
These same N terrorists (pick a number -- the lack of security won't prevent ten boxcutters from being brought on board any more than they'd not prevent 4 being brought on board) can threaten a LARGE number of innocent women, children, and men.
Pilots will likely respond and land the plane. Sure, it won't be used as a weapon (but that was the 8-year-old plan... not tomorrow's plan). They can still get hundreds of hostages.
Yeah sure, terrorists being able to avoid watchlists, smuggle on boxcutters, and attempt to overcome any air marshall on board the plane to take the passengers hostage is a certain possibility. However, since nothing remotely close has happened since 9/11, you're talking in pure hypotheticals. The scenario of "planeful of hostages" versus "weaponized plane impacting urban area" I think is a tradeoff just about anybody would choose to make.
Again, the web site does not provide stronger security. The airlines do not provide stronger security. There is equal lack of realism in saying "I'd rather fly now than before 2001" as "I'd rather trust strongwebmail now rather than before they were hacked." Neither has improved their security.
I really think the onus is on you here--you keeping repeating the same things, so where's the proof. Let's see a comprehensive study of airline security before and after 9/11?
"Heightened awareness" of untrained personnel yield more chaos and more chaffe, not more data. Sorry.
Body pat downs are security theater. The 9/11 terrorists didn't have boxcutters on them nor would that have been found in a pat down.
You know that's interesting--blanket statements without the slightest bit of supporting evidence. Retraining staff was a large part of post-9/11 reforms. Patdowns--which I've only ever had to go through once when I forgot my shoes had some metal in them (this was before proforma taking off of shoes)--are certainly effective as a layer of security. Should cops (etc) get rid of patdowns on criminals since it's jut security theater?
Newer equipment has only been installed in test markets to do the "puff" test. It detects gunpowder or explosive residue. Neither the "liquid explosive" (myth) nor the boxcutters can be detected by it.
I'm not sure where you're getting these facts--at my local airport shortly after 9/11 they added a new security step for all checked luggage -- a new machine that kind of jutted out into the departures area and that was a new addition. I don't know what it is. Additionally, they added what I assume is the"puff" test for when you are going through security (took swab samples of various parts of your luggage?). Lastly, they in the past year have added one of those obnoxious full body scanners. That seems like a good amount of new equipment to me...
Under-cover air-marshals board first, and keep their jackets on. IF THEY WERE ADEQUATELY TRAINED, NOT CORRUPT (see many news stories to the contrary) then they might make a difference but not for any real scenarios.
That, yet again, is utterly ludicrous. They're called undercover for a reason, and the slightest research would show that they haven't had to wear their uniforms in several years. Secondly, who cares if they are undercover or not--undercover or overt, it's still an official presence on flights.
You forgot to mention "reinforced cockpit doors" and "not congregating at the toilet." These also, like the former, do not prevent a terrorist with a boxcutter from putting it to the throat of a flight attendant (and four of them doing so to all four flight attendants) and threatening to kill them all.
I did neglect to mention them, you're correct. Yeah, reinforced doors may not save passengers or crew, but you can bet they save the pilots from being murdered and the plane flown as a weapon. You may remember that's what happened in 9/11 and is the ABSOLUTE WORST outcome of a terrorist hijacking.
Before you argue whether such an attack would be successful -- consider this -- if they can do it (which they can) then security since 9/11 has not increased which is exactly what I said.
Like I said, worst case scenario for a hijacking with reinforced cockpit doors is the passengers and crew are killed, and maybe a bomb or something is set off destroying the plane. It's absolutely effective for stopping a terrorist hijacking that planned to kill the pilots and use the plane itself as a weapon. That is the main goal of most of these security steps.
It's effective as mediocre entertainment if someone you don't like has to go through it.
It's not effective as security.
I find that very debatable.
Cheers.
I can't take nail clippers on the plane (because I might hijack it!), but its okay to leave a fire extinguisher sitting there. Ever see someone sprayed with a fire extinguisher?
Really? Do you REALLY ever fly? I've flown about a dozen times in the past year, have a normal sized stick of deodorant, travel shampoo, normal toothpaste, and nail scissors in my cosmetics bag and I've never once been stopped.
I guess you think that planes should not have fire extinguishers??
Security theater is worse than no security at all.
Explain why.
There was nothing done after 9/11 to raise the level of security for the flying public. That includes the period right after 9/11 up to and including today. Everything that was done was in the spirit of "security theater" (credit: Bruce Schneier).
That is such incredible BS. Disregarding the heightened awareness of airport personnel and stricter rules for metal detection, body pat downs, and newer equipment, what about air marshals? You can't possibly be claim that under cover air marshals are "security theater."
Yeah, some of it is no doubt security theater, that's not in dispute...who says security theater isn't effective?
The truth is, both parties spend like drunken frat boys at a strip club. Its just that the Republicans are worse, both in the amount and in the fact they claim its not them, but the other party at fault.
That chart means all of nothing. It says nothing about debt per capita which is a far more meaningful number. Secondly, comparing an individual decade like the 80s--we have the runup to the end of the Cold War and the massive spending that went along with it--is that a factor? Solidly democrat congress--is that a factor? Under Clinton we have Republican congress? Is that a factor? Under Clinton we have the dotcom boom and bust? Is that a factor? Of course they all are...and without looking at specifics--what I asked for--it's just generally useless.
I agree the Republicans were by no means good. To claim they are worse is perhaps a tad myopic--have you seen OBama's budgets?
I am certainly no fanatic, but Dubya is the former president's nickname, and he was fine with people using it. How does me using his nickname make me a fanatic in any way? Personally, I would have been overjoyed had some miraculous circumstance put Ron Paul into the White House. That would never have happened, though.
So you have no problem with people who call President Obama "BHO" or "Hussein" or "Barry" ? They are all his real name or real nickname. You don't see any issue with the connotations? Saying Dubya is like a shibboleth for fanatics...say as people who say Barry or Hussein or whatever else.
I donated to Ron Paul.
True we are in the middle of a war, but it was a war we were pushed into by Bush and Cheney's lies.
Which war? The War on Terror?
Hello
Thanks a lot for the reply, I enjoyed it. Having read your thoughts at greater length, I will say this--I agree with much of what you say and find it reasonable, yet when it comes to the conclusions I start to differ. I'll try to address a couple of your main points.
Yes, in the past ignoring genocide and supporting genocidal dictators was acceptable.
Yes, exactly--completely agree.
But in the context of the War on Terror and a nation still reeling and frightened after being attacked, it was a perfect time to put some neo-con philosophy into practice. Iraq was their perfect stepping stone into the Middle East: weak, secular and thus ripe for democracy(they thought), and with some convenient excuses that they could play up to a terrified public.
But you miss here what IMHO is the other important cornerstone...that is, cleaning up our mess. The, as you put it, reapolitik of the cold war era sucked. That's widely realized, and it had many negative consequences. Getting rid of Saddam got rid of one of those cold war vestiges. The Clark article you linked to has him saying as much in terms of Wolfowitiz/Cheney/etc having some level of guilt over how 1991 ended (or failed to end).
in the Axis of Evil, the two actual threats are still untouched!
True...and getting worse by the day now. I would put a different take on why of the three Iraq has been the only one dealt with directly. You're right--it was the weakest. It was the closest to a non-functioning state rife with smuggling and a mad dictator. Who else are you going to directly take on--70 million Iranians and the IRGC or Kim Jong-Il and nuclear north korea? Makes senese to me to pick Iraq, without sinister ulterior motives even.
To the extent that it was still, hypothetically if not practically, the right thing to do, it was still the wrong time and the wrong people. Invading Iraq while Afghanistan was ongoing was retarded beyond belief, not having a post-invasion plan was equally stupid, hell the whole thing was idiotic. When/if we finish with Afghanistan and prove that we're capable of that "nation building" thing Rummy said he doesn't do, then was the time to start worrying about Iraq. Instead, we let Afghanistan backslide while our attention was turned. Idiocy!
Perhaps. I still remain very hopeful for Iraq and think in the long run Iraq will be a successful country again. I'm less hopeful for Afghanistan for any number of reasons, cultural ones not least of all. I wish we had kept more people in Afghanistan.
All I've got to say is, that is one fucked up way of cleaning up your "mess", and don't fool yourself into thinking everything is okay now.
Of course everything is not ok today. Is it better than a year ago? Two years ago? Five years ago? I think the answer to each of those questions is yes. I remain optimistic. Yeah, it's dirty and it sucks and a lot of people died. Net positive or net negative? I'm sure you would say negative, I think I would say positive.
After "helping" the country by plunging it into chaos and violence, we've ended up with the most powerful groups inside and outside the government backed by Iran. So if you accept the realpolitiking of the 80s, then the biggest effect of this war was to undo all of that by removing the secular nation who held Iran in check despite being no threat to us, thereby empowering what has turned out to be a major threat!
This was the eventual outcome anyway. Looking at the historical and religious aspects of the area, Shia Islam has been strong in the area for a thousand years. If the spiritual center of gravity of the Muslim world as a whole is Mecca, the Shia are also weighted toward Karbala and Najaf. Despite the fact that the Iraq/Iran border is one of the oldest borders in the world, and despite the antagonism of the Iran/Iraq war, my argument is that in t
She never said a Latina would make better decisions than a white man. Allow me to quote you, horrendously mangling her quote:
I think you're taking my quote out of context! You've got to read that quote in the context of that post and the post before it! :p
First, take it in context. Second, it isn't about race but life experience, Third, she's basically saying she hopes she'll make good decisions and try to follow the law, not the feelings that growing up Latina create in her.
Really? Specifically saying "Latina" isn't about race? If the point she was making WAS solely about life experience, nobody would have the slightest problem with it. Unfortunately, that's not what she said. I don't think ANY judge intends to not follow the law. You really think there's any judge out there who writes decisions thinking "this is illegal?" I don't. Everybody wants to come to a good decision
If you have any interest in fairness, don't repeat that misquote. If you do want to quote her, at least do it accurately, if not in context.
Well given that I didn't quote her in the message you refer to--and indeed directly referenced my prior post which not only directly quoted several sentences but linked to the much longer source document, you're rather incorrect to claim I misquoted her. You can claim I misinterpreted her, but that's very different.
She never said a Latina would make better decisions than a white man
That's very arguable. At the very least--and this is the central point that I've been trying to convey to you for several posts now--the problem is how she couches her statements. She puts it very explicitly in terms of "white male" and "Latina woman." Again, as I said in my previous post--she's basically right, our personal biases do play an important role in decision making. That doesn't excuse the language of division and pidgeonholing people based on their race. What a slap to Alito--saying that his immigrant family experience is less authentic than hers??
As before, I stand by my statement that her statement and Alito's are very different.