And not using commercial airlines is a "let them eat cake" excuse. It didn't work for Marie Antoinette, and it's no more acceptable here.
Before, the airline searches were far less intrusive. I could carry a pocket knife and not be treated like a criminal. I grudgingly accepted that level of scrutiny.
Background checks and strip searches? No way.
Re:Yes, yes, yes, Apple's dying, blah blah blah
on
Why iPod Can't Save Apple
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
It's NOT for the sake of tradition. It's because their user tests show that it is EASIER TO USE for neophytes.
And everybody who is not a neophyte can buy a cheap USB mouse. You can get them in a freakin' box of Cheerios.
The Microsoft investment was a settlement for a lawsuit that Apple was about to win. It wasn't a sign of the Apocalypse.
And again.
Your hundreds of dollars aren't worth the insane support costs Apple would incur trying to unfuck the x86 platform.
Repeat after me. Apple is a hardware company. They are profitable if and when they remember that.
Re:Yes, yes, yes, Apple's dying, blah blah blah
on
Why iPod Can't Save Apple
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Don't be silly. If Apple had kept the iPod Mac only, Money would be able to crow about how stupid they were for limiting their scope to an infinitesimally tiny market.
Money Magazine understands the computer industry the way I understand finance. That's to say, not even in the teensiest bit at all.
Because it's perfectly reasonable to suspect Arabic looking people, but not black people. Uh, no.
Racial profiling is unconstitutional. The Constitution constrains actions the government may take. It does not enumerate the rights granted to people. Therefore, the government may take no action that is forbidden by the Constitution, regardless of the citizenship of the suspect.
Whereas I don't see American foreign policy as particularly destructive on the whole, I certainly acknowledge that there have been some serious, serious mistakes made.
However, even if somehow magically US foreign policy became perfect, I don't think the terrorists would just give up and go home.
Having said that, I still think that they are a minor threat compared to a police state.
I disagree. I think love of freedom is the single most salient feature of the American social contract (AKA the Constitution). I think that people who do not value their freedom are poor citizens of America.
Distrust of authority, particularly the authority of the Federal government, is hard coded into the Constitution. I think the mor we hew to that ideal, the better.
So we justify making innocent civilians disrobe at the security station, by saying "Well, if you had just subjected yourself to an intrusive background check, you could have made things easy on yourself.
Intelligence gathering and guerrilla warfare is a good idea. Infringing on the liberties of Americans (or law-abiding citizens of any nation) is NOT a good idea.
It is my firm belief that terrorism is less of a threat than tyranny.
Should we give up? We should absolutely give up NO FREEDOMS for illusory security.
We are being told that the increase in safety is somehow related to our sacrifice of freedom. Our sacrifice of freedom is big, and the increase in safety is zero.
Uh, maybe if the system was in place, the hijackers would have thought of something else. They proved to be awfully clever.
You can't stop an intelligent, motivated enemy who is willing to sacrifice their own life. Not unless you get very, very lucky.
No, the IRA was "Kill all British/Protestants wherever you find them." I can certainly understand why that would exclude them from your scope.
We are not fighting a war. Wars happen between nation states. There is no other nation state for us to be at war with. Therefore, using warfighting techniques is going to be not effective.
You seem to think that I particularly object to classifying Muslims. I don't want ANYBODY to be classified for ANY REASON. That sort of surveillance is more dangerous to our freedom and safety than the odd terrorist attack.
Uh huh, and I'm sure those sneaky Muslims will be so cooperative as to fall into our nice "watch list" categories when they fly.
What, you mean that they (where they=people we're probably not paying very close attention to right now) might actually think of a different way to attack? Giving body cavity searches to airline passengers won't GUARANTEE my safety? It's only a misguided attempt to make me feel secure? What what WHAT?!
Real Americans didn't become whiny assed scared of everything softcock xenophobes. By definition. Real Americans believe in freedom, and freedom from intrusive surveillance is right there near the top of the important ones.
Well, if you limit your scope enough, you cam make all sorts of generalizations make sense. The last YEAR? Come on.
Bad guys come in all colors.
PIRA==Provisional Irish Republican Army. They've blown up a lot of white people too, but those white people don't count because a) the bombers were white and b) the victims were mostly British. Mostly.
If somebody has committed a violent crime or a terrorist action, they should be in jail. If they are not in jail, it's a good assumption that they have not been convicted by a court of law. If they have not been found guilty by a jury of their peers of some sort of crime, they are innocent until proven guilty.
Habeas corpus is a bitch, isn't it? Stupid inalienable rights. Life would be a lot safer if we all just wore handcuffs and a wire all the time. Maybe lube our asses up before we leave the house to facilitate our daily body cavity search.
I think we should apply this same criterion to all freedoms that we enjoy. I think the only freedoms that we should have are the ones that were available in 1780, with all technological advancements beyond that reserved for right-thinking citizens. No more freedom of expression unless you use a soap box and/or a movable steel type press. No freedom of association unless you meet in a place that doesn't have air conditioning. No freedom of religion if you want to practice a religion that's been chartered in the last 200 years. No right to bear arms except for flintlock muskets and pointy sticks.
Slashdot Mirror
We disagree.
And not using commercial airlines is a "let them eat cake" excuse. It didn't work for Marie Antoinette, and it's no more acceptable here.
Before, the airline searches were far less intrusive. I could carry a pocket knife and not be treated like a criminal. I grudgingly accepted that level of scrutiny.
Background checks and strip searches? No way.
It's NOT for the sake of tradition. It's because their user tests show that it is EASIER TO USE for neophytes.
And everybody who is not a neophyte can buy a cheap USB mouse. You can get them in a freakin' box of Cheerios.
*sigh*
Again.
The Microsoft investment was a settlement for a lawsuit that Apple was about to win. It wasn't a sign of the Apocalypse.
And again.
Your hundreds of dollars aren't worth the insane support costs Apple would incur trying to unfuck the x86 platform.
Repeat after me. Apple is a hardware company. They are profitable if and when they remember that.
Don't be silly. If Apple had kept the iPod Mac only, Money would be able to crow about how stupid they were for limiting their scope to an infinitesimally tiny market.
Money Magazine understands the computer industry the way I understand finance. That's to say, not even in the teensiest bit at all.
I hate it when I do that.
And you're right. It's been a long time since Latin class. : )
Precisely. Hence my objection to this ridiculous system.
It's a matter of principle, and choosing the lesser evil.
Terrorism is more desireable than strong law enforcement. Period.
Because it's perfectly reasonable to suspect Arabic looking people, but not black people. Uh, no.
Racial profiling is unconstitutional. The Constitution constrains actions the government may take. It does not enumerate the rights granted to people. Therefore, the government may take no action that is forbidden by the Constitution, regardless of the citizenship of the suspect.
Quid erat demonstratum.
For them, I bake cheesecake.
Then they think I'm cool.
I'm not sure a) who you're disagreeing with, or b) why you think I said something about doing whatever you want?
Your right to swing your fist blah blah blah...
Nice. Extra points for proper use of begging the question. : )
Whereas I don't see American foreign policy as particularly destructive on the whole, I certainly acknowledge that there have been some serious, serious mistakes made.
However, even if somehow magically US foreign policy became perfect, I don't think the terrorists would just give up and go home.
Having said that, I still think that they are a minor threat compared to a police state.
I disagree. I think love of freedom is the single most salient feature of the American social contract (AKA the Constitution). I think that people who do not value their freedom are poor citizens of America.
Distrust of authority, particularly the authority of the Federal government, is hard coded into the Constitution. I think the mor we hew to that ideal, the better.
The freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. It's in that stupid Bill of Rights thing.
So we justify making innocent civilians disrobe at the security station, by saying "Well, if you had just subjected yourself to an intrusive background check, you could have made things easy on yourself.
Intelligence gathering and guerrilla warfare is a good idea. Infringing on the liberties of Americans (or law-abiding citizens of any nation) is NOT a good idea.
It is my firm belief that terrorism is less of a threat than tyranny.
Should we give up? We should absolutely give up NO FREEDOMS for illusory security.
We are being told that the increase in safety is somehow related to our sacrifice of freedom. Our sacrifice of freedom is big, and the increase in safety is zero.
Uh, maybe if the system was in place, the hijackers would have thought of something else. They proved to be awfully clever.
You can't stop an intelligent, motivated enemy who is willing to sacrifice their own life. Not unless you get very, very lucky.
Uh huh. You explain to me how to fight terrorism with an armored tank division, and then we'll talk.
No, the IRA was "Kill all British/Protestants wherever you find them." I can certainly understand why that would exclude them from your scope.
We are not fighting a war. Wars happen between nation states. There is no other nation state for us to be at war with. Therefore, using warfighting techniques is going to be not effective.
You seem to think that I particularly object to classifying Muslims. I don't want ANYBODY to be classified for ANY REASON. That sort of surveillance is more dangerous to our freedom and safety than the odd terrorist attack.
Uh huh, and I'm sure those sneaky Muslims will be so cooperative as to fall into our nice "watch list" categories when they fly.
What, you mean that they (where they=people we're probably not paying very close attention to right now) might actually think of a different way to attack? Giving body cavity searches to airline passengers won't GUARANTEE my safety? It's only a misguided attempt to make me feel secure? What what WHAT?!
Real Americans didn't become whiny assed scared of everything softcock xenophobes. By definition. Real Americans believe in freedom, and freedom from intrusive surveillance is right there near the top of the important ones.
Well, if you limit your scope enough, you cam make all sorts of generalizations make sense. The last YEAR? Come on.
Bad guys come in all colors.
PIRA==Provisional Irish Republican Army. They've blown up a lot of white people too, but those white people don't count because a) the bombers were white and b) the victims were mostly British. Mostly.
"Other things we take for granted will follow."
Yeah, like those pesky outdated civil liberties. Stupid freedom. Can't trust people that are free.
If somebody has committed a violent crime or a terrorist action, they should be in jail. If they are not in jail, it's a good assumption that they have not been convicted by a court of law. If they have not been found guilty by a jury of their peers of some sort of crime, they are innocent until proven guilty.
Habeas corpus is a bitch, isn't it? Stupid inalienable rights. Life would be a lot safer if we all just wore handcuffs and a wire all the time. Maybe lube our asses up before we leave the house to facilitate our daily body cavity search.
I think we should apply this same criterion to all freedoms that we enjoy. I think the only freedoms that we should have are the ones that were available in 1780, with all technological advancements beyond that reserved for right-thinking citizens. No more freedom of expression unless you use a soap box and/or a movable steel type press. No freedom of association unless you meet in a place that doesn't have air conditioning. No freedom of religion if you want to practice a religion that's been chartered in the last 200 years. No right to bear arms except for flintlock muskets and pointy sticks.
Seems prudent to me.
You're absolutely right. Just ask Timothy McVeigh. Or members of the the PIRA. They're all darkies, just like that Osama Bin Laden dude.