They did not grow in a "non-directed" fashion at all. Evolution has very clear directions (for each of its millions of species), it's just spread out over millions of years, so it doesn't seem directed when taken compared to computer design on the timescale of 1-2 years.
You're mistaken. Directed evolution would be saying that evolution is the work of conscious decision and planning. It's like saying that "evolution" planned for microscopic bacteria to turn into advanced multi-cellular organisms that would eventually evolve into homo sapiens sapiens. I can't think of anything that could be more opposite of what natural selection is all about.
>I always say, if I wanted to build a computer >from scratch, the very last material I would >choose to work with is meat. I'll take >transistors over meat any day. Human >intelligence may even be a poor kludge of the >intelligence algorithm on an organ that is >basically a glorified animal eyeball. From an >evolutionary standpoint, our supposedly >wonderful cognitive skills are a very recent >innovation. It should not be surprising if they >are only poorly implemented in us, like the lung >of the first mudfish. We can breathe the air of >thought and imagination, but not that well yet.
Interesting. That was the part of the article that I found most striking too, but for different reasons. The reason that our wetwired brains are such "shitty" computers when compared to silcon computers is because they weren't designed. They just sort of grew in a non-directed organic fashion, and advantageous adaptations were propogated. While that tends to create a machine that's fairly adept at what it does in it's natural environment, it probably won't make nearly as good a "computer" as something that was designed from the ground up to be a computer (or to do a specific job).
On the other hand, it may be that trying to apply the computational model to the human mind is just a poor match (though it certainly seems to be the best model that we have at the moment).
Right, but you could say that with just about anything. What about nuclear weapons? The government has special classifications for information dealing with anything that has to do with nuclear weapons. I'm sure these things will be similar, and no one will really get at them.
Yes, but I imagine that someone like Saddam Hussein would be keen to shoot down a plane carrying one of these lasers so they he could strip the debris for something to reverse engineer. In the case of nuclear weapons, he's not going to be shooting down any nuke-bearing planes and reverse engineering them because a) the military doesn't generally use nukes and b) Saddam already knows how to make them.
So lets get this straight, under the Geneva convention its against the rules to build a weapon that can only maim or mutilate somebody, but its all right to build a weapon if it has a reasonable chance of killing a combatant?
Yes. It's supposed to be the more civilized way to make war. If you think about it, all soldiers who go off to war realize that it may result in their death. Not many think about the potential of being maimed or crippled for life. In the eyes of the government, death is an acceptable side-effect of war. But if someone is crippled or maimed in war, they become a burden on their family and society. If you die your family will probably get over it in a year or two. Your widow/widower won't have your income to help support them, but they will probably find another spouse and go on to make another family. If you come back maimed or crippled, your family may still lose its source of income and will have an additional burden of having to support you. If you can no longer be productive the family may stay together, but they may be driven into poverty. This can be disastrous for a family and to a nation (on a large enough scale).
Think about it this way: what if the Allied and Axis soldiers and civilians killed in World War II were only blinded or otherwise maimed instead? Can you imagine the vast problems that recovering nations would have had trying to integrate and support the millions of victims? It would be only towards the end of the 20th century that the nations involved would have begun truly recovering. In the eyes of governments (and many people), killing is better because your can start over with a relatively blank slate.
Think about it. You go in and you can drop, depending on the fighter between 6 and 24 500-pound bombs, in more or less one go, which is going to pulverize everything in the area... Or you can loiter around as a sitting duck for anti-aircraft fire and pop off two four-second laser bursts every thirty seconds.
Think "surgical strike." A laser-guided smart bomb is fairly accurate. Most of the time the bomb lands within a few yards of the target area lit up by the laser. A laser, on the other hand, hits exactly where the laser is aimed. You don't have to worry about winds and drifting.
You also have the advantage of a beam that travels at the speed of light, versus a bomb or a missle that may take a few seconds or minutes to hit the target. Ever seen a fighter plane dodge a missile with chaff or flares or fancy maneuvers? They can't dodge a laser.
Then there's the advantage of stealth. With an IR laser, you don't see it coming, you don't see it when it gets there, and you don't see where it came from. All you see is the "poof" when it's done.
How many laser-guided bombs can an F16 carry? Compare that to the number of potential shots you'd get with the laser weapon. You don't have to worry about running out of ammo. Sure there's a cool-down time of 30 seconds between shots, but you've also got the capability to neutralize four targets in the first 1:16, and two more every 38 seconds after that. Take a couple stalth planes with a laser onboard and you could do some serious damage.
Think of the reduction in payload. Would you rather have a single (or maybe dual) laser array that weighs a couple thousand pounds or 16,000 pounds of munitions? Less weight equals more speed and more maneuverabilty, not to mention more room for other weapons or a larger fuel load to increase range.
And what about the pain beam that they were developing?
Pain beam schmain beam, what I want is a weapon that would make the target evacuate their bowels. It would be harmless, but also embarrassing and quite inconvenient. Not to mention loads of fun to use on annoying public speakers.
Well good then. My nuke that's designed for destroying strategic military targets but has the unfortunate side effect of poisoning people, as well as blinding them, causing them to grow extra limbs, and making the surrounding area uninhabitable for the next century should be perfectly legit as well.
Hey man, I don't make the rules, I just report them.
Think about it. It's infra-red, so you can't see it. You could potentially filter the harmful rays IF you knew the wavelength of the laser AND you knew it was being used, though that's not likely to happen. So basically you could be Joe Afghan tending to his goats and minding your own business, when suddenly a truck 2 or 3 kilometers away explodes and takes your vision with it. No warning, no defense, just blindness.
Think about the potential for abuse if it falls into the wrong hands. Wanna bring down a couple jetliners, but don't have 19 hijackers to spare? That's easy! Just point one of these lasers at the wings of passing planes and watch the fuel tanks explode. Since the beam is invisible, nobody would know what hit them or be able to tell where the attack came from. You could probably drop 3 or 4 planes before you'd have to move on to another location.
And this is intended to... what? Blind the people, burn a wee little hole in the side of a tank, or cause some kind of explosively violent reaction with the target?
The article states (we did all read the article, didn't we?) that they are trying to determine what locations on a target would be the most advantageous. Uses they cited were possibly targetting a fuel tank, an area with a high concentration of electronic equipment (like the cockpit of a plane) or an communications array.
Only if that was the intended effect of the weapon. If it's a laser weapon that is designed for use against planes, anti-aircraft installations, and ground vehicles that could accidentally blind someone standing nearby, it's considered legit.
Also, it looks (from the photos on their site) like the case is getting slightly bigger in the newer models. Soon we'll have a (gasp) mini-tower again!
It isn't really bigger than the old ones. From the article:
The chassis is about 8" wide, 5" tall and 11.5" deep (20.32 x 12.7 x 29.21 cm), making it around the size of a toaster but not quite as small as Apple's PowerMac G4 Cube.
There is a small photo at the top left of each page of the review that makes it look like it's much taller than it really is, but that's only because for some reason they stretched the image vertically.
I'm sure heat is one of the main factors prohibiting them from adding an AMD version. Intel CPUs run much cooler than their AMD counterparts [I tried finding a link to Tom's Hardware (www.tomsharware.com) video where he takes the heat sinks off and the AMD chips fry) so I imagine it would be much tougher to implement a cooling solution in such a small case.
That's not really it. Simply put, Shuttle hasn't put one together yet. The article states that they are working on an nForce2-based model on the SS51 for use with AMD CPUs. Since the nForce2 boards haven't hit the street yet then you won't see the AMD model for a little while.
Shuttle does already make versions of their XPC that take AMD processors and they don't have any heat problems. The only difference is that their existing AMD and Intel lines (until the SS51) did not have an AGP slot.
I don't think HP legally can do it under antimonopoly laws: you can't sell your goods only to selected companies - you MUST sell it to everyone who will pay listed price.
Why don't you just ring up Intel then and see if you can get them to sell you a processor.
You're only giving a long-term leg-up to your competition by allowing them to smoothly and easily transition to their own product line by continuing to sell them yours. You're giving up a short-term gain for a bit of long-term hurt. Exactly what I would have done.
Except that now Dell is going to continue selling HP printers obtained through distributors instead of HP directly. It seems to me that HP is missing out on the chance to make a little more money out of the deal (depending on what prices they sell at vs distributors cost).
It can happen, just ask my wife, but I do not understand how modifying a DVD player (that I purchased) to play a DVD (that I purchased) is in violation of anything.
Because the DMCA (paid for by the RIAA, MPAA, Disney, AOL/TW and the rest) says so. Sure it doesn't make any sense. Sure it's ridiculous. That is exactly the point that Bruce is trying to make. The DMCA criminalizes actions that should not be criminalized.
Good on him for doing this, I'm glad he is, but the US get the cheapest DVDs anyway - why do you want to play non-US DVDs?
In the UK the DVD price is about twice as much for the same version with different region encoding so I can understand UK users hacking their DVD players and buying US DVDs from Amazon, but why in the US?
Err...it was purposely contrived that way. While it hardly makes financial sense to pay for a UK release of a DVD that is available in the US for half the price, it's really the only way to demonstrate the point in the US that region encoding and the DMCA are a steaming pile of shit.
Sure, maybe the guy has got money, but literally throwing away a half-million dollars just to prove a point seems plain stupid to me !
I guess that rather depends on how important you think that point is. You may not believe in anything strongly enough that you would spend $500,000 to take a stand, but obviously there are other people who do.
The Mayan calendar ends on December 21, 2012. If 1. the projections are a bit off as far as the arrival date and 2. it does hit the Earth, I'd say this might be a good reason to end your calendar.
Err...no. I mean, if we want to randomly ascribe values to the "end" of someone's calendar, we could just as easily use the Muslim calendar "ending" in 2076 or the Hebrew calendar "ending" in 2240. For that matter, my Demotivators calendar ended last year, and I haven't replaced it yet.
One thing I wouldn't worry about much - chemical or biological agents. They are just not that effective. The anthrax letters were basically a fizzle - for a truly massive amount of work, and with anthrax powder that was allegedly _better_ than US military labs ever managed to produce, they could have killed three times as many people by just swerving a car onto a sidewalk. And then there was that Japanese cult with the nerve gas in the subway - prying up a rail could have caused a real disaster, the gas sure didn't.
I think that you may have forgotten that the primary goal of a terrorist is not to kill the enemy but to cause terror. Anthrax and Sarin gas work just as well as a bomb that kills 3 people in that respect. With regards to the "massive amount of work," I just don't see that much work in buying some Anthrax from someone and mailing it out to a half-dozen people. But the effect of having people afraid of getting their mail was pretty significant. The number of Anthrax "scares" that turned out to be false alarms only fed the fear and hysteria even further. Then you get to the cleanup aspect which ended up costing millions of dollars.
The thing is, Bin Laden and his cronies don't honestly think that in a war with the US that they could win, and they can't. What they think that they can do is cause us enough trouble to drive the US and our allies out of the middle east. At what point do we decide that the violations of our civil liberties and the financial costs of maintaining this war aren't justified?
Why was he ever even apointed to office? Every time this man ran for office he lost miserably.
Well...not *every* time. Granted, he did get beat in the last round of elections by a corpse, but he also managed to get elected for a previous term in the Senate as well as for Governor of Missouri (twice).
Instead, they should be making intelligent choices about who they search. And, no, I'm not suggesting racial profiling. If you've ever been to Isreal or any other country with top notch security personel, you know what I'm talking about.
I saw an interesting news segment on El Al the other day, and they did highlight this part of the security screening process. It isn't just an Israeli thing, but the El Al private security force (the same guys who shot and killed the guy at LAX the other week) do this kind of a screening at every airport that El Al services. You might also like to know that El Al passengers usually have to arrive 3-4 hours before their flight to go through the screening. Not only are they interrogated and (frequently) searched before being allowed to proceed to the checkpoint, but El Al also runs a background check through NCIC, Interpol, and probably Israeli intelligence. I wouldn't be suprised to see a credit check or two thrown in for good measure.
At any rate, after all the checks have been completed and your baggage searched and all of your information verified you can still be denied access to the flight if at any point along the way the security people don't like the way you answered a question, even if you answered it truthfully. It sounds like a steaming pile of fascist shit if you ask me.
I'm sure that the Logan's security chief had a new one ripped for him...
Actually, I think he lost his job over it. Not that that should be any kind of a suprise. Though it is kinda funny when you think about it. I mean, the people at Logan did follow all of the procedures that they were supposed to follow. Everything checked out with the passengers. They just happened to be hijackers who followed all the airport regulations.
Slashdot Mirror
They did not grow in a "non-directed" fashion at all. Evolution has very clear directions (for each of its millions of species), it's just spread out over millions of years, so it doesn't seem directed when taken compared to computer design on the timescale of 1-2 years.
You're mistaken. Directed evolution would be saying that evolution is the work of conscious decision and planning. It's like saying that "evolution" planned for microscopic bacteria to turn into advanced multi-cellular organisms that would eventually evolve into homo sapiens sapiens. I can't think of anything that could be more opposite of what natural selection is all about.
>I always say, if I wanted to build a computer >from scratch, the very last material I would >choose to work with is meat. I'll take >transistors over meat any day. Human >intelligence may even be a poor kludge of the >intelligence algorithm on an organ that is >basically a glorified animal eyeball. From an >evolutionary standpoint, our supposedly >wonderful cognitive skills are a very recent >innovation. It should not be surprising if they >are only poorly implemented in us, like the lung >of the first mudfish. We can breathe the air of >thought and imagination, but not that well yet.
Interesting. That was the part of the article that I found most striking too, but for different reasons. The reason that our wetwired brains are such "shitty" computers when compared to silcon computers is because they weren't designed. They just sort of grew in a non-directed organic fashion, and advantageous adaptations were propogated. While that tends to create a machine that's fairly adept at what it does in it's natural environment, it probably won't make nearly as good a "computer" as something that was designed from the ground up to be a computer (or to do a specific job).
On the other hand, it may be that trying to apply the computational model to the human mind is just a poor match (though it certainly seems to be the best model that we have at the moment).
Right, but you could say that with just about anything. What about nuclear weapons? The government has special classifications for information dealing with anything that has to do with nuclear weapons. I'm sure these things will be similar, and no one will really get at them.
Yes, but I imagine that someone like Saddam Hussein would be keen to shoot down a plane carrying one of these lasers so they he could strip the debris for something to reverse engineer. In the case of nuclear weapons, he's not going to be shooting down any nuke-bearing planes and reverse engineering them because a) the military doesn't generally use nukes and b) Saddam already knows how to make them.
So lets get this straight, under the Geneva convention its against the rules to build a weapon that can only maim or mutilate somebody, but its all right to build a weapon if it has a reasonable chance of killing a combatant?
Yes. It's supposed to be the more civilized way to make war. If you think about it, all soldiers who go off to war realize that it may result in their death. Not many think about the potential of being maimed or crippled for life. In the eyes of the government, death is an acceptable side-effect of war. But if someone is crippled or maimed in war, they become a burden on their family and society. If you die your family will probably get over it in a year or two. Your widow/widower won't have your income to help support them, but they will probably find another spouse and go on to make another family. If you come back maimed or crippled, your family may still lose its source of income and will have an additional burden of having to support you. If you can no longer be productive the family may stay together, but they may be driven into poverty. This can be disastrous for a family and to a nation (on a large enough scale).
Think about it this way: what if the Allied and Axis soldiers and civilians killed in World War II were only blinded or otherwise maimed instead? Can you imagine the vast problems that recovering nations would have had trying to integrate and support the millions of victims? It would be only towards the end of the 20th century that the nations involved would have begun truly recovering. In the eyes of governments (and many people), killing is better because your can start over with a relatively blank slate.
Think about it. You go in and you can drop, depending on the fighter between 6 and 24 500-pound bombs, in more or less one go, which is going to pulverize everything in the area... Or you can loiter around as a sitting duck for anti-aircraft fire and pop off two four-second laser bursts every thirty seconds.
Think "surgical strike." A laser-guided smart bomb is fairly accurate. Most of the time the bomb lands within a few yards of the target area lit up by the laser. A laser, on the other hand, hits exactly where the laser is aimed. You don't have to worry about winds and drifting.
You also have the advantage of a beam that travels at the speed of light, versus a bomb or a missle that may take a few seconds or minutes to hit the target. Ever seen a fighter plane dodge a missile with chaff or flares or fancy maneuvers? They can't dodge a laser.
Then there's the advantage of stealth. With an IR laser, you don't see it coming, you don't see it when it gets there, and you don't see where it came from. All you see is the "poof" when it's done.
How many laser-guided bombs can an F16 carry? Compare that to the number of potential shots you'd get with the laser weapon. You don't have to worry about running out of ammo. Sure there's a cool-down time of 30 seconds between shots, but you've also got the capability to neutralize four targets in the first 1:16, and two more every 38 seconds after that. Take a couple stalth planes with a laser onboard and you could do some serious damage.
Think of the reduction in payload. Would you rather have a single (or maybe dual) laser array that weighs a couple thousand pounds or 16,000 pounds of munitions? Less weight equals more speed and more maneuverabilty, not to mention more room for other weapons or a larger fuel load to increase range.
There's a whole stack of benfits out there.
And what about the pain beam that they were developing?
Pain beam schmain beam, what I want is a weapon that would make the target evacuate their bowels. It would be harmless, but also embarrassing and quite inconvenient. Not to mention loads of fun to use on annoying public speakers.
Well good then. My nuke that's designed for destroying strategic military targets but has the unfortunate side effect of poisoning people, as well as blinding them, causing them to grow extra limbs, and making the surrounding area uninhabitable for the next century should be perfectly legit as well.
Hey man, I don't make the rules, I just report them.
Think about it. It's infra-red, so you can't see it. You could potentially filter the harmful rays IF you knew the wavelength of the laser AND you knew it was being used, though that's not likely to happen. So basically you could be Joe Afghan tending to his goats and minding your own business, when suddenly a truck 2 or 3 kilometers away explodes and takes your vision with it. No warning, no defense, just blindness.
Think about the potential for abuse if it falls into the wrong hands. Wanna bring down a couple jetliners, but don't have 19 hijackers to spare? That's easy! Just point one of these lasers at the wings of passing planes and watch the fuel tanks explode. Since the beam is invisible, nobody would know what hit them or be able to tell where the attack came from. You could probably drop 3 or 4 planes before you'd have to move on to another location.
And this is intended to ... what? Blind the people, burn a wee little hole in the side of a tank, or cause some kind of explosively violent reaction with the target?
The article states (we did all read the article, didn't we?) that they are trying to determine what locations on a target would be the most advantageous. Uses they cited were possibly targetting a fuel tank, an area with a high concentration of electronic equipment (like the cockpit of a plane) or an communications array.
blinding people violates geneva convention
Only if that was the intended effect of the weapon. If it's a laser weapon that is designed for use against planes, anti-aircraft installations, and ground vehicles that could accidentally blind someone standing nearby, it's considered legit.
Also, it looks (from the photos on their site) like the case is getting slightly bigger in the newer models. Soon we'll have a (gasp) mini-tower again!
It isn't really bigger than the old ones. From the article:
The chassis is about 8" wide, 5" tall and 11.5" deep (20.32 x 12.7 x 29.21 cm), making it around the size of a toaster but not quite as small as Apple's PowerMac G4 Cube.
There is a small photo at the top left of each page of the review that makes it look like it's much taller than it really is, but that's only because for some reason they stretched the image vertically.
I'm sure heat is one of the main factors prohibiting them from adding an AMD version. Intel CPUs run much cooler than their AMD counterparts [I tried finding a link to Tom's Hardware (www.tomsharware.com) video where he takes the heat sinks off and the AMD chips fry) so I imagine it would be much tougher to implement a cooling solution in such a small case.
That's not really it. Simply put, Shuttle hasn't put one together yet. The article states that they are working on an nForce2-based model on the SS51 for use with AMD CPUs. Since the nForce2 boards haven't hit the street yet then you won't see the AMD model for a little while.
Shuttle does already make versions of their XPC that take AMD processors and they don't have any heat problems. The only difference is that their existing AMD and Intel lines (until the SS51) did not have an AGP slot.
I don't think HP legally can do it under antimonopoly laws: you can't sell your goods only to selected companies - you MUST sell it to everyone who will pay listed price.
Why don't you just ring up Intel then and see if you can get them to sell you a processor.
You're only giving a long-term leg-up to your competition by allowing them to smoothly and easily transition to their own product line by continuing to sell them yours. You're giving up a short-term gain for a bit of long-term hurt. Exactly what I would have done.
Except that now Dell is going to continue selling HP printers obtained through distributors instead of HP directly. It seems to me that HP is missing out on the chance to make a little more money out of the deal (depending on what prices they sell at vs distributors cost).
region coding isn't a copy prevention mechanism.
Who said anything about copy prevention? It's copyright protection and digital rights management.
It can happen, just ask my wife, but I do not understand how modifying a DVD player (that I purchased) to play a DVD (that I purchased) is in violation of anything.
Because the DMCA (paid for by the RIAA, MPAA, Disney, AOL/TW and the rest) says so. Sure it doesn't make any sense. Sure it's ridiculous. That is exactly the point that Bruce is trying to make. The DMCA criminalizes actions that should not be criminalized.
Good on him for doing this, I'm glad he is, but the US get the cheapest DVDs anyway - why do you want to play non-US DVDs?
In the UK the DVD price is about twice as much for the same version with different region encoding so I can understand UK users hacking their DVD players and buying US DVDs from Amazon, but why in the US?
Err...it was purposely contrived that way. While it hardly makes financial sense to pay for a UK release of a DVD that is available in the US for half the price, it's really the only way to demonstrate the point in the US that region encoding and the DMCA are a steaming pile of shit.
Sure, maybe the guy has got money, but literally throwing away a half-million dollars just to prove a point seems plain stupid to me !
I guess that rather depends on how important you think that point is. You may not believe in anything strongly enough that you would spend $500,000 to take a stand, but obviously there are other people who do.
OK, I suppose half a million of us will all have to chip in a buck to bail his arse out of Jug. So where do I send the dollar?
I'd rather my dollars go towards his legal defense rather than paying unjust fines.
The Mayan calendar ends on December 21, 2012. If 1. the projections are a bit off as far as the arrival date and 2. it does hit the Earth, I'd say this might be a good reason to end your calendar.
Err...no. I mean, if we want to randomly ascribe values to the "end" of someone's calendar, we could just as easily use the Muslim calendar "ending" in 2076 or the Hebrew calendar "ending" in 2240. For that matter, my Demotivators calendar ended last year, and I haven't replaced it yet.
One thing I wouldn't worry about much - chemical or biological agents. They are just not that effective. The anthrax letters were basically a fizzle - for a truly massive amount of work, and with anthrax powder that was allegedly _better_ than US military labs ever managed to produce, they could have killed three times as many people by just swerving a car onto a sidewalk. And then there was that Japanese cult with the nerve gas in the subway - prying up a rail could have caused a real disaster, the gas sure didn't.
I think that you may have forgotten that the primary goal of a terrorist is not to kill the enemy but to cause terror. Anthrax and Sarin gas work just as well as a bomb that kills 3 people in that respect. With regards to the "massive amount of work," I just don't see that much work in buying some Anthrax from someone and mailing it out to a half-dozen people. But the effect of having people afraid of getting their mail was pretty significant. The number of Anthrax "scares" that turned out to be false alarms only fed the fear and hysteria even further. Then you get to the cleanup aspect which ended up costing millions of dollars.
The thing is, Bin Laden and his cronies don't honestly think that in a war with the US that they could win, and they can't. What they think that they can do is cause us enough trouble to drive the US and our allies out of the middle east. At what point do we decide that the violations of our civil liberties and the financial costs of maintaining this war aren't justified?
Why was he ever even apointed to office? Every time this man ran for office he lost miserably.
Well...not *every* time. Granted, he did get beat in the last round of elections by a corpse, but he also managed to get elected for a previous term in the Senate as well as for Governor of Missouri (twice).
Also, with Biometrics becoming more of a reality maybe ID's won't gbe required in the future afterall.
Beacause we all know that biometrics can't be fooled, right?
Instead, they should be making intelligent choices about who they search. And, no, I'm not suggesting racial profiling. If you've ever been to Isreal or any other country with top notch security personel, you know what I'm talking about.
I saw an interesting news segment on El Al the other day, and they did highlight this part of the security screening process. It isn't just an Israeli thing, but the El Al private security force (the same guys who shot and killed the guy at LAX the other week) do this kind of a screening at every airport that El Al services. You might also like to know that El Al passengers usually have to arrive 3-4 hours before their flight to go through the screening. Not only are they interrogated and (frequently) searched before being allowed to proceed to the checkpoint, but El Al also runs a background check through NCIC, Interpol, and probably Israeli intelligence. I wouldn't be suprised to see a credit check or two thrown in for good measure.
At any rate, after all the checks have been completed and your baggage searched and all of your information verified you can still be denied access to the flight if at any point along the way the security people don't like the way you answered a question, even if you answered it truthfully. It sounds like a steaming pile of fascist shit if you ask me.
I'm sure that the Logan's security chief had a new one ripped for him...
Actually, I think he lost his job over it. Not that that should be any kind of a suprise. Though it is kinda funny when you think about it. I mean, the people at Logan did follow all of the procedures that they were supposed to follow. Everything checked out with the passengers. They just happened to be hijackers who followed all the airport regulations.