That's a very interesting (and reasonable) point of view, but it makes me wonder: if the President and the Congress, and presumably the public, from the way these things are reported, think that these policies are so bad, then to whom would the President (elected to office by that same public) be afraid of appearing weak? I thought the current President was out there on his own on this?
Hopefully in 2008 someone sane will enter the White House...
I have a strong suspicion that the next President, whoever she may be, will be briefed on all this stuff and will determine either that 1) the real threat is actually so great that the surveillance programs should continue, or 2) the conduct of the surveillance programs is actually more in keeping with accepted American principles than is commonly believed among the public. I predict that for at least the duration of the next presidential term, we will not hear of any surveillance program being shut down by order of the President.
Well, the first part is an indirect quote, so it requires no quotation marks. The second part IS a direct quote, so you can't blame the 5-year-old author.
Ah, so that makes it OK? This master key business is a long, slippery slope my friend. I tell you right now, it's only a matter of time before the police are conducting random searches in hotels and apartments. All in the name of our "safety," of course.
I've heard of another system that is far more sinister in its implications. It seems that many (most?) apartment complexes and hotels have installed door locks that can be opened by one key (called a "master") that is held by the property management. Of course, this "master key" is made readily available to law enforcement under certain circumstances.
Haven't read about this? The MSM doesn't want us to know about it.
Re:Yeah, mutual geeking out is awesome
on
Ask Rob Malda
·
· Score: 1
Another story from another world...and century.
When I was in college 20 years ago, I worked in the little campus closed-circuit TV studio. One day they had a large-ish anti-drug symposium with a handful of celebrities and a satellite uplink to other schools. I showed up for my usual part-time shift in the master control room, and there was a lady there I didn't recognize. I asked her if I could help her, and she said, "No, I'm just waiting for my husband." So we chatted for a while as I worked...nice lady. When there was a break in the production, in walked her husband, and she introduced me. It was David Crosby.
[As an aside, when I read this in preview, I thought, "Well no kidding...you work in TV and you meet a celebrity." But I was an engineering student, and this was just a part time job, and I was just some dude...chatting with Jan Crosby until her husband David walked in.]
By your criterion, everything in the airport could conceal a bomb.
Again, the focus here is not on the BOMB but on the DETONATOR. There was, in fact, a highly unusual, visible device that looked very similar to a detonating device.
So essentially the whole exercise of trying to spot the bomb via visual means is futile.
Tell that to the Israelis, who periodically stop suicide bombers based on visual clues. Guess they should just give it up.
But should we really treat anyone in posession of an unidentified electronic device as though they have a bomb?
Nope. But a person with a device that looks like it could be a detonator attached to her chest in a high security area (which an airport is, even outside of the checkpoints) certainly warrants a second look. And in a situation involving a potential bomb, there is only one way to take that second look.
The "if it's not hidden then it's not a threat" definitely falls into the "I'm not actually responsible for anybody's safety, so I feel free to criticize those who are" category of thought.
By not shooting someone based on (as you yourself point out) their complete lack of understanding of both electronics and explosives?
How is your knowledge of dead dogs? There have been bombs along the road in Iraq that look like dead dogs (because, well, they WERE dead dogs.) Also empty cans, and tires, and newspapers, and cinder blocks. Would you recognize any of those things as bombs? Probably not. But they had one thing in common: they were all detonated WITH AN ELECTRONIC DEVICE. That's something that many of the security experts here on Slashdot have overlooked: you can argue all day about what a bomb looks like, but one irrefutable fact is that virtually all bombs have a detonating device featuring some sort of simple ciruitry. So her shirt featured a device that DOES LOOK very much like a detonating device, and while electronics are very common, electronics on the front of a shirt are extremely UNCOMMON. So a threat was perceived, and it was checked out by armed police who took precautions and controlled the situation but did not use deadly force.
To be honest with you, I'm on the fence about whether she should have been charged. I do think that if they determined or suspected that she did it on purpose to cause trouble, then charges are appropriate. If she was truly so unbelievably dense as to not recognize the potential problem of wearing her novelty shirt to the airport, then perhaps she should just be let go with a warning.
Right. "Excuse me, Miss Person-Who-May-Have-A-Bomb, could you please come with us and walk through this detector?" Does that really seem like an appropriate response to you?
It's very easy to judge after we know what she was wearing. But the fact is, most bombs are detonated electronically, and this young lady had an electronic gadget strapped to her chest in an area that maintains an extremely high security posture. Right or wrong, her unusual electronic device raised suspicion, and after that there is ONLY ONE WAY TO RESPOND...with armed force to freeze her in place and prevent her from making the next move. There is absolutely no way you can let a suspected bomber move around at will. If you disagree, then what in the world is your threshold for decisive armed response? Do they have to state that they have a bomb ("Stupid police! No bomber is going to come right out and say they have a bomb!") Do they have to have wires and visible C4 sticking out of a canvas backpack ("Stupid police! No competent bomber is going to have wires and explosives sticking out of his bag!") Honestly, what is your threshold for response? An explosion?
So, do you click on ads, or just look at them? Unless you click on them, I don't think anyone is getting paid. If you forgo adblock AND click on ads just to preclude the widespread use of astroturfing....well, that's an interesting choice.
It seems to me that a person is either going to respond to ads or they are not. By using adblock, they are just making that choice a little further in advance. I think anyone who uses adblock has made a categorical decision that they will not be clicking on any web ads.
That is unbelievably weak. "Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained."
It's funny how the video cuts off so abruptly, isn't it? Here's a more complete excerpt:
"Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein."
Funny how those last 6 words change everything about the President's quote, eh?
Before September 11th, many people believed a lot of things that they didn't believe after 9/11. 9/11 demonstrated that a group of well-trained terrorists could wreak tremendous havoc with relatively modest means, which immediately changed our perception of those who support terrorists, as Saddam was known to do.
Yet, the myth persists that Bush claimed that Saddam was responsible for 9/11.
The inspections already did provide the proof that he didn't have anything left.
Not being able to find anything is not the same is seeing proof of destruction. Disarming in accordance with a UN mandate is something that is done in a specific way with specific requirements for verification. Saddam did not do this.
If he did get rid of his WMD, he did NOT comply with the requirement to show proof of their disposal. It's not good enough to say, "Oh, WMD? I got rid of them." Maybe you think we should have taken his word for it.
Please don't bother telling me that inspections would have provided this proof. He toyed with the inspectors like a schoolboy playing keep away.
The submitter implicitly perpetuated a myth himself: that somebody (presumably, somebody in government) has claimed that Saddam planned 9/11. File this right alongside "You can't say anything bad about the President anymore!"
I'm no fan of the practice in question -- the mystery downloading limit -- but I have to point out that "if you have any grievance with me, I'm the sole judge, jury and executioner on that" is not at all accurate. Arbitration is done by a disinterested third party. As far as fairness, it is as good or maybe better than a jury trial, but you're much less likely to be able to employ creative legal arguments, or to be awarded huge settlements. Arbitration is meant to hasten a decicive conclusion, not to give an advantage to one side or the other.
My brother and his family were travelling by car in Poland in the early 90's, and they got pulled over and fined in cash for some infraction. A little while later, they got pulled over again. The cop levied another fine, to be paid in cash, but my brother told him he didn't have any cash left. The cop replied, "Oh...got any coffee?"
Excellent point...I have done the same myself. Some of it is relevent to my company's line of work and some completely irrelevent. None of it was endorsed by my company.
Along the same lines, I've browsed through this thread and have not seen a single acknolwedgement (and I may have missed them if there are any) that sometimes it may be completely OK to edit an entry relating to one's self, be it an individual or a company. There is nothing unethical about participating in a community discussion/posting/history so long as the information posted is true, and as long as there is no deception about who is doing the posting (a la astro-turfing.)
Slashdot Mirror
The applicable law is the law of the country whose module generates the oxygen.
That's a very interesting (and reasonable) point of view, but it makes me wonder: if the President and the Congress, and presumably the public, from the way these things are reported, think that these policies are so bad, then to whom would the President (elected to office by that same public) be afraid of appearing weak? I thought the current President was out there on his own on this?
Hopefully in 2008 someone sane will enter the White House...
I have a strong suspicion that the next President, whoever she may be, will be briefed on all this stuff and will determine either that 1) the real threat is actually so great that the surveillance programs should continue, or 2) the conduct of the surveillance programs is actually more in keeping with accepted American principles than is commonly believed among the public. I predict that for at least the duration of the next presidential term, we will not hear of any surveillance program being shut down by order of the President.
Well, the first part is an indirect quote, so it requires no quotation marks. The second part IS a direct quote, so you can't blame the 5-year-old author.
Really? You look stoned in the aerial photos in your dossier.
...and a mechanical spy-bird cra*ped on my tinfoil hat.
Ah, so that makes it OK? This master key business is a long, slippery slope my friend. I tell you right now, it's only a matter of time before the police are conducting random searches in hotels and apartments. All in the name of our "safety," of course.
I've heard of another system that is far more sinister in its implications. It seems that many (most?) apartment complexes and hotels have installed door locks that can be opened by one key (called a "master") that is held by the property management. Of course, this "master key" is made readily available to law enforcement under certain circumstances.
Haven't read about this? The MSM doesn't want us to know about it.
Another story from another world...and century.
When I was in college 20 years ago, I worked in the little campus closed-circuit TV studio. One day they had a large-ish anti-drug symposium with a handful of celebrities and a satellite uplink to other schools. I showed up for my usual part-time shift in the master control room, and there was a lady there I didn't recognize. I asked her if I could help her, and she said, "No, I'm just waiting for my husband." So we chatted for a while as I worked...nice lady. When there was a break in the production, in walked her husband, and she introduced me. It was David Crosby.
[As an aside, when I read this in preview, I thought, "Well no kidding...you work in TV and you meet a celebrity." But I was an engineering student, and this was just a part time job, and I was just some dude...chatting with Jan Crosby until her husband David walked in.]
It was that guy who won "On The Lot," which included an office and job with Spielberg
By your criterion, everything in the airport could conceal a bomb.
Again, the focus here is not on the BOMB but on the DETONATOR. There was, in fact, a highly unusual, visible device that looked very similar to a detonating device.
So essentially the whole exercise of trying to spot the bomb via visual means is futile.
Tell that to the Israelis, who periodically stop suicide bombers based on visual clues. Guess they should just give it up.
But should we really treat anyone in posession of an unidentified electronic device as though they have a bomb?
Nope. But a person with a device that looks like it could be a detonator attached to her chest in a high security area (which an airport is, even outside of the checkpoints) certainly warrants a second look. And in a situation involving a potential bomb, there is only one way to take that second look.
The "if it's not hidden then it's not a threat" definitely falls into the "I'm not actually responsible for anybody's safety, so I feel free to criticize those who are" category of thought.
By not shooting someone based on (as you yourself point out) their complete lack of understanding of both electronics and explosives?
How is your knowledge of dead dogs? There have been bombs along the road in Iraq that look like dead dogs (because, well, they WERE dead dogs.) Also empty cans, and tires, and newspapers, and cinder blocks. Would you recognize any of those things as bombs? Probably not. But they had one thing in common: they were all detonated WITH AN ELECTRONIC DEVICE. That's something that many of the security experts here on Slashdot have overlooked: you can argue all day about what a bomb looks like, but one irrefutable fact is that virtually all bombs have a detonating device featuring some sort of simple ciruitry. So her shirt featured a device that DOES LOOK very much like a detonating device, and while electronics are very common, electronics on the front of a shirt are extremely UNCOMMON. So a threat was perceived, and it was checked out by armed police who took precautions and controlled the situation but did not use deadly force.
To be honest with you, I'm on the fence about whether she should have been charged. I do think that if they determined or suspected that she did it on purpose to cause trouble, then charges are appropriate. If she was truly so unbelievably dense as to not recognize the potential problem of wearing her novelty shirt to the airport, then perhaps she should just be let go with a warning.
Right. "Excuse me, Miss Person-Who-May-Have-A-Bomb, could you please come with us and walk through this detector?" Does that really seem like an appropriate response to you?
It's very easy to judge after we know what she was wearing. But the fact is, most bombs are detonated electronically, and this young lady had an electronic gadget strapped to her chest in an area that maintains an extremely high security posture. Right or wrong, her unusual electronic device raised suspicion, and after that there is ONLY ONE WAY TO RESPOND...with armed force to freeze her in place and prevent her from making the next move. There is absolutely no way you can let a suspected bomber move around at will. If you disagree, then what in the world is your threshold for decisive armed response? Do they have to state that they have a bomb ("Stupid police! No bomber is going to come right out and say they have a bomb!") Do they have to have wires and visible C4 sticking out of a canvas backpack ("Stupid police! No competent bomber is going to have wires and explosives sticking out of his bag!") Honestly, what is your threshold for response? An explosion?
So, do you click on ads, or just look at them? Unless you click on them, I don't think anyone is getting paid. If you forgo adblock AND click on ads just to preclude the widespread use of astroturfing....well, that's an interesting choice.
It seems to me that a person is either going to respond to ads or they are not. By using adblock, they are just making that choice a little further in advance. I think anyone who uses adblock has made a categorical decision that they will not be clicking on any web ads.
The point is the "have." Not "would of," "would HAVE."
Now come back and say no they wouldn't, and we can start another round.
Good info...thanks.
That is unbelievably weak. "Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained."
It's funny how the video cuts off so abruptly, isn't it? Here's a more complete excerpt:
"Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein."
Funny how those last 6 words change everything about the President's quote, eh?
Before September 11th, many people believed a lot of things that they didn't believe after 9/11. 9/11 demonstrated that a group of well-trained terrorists could wreak tremendous havoc with relatively modest means, which immediately changed our perception of those who support terrorists, as Saddam was known to do.
Yet, the myth persists that Bush claimed that Saddam was responsible for 9/11.
The inspections already did provide the proof that he didn't have anything left.
Not being able to find anything is not the same is seeing proof of destruction. Disarming in accordance with a UN mandate is something that is done in a specific way with specific requirements for verification. Saddam did not do this.
If he did get rid of his WMD, he did NOT comply with the requirement to show proof of their disposal. It's not good enough to say, "Oh, WMD? I got rid of them." Maybe you think we should have taken his word for it.
Please don't bother telling me that inspections would have provided this proof. He toyed with the inspectors like a schoolboy playing keep away.
The submitter implicitly perpetuated a myth himself: that somebody (presumably, somebody in government) has claimed that Saddam planned 9/11. File this right alongside "You can't say anything bad about the President anymore!"
If you really did it, then you deserve to catch language. Or some other virus.
I'm no fan of the practice in question -- the mystery downloading limit -- but I have to point out that "if you have any grievance with me, I'm the sole judge, jury and executioner on that" is not at all accurate. Arbitration is done by a disinterested third party. As far as fairness, it is as good or maybe better than a jury trial, but you're much less likely to be able to employ creative legal arguments, or to be awarded huge settlements. Arbitration is meant to hasten a decicive conclusion, not to give an advantage to one side or the other.
My brother and his family were travelling by car in Poland in the early 90's, and they got pulled over and fined in cash for some infraction. A little while later, they got pulled over again. The cop levied another fine, to be paid in cash, but my brother told him he didn't have any cash left. The cop replied, "Oh...got any coffee?"
Excellent point...I have done the same myself. Some of it is relevent to my company's line of work and some completely irrelevent. None of it was endorsed by my company.
Along the same lines, I've browsed through this thread and have not seen a single acknolwedgement (and I may have missed them if there are any) that sometimes it may be completely OK to edit an entry relating to one's self, be it an individual or a company. There is nothing unethical about participating in a community discussion/posting/history so long as the information posted is true, and as long as there is no deception about who is doing the posting (a la astro-turfing.)