All a terrorist would have to do is watch the line and wait for it to get long enough, or know the peak times that they can get in line and just waltze right through with no screening at all.
All a terrorist has to do right now is walk up to the line at the time of their choosing, at any airport in America, and press a detonator button. Boom, lots of dead people. And yet this isn't happening. Not because of any heroic TSA screening efforts, mind you; that line is outside the secure area, and always will be by definition. There just aren't that many bogeymen out there.
To be accurate this is what happened recently in Belgium so there are 'some' bogeymen out there.
As well, the TSA procedures aren't there to protect the people but to protect high value targets that the bogeymen might try and fly into.
My son is not allowed into other people's homes. Too many people do not secure their guns or their internet. At least one neighbor on the street that I know of keeps a loaded shotgun under their bed unsecured. And of course other parents do give unrestricted access to the Internet to their kids. That is why my kids don't go into other people's homes.
Electronic devices are not allowed at school either. No phones, no tablets, and the schools devices are locked down.
He really doesn't have any place to be exposed to any of it.
One more year of elementary school, then that starts to go, since kids are allowed to have phones in junior high. I will spend the summer before junior high discussing this stuff. He isn't ready for it now.
Well I hope he has siblings then, as otherwise it must be a pretty lonely time.
My experience growing up in the US was that everything that was bad, forbidden, out of reach, blocked...was thus waaaay more interesting than it should have been. This is why I prefer to expose my son to everything that he might encounter, in moderation and with discussion, instead of it just happening to him all at once when he gets free of a closed ecosystem of control.
You'll raise your kid the way you think best, of course. I'm just providing my own viewpoint for comparison.
You can't control what your 10 year old is going to have access to when he isn't home.
Sure I can... He is home, then he is at school, or he is at a friends house of someone I trust...
He is 10, not 15... For now, I do have more or less total control over his world...
That won't last long however, he has one more year in elementary school, then it starts to go.
Emphasis mine.
I know that at 10 my son had at least one friend who was looking at more than he should have been - and it was my son that told me about it (as I said policing himself better than I could). So maybe your son will tell you - maybe not.
I've chosen rather to discuss with my son what to expect
You talk to your 10 year old about goat sex? Pedophiles? Worse?
Of course not in detail but yes, absolutely. He understands that people 'do things' together and that it's called sex and that usually this is nice and some is abnormal and can be very upsetting for him to see and so forth. And yes I give vague examples.
So far the worst thing I've seen in the search history is "naked women" which I find to be healthy enough curiousity for a pre-teen, not something to be worried about at all.
I will not trust my child with a private computer, digital camera, or cell phone until high school. And even then, it will be for very low values of "trust". I was young. I know what we would have done with those tools had we had them. I'm not letting my child's life get screwed up by such indiscretions.
Want photos? Excellent. Here's a camera, film, and some batteries. Remember, these will have to be developed down the street.
Want to use the computer. Fine. It's my computer. My lock down. And it's in the dining room.
Want to use a phone to call someone? Cool. Here's the land line.
*Need* a cell phone? Alright, here's one with three buttons: Mom, Dad, and Police.
Oh, you bought one yourself? Neat! It's mine now.
You hate me? I'm so very sad. No child has ever hated a parent before.
Yep, that doesn't sound like a recipe for maximum rebellious action as soon as your child is out of your immediate presence.
I have a 10 year old son right now, he will be 11 in a few months.
He doesn't have a smart phone and isn't getting one until he is 16.
He also doesn't have unlimited access to the Internet at home and for the time being, I can control that. In a few years it will be harder to control, but it has to come off at some point.
Giving a 10 year old unlimited access to the Internet at 10 is beyond stupid, most kids can't handle it and it won't end well.
Yes, there are exceptions, but they are the exceptions that prove the rule. Just remember that you're the Dad, not society, so do what you think is right for your kids, everyone else be dammed.
You can't control what your 10 year old is going to have access to when he isn't home.
I've chosen rather to discuss with my son what to expect and he is aware that there is a lot on the net that would upset him. As such he polices himself better than I ever could, regardless of where he is.
Of course I understood this point. What I'm saying is that it is not relevant, as the points against the license is a minor punishment, and almost everyone has a license anyway. The problem that is see with fairness is
Drunk person with drivers license on a car : punishment X eur + points against license Drunk person with drivers license on a bike: punishment X eur + points against license
Well I agree with your point but I disagree with you about my point.
Points are not a minor punishment because it can result in someone actually losing their license which they may need in order to make a living.
At cruising altitude, a plane is hard to bring down. You generally need an air to air missile, or a bomb. Most Egyptian bombings happen leaving, not entering, because it's easier to breach security in Cairo than Paris. So if it is a bomb, it would be alarming that they were so successful. There would be almost nowhere that would be safe.
The risk of this happening to any given plane is so low that to say that there is a real decrease in safety is alarmist.
Come on, the unfairness has nothing to do with having a driver's license or not. It is unfair because drunk drivers often kill people, whereas I never heard of a drunk biker killing someone.
No you're not understanding...
Drunk person with drivers license on bike : punishment X eur + points against license Drunk person without drivers license on bike : punishment X eur but no points against the license as no license
Thus the person with the license is being punished 'more' for exactly the same infraction - and that is where the unfairness is.
I've been drunk and I've been high and I'm capable of making the determination that when one is drunk and/or high one does not have as much control over oneself as when one is sober.
Anyone who thinks otherwise is just deceiving themselves with wishful thinking.
I agree with your statement, but what I disagree with is that drinking or smoking automatically puts you below whatever the standard is for "ability to drive".
Example, you set a "standard driving test" that measures whether someone is capable of driving on a public street. I'll bet real money that of a class of average drivers, even after 6 beers or a joint that I won't come last. Should those that finish below me in such a test have their licenses revoked?
I understand why the rules are there, I just disagree that alcohol automatically makes everyone useless at driving.
There not being any such thing as a perfect test, the law has to be based on something measurable and verifiable and even hopefully...objective.
Blood alcohol levels are measurable, verifiable and even objective.
Automatically actually useless at driving? No, of course not - but something that can actually be used in real life to keep those who areuseless after a drink or two off the road.
We do need to make a choice when we write down the laws; if driving stoned is less dangerous than driving drunk, it is unfair to have the same punishment for both cases.
A real life example: in Vienna there is no legal distinction between drunk biking and drunk driving. So if you ride a bicycle while drunk you can lose your driving license. I kid you not. Of course you can not lose your bike driving license because they haven't yet invented such a stupid thing (but who knows? maybe that's what they plan), you lose any other driving license that you may have.
A famous story here is about a French airline pilot. After flying to Vienna, he went to a bar, got wasted, got a bicycle to get home, the police caught him and bam, he lost his pilot license.
It's a cute story, thank you.
However, as we are not actually talking about bicycles and getting hit by a stoned car driver can get you just as dead as by a drunk car driver, I disagree.
Incidentally here in France you can also get points against your driver's license for bicycle infractions. The argument against it is that it isn't fair to people who have driver's licenses because the person without a driver's license will not be penalized as much as the person who has one.
So if given the choice? I'd rather be a little late to an appointment because some pothead was driving slow than see some drunk weaving all over the road at 90 MPH + heading my way.
Why make a choice at all? Both are dangerous so both should be illegal
[citation needed]
I've been drunk and I've been high and I'm capable of making the determination that when one is drunk and/or high one does not have as much control over oneself as when one is sober.
Anyone who thinks otherwise is just deceiving themselves with wishful thinking.
According to my cop customers they would rather have 10 potheads rather than one drunk on the road for one simple reason...stoners tend to drive too slow and speed is what kills.
I've gotten to hear what a single drunk can do on the road...it ain't pretty as they tend to fly low and with their slow reaction time? Its a bloodbath waiting to happen. The potheads? They tend to find them doing 35 in a 55 and are too paranoid about their driving to do any stunts or try to outrun the cops like the drunks will often do.
So if given the choice? I'd rather be a little late to an appointment because some pothead was driving slow than see some drunk weaving all over the road at 90 MPH + heading my way.
Why make a choice at all? Both are dangerous so both should be illegal. Want to get fucked up? Fine - but take a taxi or don't move.
"But the media is mostly soft on Hillary, and very harsh on Trump."
The media has made Trump.
Without the media's hunger to 'sell papers' by terrifying everyone with the specter of Trump winning, he wouldn't have 1/100th of the votes that he's managed with their support.
Sue needs to employ a photographer for her website before she does anything, at least someone who has a basic grasp of colour balance. What an awful site.
Maybe it's deliberate so she can later claim that using Google's font was an accident of incompetence.
Slashdot, as of late, appears to discuss less technology and more of this drivel. There are too many stories about jobs being outsourced. And the usual "freedom loving" crowd is begging politicians and anybody who will listen to force companies, one way or another, to not outsource. It did not work for manufacturing jobs, but somehow it might just work for their service sector jobs
You people need to adjust your expectations. You don't need a new plan B. You need a better plan A. If you think your job is in danger of being outsourced, do not expect someone else to come in and save it.
And for crying out loud, stop with the freaking doom and gloom. You guys sound like a bunch of griefers. Every story is filled with people whining about something or trying to recycle really old jokes about Soviet Russia or some shit like that.
I have been hitting Slashdot out of habit over the years. But man, this shit is getting old.
This is important for many of the people on the site, obviously enough. If it isn't important to you then don't click on the header.
Then we don't have to hear your griefing any more than you have to hear ours.
I don't know if the Donald is being genuine or just opportunistic, but his messages about loss of American jobs, unfair trade agreements, and corporate behavior is why so many people will put up with his other flaws.
This, a thousand times this...
Maybe Trump will do something, maybe he won't. I have no idea. But I know for darn sure Clinton won't, she is bought and paid for...
the worker is considered a commodity. Not the foundation of the business, which is what they actually are.
Ah, I can see you've never actually founded anything. I've started businesses, and believe me, I am the foundation of those businesses. And I've worked with PLENTY of (topically, here) IT people who consider employers to be commodities, exhibiting exactly zero loyalty as soon as a recruiter drops them an email with a slightly better offer. The foundation of the business is the person or group of people who conceived of it, came up with the funding for it, and deal with the crushing load of tax, compliance, and other legal and financial burdens involved in keeping it alive - including dealing the constant churn of employees who very much see them as a commodity - a place where they can work eight or ten hours a day and take home some cash and other benefits.
It's perfectly ok to fuck your employees for a dollar.
That's what you are saying, right?
Are you suggesting that it's illegal for either the employee or the employer to walk away from an "at will" arrangement? Are you suggesting that the both the employer and the employee should be forced to continue a relationship they don't want... or that only the employer should be forced to, but the employee can do whatever they want.
I get it. You think that everyone who starts a business is suddenly a slave to the state, and to anyone that wants a paycheck from them. You're exactly the sort of entitled, lazy bum that's chasing businesses and jobs out of the country.
I've founded companies and sold them. You can find and keep good employees if you are a good employer who manages the future prospects of those employees. Never 100% but then, nothing is. Most companies today don't make any effort to do this and so yes, the churn is huge.
Once a company has been sold, after a short while the founding person or persons are generally no longer involved in which case the previous poster is correct - the employees are the foundation that the rest of the company rests upon. No employees, no company.
Those employees are, however, looked at as 'human resources' in the same way that computers are looked at as 'technology resources' and are just as interchangeable. We see it every day and we're seeing it in TFA today.
Your attitude about being perceived as a slave of those working for you is...interesting, if not a bit disturbing. I have never felt this way - never needed to.
I disagree with you that someone who contributes to a company over time who then has expectations of loyalty from that company in return should be categorized as an 'entitled, lazy bum'. If people put in time and effort to help me build a company I'm not going to fuck them over to save a few dollars so I can buy a nicer third house.
There needs to be a balance between owners and employees - a working relationship that gives a future to those involved, presuming they work towards it.
Slashdot Mirror
"those who oppose it would quickly select themselves out of the population."
Just to point out that this is not going to be true as most people wouldn't need organ replacement before reproducing.
All a terrorist would have to do is watch the line and wait for it to get long enough, or know the peak times that they can get in line and just waltze right through with no screening at all.
All a terrorist has to do right now is walk up to the line at the time of their choosing, at any airport in America, and press a detonator button. Boom, lots of dead people. And yet this isn't happening. Not because of any heroic TSA screening efforts, mind you; that line is outside the secure area, and always will be by definition. There just aren't that many bogeymen out there.
To be accurate this is what happened recently in Belgium so there are 'some' bogeymen out there.
As well, the TSA procedures aren't there to protect the people but to protect high value targets that the bogeymen might try and fly into.
And have the TSA pull out?
Pulling out implies that they're fucking us.
Oh wait..
How many hijackers has the TSA caught? I don't seem to remember any.
That's because they're all too scared of the TSA security procedures to actually try and do anything illegal. /ironyoff
My son is not allowed into other people's homes. Too many people do not secure their guns or their internet. At least one neighbor on the street that I know of keeps a loaded shotgun under their bed unsecured. And of course other parents do give unrestricted access to the Internet to their kids. That is why my kids don't go into other people's homes.
Electronic devices are not allowed at school either. No phones, no tablets, and the schools devices are locked down.
He really doesn't have any place to be exposed to any of it.
One more year of elementary school, then that starts to go, since kids are allowed to have phones in junior high. I will spend the summer before junior high discussing this stuff. He isn't ready for it now.
Well I hope he has siblings then, as otherwise it must be a pretty lonely time.
My experience growing up in the US was that everything that was bad, forbidden, out of reach, blocked...was thus waaaay more interesting than it should have been. This is why I prefer to expose my son to everything that he might encounter, in moderation and with discussion, instead of it just happening to him all at once when he gets free of a closed ecosystem of control.
You'll raise your kid the way you think best, of course. I'm just providing my own viewpoint for comparison.
"disclose information which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of another's personal privacy"
It's only okay for the feds to unwarrantedly invade one's privacy.
You can't control what your 10 year old is going to have access to when he isn't home.
Sure I can... He is home, then he is at school, or he is at a friends house of someone I trust...
He is 10, not 15... For now, I do have more or less total control over his world...
That won't last long however, he has one more year in elementary school, then it starts to go.
Emphasis mine.
I know that at 10 my son had at least one friend who was looking at more than he should have been - and it was my son that told me about it (as I said policing himself better than I could). So maybe your son will tell you - maybe not.
I've chosen rather to discuss with my son what to expect
You talk to your 10 year old about goat sex? Pedophiles? Worse?
Of course not in detail but yes, absolutely. He understands that people 'do things' together and that it's called sex and that usually this is nice and some is abnormal and can be very upsetting for him to see and so forth. And yes I give vague examples.
So far the worst thing I've seen in the search history is "naked women" which I find to be healthy enough curiousity for a pre-teen, not something to be worried about at all.
I will not trust my child with a private computer, digital camera, or cell phone until high school. And even then, it will be for very low values of "trust". I was young. I know what we would have done with those tools had we had them. I'm not letting my child's life get screwed up by such indiscretions.
Want photos? Excellent. Here's a camera, film, and some batteries. Remember, these will have to be developed down the street.
Want to use the computer. Fine. It's my computer. My lock down. And it's in the dining room.
Want to use a phone to call someone? Cool. Here's the land line.
*Need* a cell phone? Alright, here's one with three buttons: Mom, Dad, and Police.
Oh, you bought one yourself? Neat! It's mine now.
You hate me? I'm so very sad. No child has ever hated a parent before.
Yep, that doesn't sound like a recipe for maximum rebellious action as soon as your child is out of your immediate presence.
I have a 10 year old son right now, he will be 11 in a few months.
He doesn't have a smart phone and isn't getting one until he is 16.
He also doesn't have unlimited access to the Internet at home and for the time being, I can control that. In a few years it will be harder to control, but it has to come off at some point.
Giving a 10 year old unlimited access to the Internet at 10 is beyond stupid, most kids can't handle it and it won't end well.
Yes, there are exceptions, but they are the exceptions that prove the rule. Just remember that you're the Dad, not society, so do what you think is right for your kids, everyone else be dammed.
You can't control what your 10 year old is going to have access to when he isn't home.
I've chosen rather to discuss with my son what to expect and he is aware that there is a lot on the net that would upset him. As such he polices himself better than I ever could, regardless of where he is.
Found the Google interface designer!
"We don't put options in our apps because it would confuse your silly little heads. Now go out and play little one."
It's the Applesque "We know whats best" design methodology. And it sucks.
Ironic, given that Apple uses the Backspace key as the Delete key.
Of course I understood this point. What I'm saying is that it is not relevant, as the points against the license is a minor punishment, and almost everyone has a license anyway. The problem that is see with fairness is
Drunk person with drivers license on a car : punishment X eur + points against license
Drunk person with drivers license on a bike: punishment X eur + points against license
Well I agree with your point but I disagree with you about my point.
Points are not a minor punishment because it can result in someone actually losing their license which they may need in order to make a living.
At cruising altitude, a plane is hard to bring down. You generally need an air to air missile, or a bomb. Most Egyptian bombings happen leaving, not entering, because it's easier to breach security in Cairo than Paris. So if it is a bomb, it would be alarming that they were so successful. There would be almost nowhere that would be safe.
The risk of this happening to any given plane is so low that to say that there is a real decrease in safety is alarmist.
This would result in Slashdotters have one arm that looks like Popeye's, and a core that looks like Whimpy's.
Which is different than the current situation how exactly?
Come on, the unfairness has nothing to do with having a driver's license or not. It is unfair because drunk drivers often kill people, whereas I never heard of a drunk biker killing someone.
No you're not understanding...
Drunk person with drivers license on bike : punishment X eur + points against license
Drunk person without drivers license on bike : punishment X eur but no points against the license as no license
Thus the person with the license is being punished 'more' for exactly the same infraction - and that is where the unfairness is.
I've been drunk and I've been high and I'm capable of making the determination that when one is drunk and/or high one does not have as much control over oneself as when one is sober.
Anyone who thinks otherwise is just deceiving themselves with wishful thinking.
I agree with your statement, but what I disagree with is that drinking or smoking automatically puts you below whatever the standard is for "ability to drive".
Example, you set a "standard driving test" that measures whether someone is capable of driving on a public street. I'll bet real money that of a class of average drivers, even after 6 beers or a joint that I won't come last. Should those that finish below me in such a test have their licenses revoked?
I understand why the rules are there, I just disagree that alcohol automatically makes everyone useless at driving.
There not being any such thing as a perfect test, the law has to be based on something measurable and verifiable and even hopefully...objective.
Blood alcohol levels are measurable, verifiable and even objective.
Automatically actually useless at driving? No, of course not - but something that can actually be used in real life to keep those who areuseless after a drink or two off the road.
We do need to make a choice when we write down the laws; if driving stoned is less dangerous than driving drunk, it is unfair to have the same punishment for both cases.
A real life example: in Vienna there is no legal distinction between drunk biking and drunk driving. So if you ride a bicycle while drunk you can lose your driving license. I kid you not. Of course you can not lose your bike driving license because they haven't yet invented such a stupid thing (but who knows? maybe that's what they plan), you lose any other driving license that you may have.
A famous story here is about a French airline pilot. After flying to Vienna, he went to a bar, got wasted, got a bicycle to get home, the police caught him and bam, he lost his pilot license.
It's a cute story, thank you.
However, as we are not actually talking about bicycles and getting hit by a stoned car driver can get you just as dead as by a drunk car driver, I disagree.
Incidentally here in France you can also get points against your driver's license for bicycle infractions. The argument against it is that it isn't fair to people who have driver's licenses because the person without a driver's license will not be penalized as much as the person who has one.
Anyway, as they say...c'est la vie -
So if given the choice? I'd rather be a little late to an appointment because some pothead was driving slow than see some drunk weaving all over the road at 90 MPH + heading my way.
Why make a choice at all? Both are dangerous so both should be illegal
[citation needed]
I've been drunk and I've been high and I'm capable of making the determination that when one is drunk and/or high one does not have as much control over oneself as when one is sober.
Anyone who thinks otherwise is just deceiving themselves with wishful thinking.
According to my cop customers they would rather have 10 potheads rather than one drunk on the road for one simple reason...stoners tend to drive too slow and speed is what kills.
I've gotten to hear what a single drunk can do on the road...it ain't pretty as they tend to fly low and with their slow reaction time? Its a bloodbath waiting to happen. The potheads? They tend to find them doing 35 in a 55 and are too paranoid about their driving to do any stunts or try to outrun the cops like the drunks will often do.
So if given the choice? I'd rather be a little late to an appointment because some pothead was driving slow than see some drunk weaving all over the road at 90 MPH + heading my way.
Why make a choice at all? Both are dangerous so both should be illegal. Want to get fucked up? Fine - but take a taxi or don't move.
Which will be completely irrelevant when he's not on the voting card.
Well he's not completely out of the running just yet which is why it's worth telling people to support him anyway, should they be so inclined.
"But the media is mostly soft on Hillary, and very harsh on Trump."
The media has made Trump.
Without the media's hunger to 'sell papers' by terrifying everyone with the specter of Trump winning, he wouldn't have 1/100th of the votes that he's managed with their support.
Sue needs to employ a photographer for her website before she does anything, at least someone who has a basic grasp of colour balance.
What an awful site.
Maybe it's deliberate so she can later claim that using Google's font was an accident of incompetence.
Which will be completely irrelevant when he's not on the voting card.
Unfortunately true.
The same system that bought Clinton is propping her up. Without the bought electors she would have lost against Sanders.
Slashdot, as of late, appears to discuss less technology and more of this drivel. There are too many stories about jobs being outsourced. And the usual "freedom loving" crowd is begging politicians and anybody who will listen to force companies, one way or another, to not outsource. It did not work for manufacturing jobs, but somehow it might just work for their service sector jobs
You people need to adjust your expectations. You don't need a new plan B. You need a better plan A. If you think your job is in danger of being outsourced, do not expect someone else to come in and save it.
And for crying out loud, stop with the freaking doom and gloom. You guys sound like a bunch of griefers. Every story is filled with people whining about something or trying to recycle really old jokes about Soviet Russia or some shit like that.
I have been hitting Slashdot out of habit over the years. But man, this shit is getting old.
This is important for many of the people on the site, obviously enough. If it isn't important to you then don't click on the header.
Then we don't have to hear your griefing any more than you have to hear ours.
I don't know if the Donald is being genuine or just opportunistic, but his messages about loss of American jobs, unfair trade agreements, and corporate behavior is why so many people will put up with his other flaws.
This, a thousand times this...
Maybe Trump will do something, maybe he won't. I have no idea. But I know for darn sure Clinton won't, she is bought and paid for...
Sanders does not appear to have been bought.
the worker is considered a commodity. Not the foundation of the business, which is what they actually are.
Ah, I can see you've never actually founded anything. I've started businesses, and believe me, I am the foundation of those businesses. And I've worked with PLENTY of (topically, here) IT people who consider employers to be commodities, exhibiting exactly zero loyalty as soon as a recruiter drops them an email with a slightly better offer. The foundation of the business is the person or group of people who conceived of it, came up with the funding for it, and deal with the crushing load of tax, compliance, and other legal and financial burdens involved in keeping it alive - including dealing the constant churn of employees who very much see them as a commodity - a place where they can work eight or ten hours a day and take home some cash and other benefits.
It's perfectly ok to fuck your employees for a dollar.
That's what you are saying, right?
Are you suggesting that it's illegal for either the employee or the employer to walk away from an "at will" arrangement? Are you suggesting that the both the employer and the employee should be forced to continue a relationship they don't want ... or that only the employer should be forced to, but the employee can do whatever they want.
I get it. You think that everyone who starts a business is suddenly a slave to the state, and to anyone that wants a paycheck from them. You're exactly the sort of entitled, lazy bum that's chasing businesses and jobs out of the country.
I've founded companies and sold them. You can find and keep good employees if you are a good employer who manages the future prospects of those employees. Never 100% but then, nothing is. Most companies today don't make any effort to do this and so yes, the churn is huge.
Once a company has been sold, after a short while the founding person or persons are generally no longer involved in which case the previous poster is correct - the employees are the foundation that the rest of the company rests upon. No employees, no company.
Those employees are, however, looked at as 'human resources' in the same way that computers are looked at as 'technology resources' and are just as interchangeable. We see it every day and we're seeing it in TFA today.
Your attitude about being perceived as a slave of those working for you is...interesting, if not a bit disturbing. I have never felt this way - never needed to.
I disagree with you that someone who contributes to a company over time who then has expectations of loyalty from that company in return should be categorized as an 'entitled, lazy bum'. If people put in time and effort to help me build a company I'm not going to fuck them over to save a few dollars so I can buy a nicer third house.
There needs to be a balance between owners and employees - a working relationship that gives a future to those involved, presuming they work towards it.