I add that number to my asterisk phone system and they automatically get a fake message that is about 10 minutes long faking that I am answering and trying to understand them and ending with a 2khz squeal at maximum level that asterisk can put out. I need to modify it with a perl script that uses 1 of 3 or 4 different recording to screw with them more but I notice in my logs that they dont call back after the 3rd try and realise I'm screwing with them.
Do you also have the ability to transfer a call from a new telemarketer to the "AI", if so do the callers actually notice?
It seems to me that telephones, now-a-days, should be sophisticated enough for me to program them to not ring if the caller ID shows one of the IDs that I don't want to answer, and perhaps to give them a different outgoing message than my normal "You have reached... leave a message after the beep." Do phones like that exist?
You'd need a PBX rather than just a phone. You could always direct such calls to a voicemail box which has the same outgoing message as the one you actually listen to, so that they get no indication when they are added to the "telespam" list. Alternativly you could simply play them some tones or voice message indicating a fault. Something like "Die Zahl, die Sie benennen, ist nicht im Service, wegen zu vielen Wassers auf der Linie."
But doesn't it also suppress legitimate suits by small players? A family believes that Johnny's cancer was caused by the chemicals dumped by a big company into the local pond. Can the family really afford to take on a huge company? Sure, you'd like to think the little guy would win, especially if he has facts on his side. But realistically, a team of high-powered lawyers can often overwhelm the talent a single family can hire... and then the family is liable to pay the fees of those same high-priced attorneys?
The obvious solution here is for the losing party's liability to the winning party to be at most equal to their own legal bill. Of course lawyers wouldn't like this...
This particular phenomenon is the biggest argument for tort reform in recent memory. The American legal system is set up in such a way that, if you are sued, you are financially penalized win or lose.
This also enables a kind of protection racket to be operated. By the plaintiff offering to accept a "settlement" of just under the defendents most likely legal fees. Even if a defendent were to fight the case as LIP it's still likely to have a cost to him/her.
No shit. They refuse to recognize Israel and their main goal is to eliminate Israel and the Jews from the planet.
Wanting to eliminate Israel and wanting to eliminate "Jews" are rather different things, dispite what the popular media (especially in the US) might lead you to believe. Indeed some of the people calling for the elimination of Israel are Orthodox Jews... If "their" goal was to eliminate Jewish people you'd expect them to start with Iranian Jews.
Really? Equal? Exactly 50/50? Does the fact that hezbollah killed more soldiers then civillians and israel killed more civillians then soldiers make a difference at all?
How accurate were the weapons used by Hezbollah? What proportion of civilian "collateral damage" would be expected from them? (Is it possible that Hezbollah were attacking military targets in Northern Israel.) The other problem with "equal" is that Hezbollah don't appear to have invaded any part of Israel nor destroyed any Israeli civil airports or power stations.
There is something like 5 million Jews in the USA.
Not all of these people are even pro-Israel. There are those which are vocally opposed to Israel and probably an unknown number who would be quietly relived were Israel to cease to be. It's even possible that "Christian Zionists" in the US outnumber "Jewish Zionists". There are far more Chinese-Americans, African-Americans, Irish-Americans, German-Americans, Russian-Americans and Hispanic-Americans however there has never been a relationship on par with Israel with any of those nations/regions.
Not all of these are actual countries. Also the situation is different in that these people have ancestors from those parts of the world. Whereas Israel claims that anyone who meets the state's definition of "Jewish" as an Israeli citizen.
Because of Middle East's economic/strategic importance and for a long time, (until the first Gulf War), Israel was our only real ally in the region. Therefore we created a very strong relationship with them which included arming them with our weaponry.
However creating a relationship with that one country made it far more difficult for the US to have relationships with any other country in the region.
After that I asked if they knew that most Beirutis where far from extremist Islam and there was a sizeable Christian minority, most didn't. I actually hang out with a fairly liberal and well educated crowd so I was pretty surprised by this, I can also only imagine what the large bible thumping minority thinks about it...
A more intesting issue would be how similar are the "Bible thumpers" to the "Islamist extremists".
Technology only works if you have power to run it. I could destroy and cRaptor with a paint ball gun if there's no fuel for it. And sooner or later power costs will make modern warfare nigh impossible.
Does the US have the stuff to take care of Iran? Pfffft. They couldn't beat the Viet Cong, Afganistan is still a warzone, so is Iraq. I think what you mean is the US will invade, then like Afganistan(and soon Iraq) get bored and leave.
Military superpowers can utterly fail against guerillas. Especially when they are defending against an invader. The most recent example is Israel/Lebanon. Whilst the US could undobtedly trash Iran actually being able to sucessfully occupy it is another matter entirely.
Dislike the country for real things that happen and not fantasy - there is no master supervillian sitting there stroking a cat and planning to take over the world, there are arms dealers there selling stuff to Hezbolla for money or even gifts - similar to the US relationship with Israel and no more sinister.
Probably rather less sinister. Parts of the US/Israel relationship really should be considered downright disturbing.
Iran has consistantly supported terrorists including Hezbollah and Hamas,
Even if these groups actually are "terrorists" (Hezbollah appears to be more of a "militia") they have never attacked either Europe or North America. Plenty of countries, including the US, support plenty of terrorists.
Sovereign states may have whatever weapons they wish, but when their leadership pronounces that their goal is to wipe out a neighbor state (Israel), it no longer becomes acceptable to the international community to allow such weapons programs to go forth.
Who is this "international community"? Would it be ok if they didn't announce it first?
If Iran does develop a nuclear bomb and uses it against Israel, the retaliatory strike from Israel would result in casualties that are simply beyond anything any previous war has shown us. Yet Iran's leadership may well be foolish enough to do it anyway, if only to ensure that the rest of the middle east would destroy Israel.
The leaderships of Israel and the US don't exactly qualify as sane but even they might reconsider attacking a nuclear armed state.
Never underestimate the blind arrogance of religious zealotry.
No shortage of that with the Israeli and US Governments right now.
The US cannot learn to live with another nation developing nuclear weapons who wants to destroy another nation.
Why should the US care about Asian countries pointing nuclear weapons at other Asian countries? Why would a nuclear exchange between Iraq and Israel be worst than one between India and Pakistan...
Say what you will about current US foreign policy, but we go out of our way to minimize civilian casualties and avoid use of excessive force.
The simplist way to do this would be not to invade other countries.
After 9/11, two options were available to the Bush administration - nuclear strikes on al Qeida bases in Afghanistan, and special forces teams. There was no possibility of ground invasion for some time.
Actually there were plenty of things the US Government could have done, but did not do.
If they have to go to these lengths to investigate an ipod device in a toilet (where, after all, it is likely to be wet and no longer functioning) then what should they do in order to investigate all the hundreds of ipods and telephones and laptops that are taken on every airline flight?
As well as PDAs and watches. Best not let passengers with pacemakers onboard...
It's not that easy to create a high explosive in this way. It's actually a rather involved, meticulous process that takes hours and special equipment.
You'd get a violent reaction that would like hurt/kill yourself and put the bathroom out of order. You probably would NOT down the plane.
Even if you do manage to create sufficent high explosive, the placement of the charge(s) can be quite critical if your aim is to cause the plane to break up in flight.
Given that he's consistently worked to undermine the principles that the United States was founded on, I would almost go so far as to say that he's committed treason.
You probably mean "high treason". It would only be "regular" treason if the person/people involved were regular Joes.
And I've seen the mythbusters make a lethal paper crossbow out of newspaper and a lunch tray, as well as eat through an inch thick steel bar with a DC transformer and salsa. Sure, they took their time, but once you've done it once, how hard is it to recreate?
With these examples time is not really a factor. When it comes to assembling a bomb on board an aircraft, especially if you have to make the explosive as well, you only have something under the duration of the flight.
Humorous aside: During a demonstration a reporter asked isn't the Marine with the sticky foam unit in danger from an opponent with lethal weapons? The Marine general giving the demo responed that a Marine with non-lethal weapons will be accompanied by Marines with highly lethal weapons.
Often there is an intent to make military weapons which seriously injure rather than kill. (Especially if the injuries are life threating but treatable.) Wounding a solider is likely to remove three soldiers from the battle.
As amazingly often as you are claiming a need exists to get in the cabin is almost exactly the frequency one should expect with the number I estimated and the number of worldwide flights. I claim it to be acceptable, you claim it is not. Pointing out anecdotes of the very few cases where it was an issue will not affect the frequency.
Redesigning planes on the basis of one anecdote makes little sense.
Though I could point out that if airliners were designed like this,
Airliners are not designed like this. The change is a non trivial one. Especially if you'd want it retrofitting to existing aircraft.
the cockpit could be sealed off from the rest of the plane and given even greater redundancy so that the chance of hypoxia would decrease.
How does having two independently preasurised compartments add "redundency"? What happens if they are at different preassures? Exactly which bits of the aircraft are part of which compartment? (There are also likely to be problems if these compartments are certain shapes...)
Small bottle of bleach, small bottle of ammonia. Won't pass a "sniff" test, but amounts in bottles small enough to pass unnoticed under clothes can still cause extensive problems especially in a closed, delicate system.
Aircraft arn't actually closed systems when it comes to the air inside them. It also isn't likely to be too difficult to install a "toxic gas alarm" which sounds in the cockpit. Even to have the pressurisation system respond automatically to such a situation.
Slashdot Mirror
I add that number to my asterisk phone system and they automatically get a fake message that is about 10 minutes long faking that I am answering and trying to understand them and ending with a 2khz squeal at maximum level that asterisk can put out. I need to modify it with a perl script that uses 1 of 3 or 4 different recording to screw with them more but I notice in my logs that they dont call back after the 3rd try and realise I'm screwing with them.
Do you also have the ability to transfer a call from a new telemarketer to the "AI", if so do the callers actually notice?
It seems to me that telephones, now-a-days, should be sophisticated enough for me to program them to not ring if the caller ID shows one of the IDs that I don't want to answer, and perhaps to give them a different outgoing message than my normal "You have reached... leave a message after the beep." Do phones like that exist?
You'd need a PBX rather than just a phone. You could always direct such calls to a voicemail box which has the same outgoing message as the one you actually listen to, so that they get no indication when they are added to the "telespam" list. Alternativly you could simply play them some tones or voice message indicating a fault. Something like "Die Zahl, die Sie benennen, ist nicht im Service, wegen zu vielen Wassers auf der Linie."
However, the US is powerless against some calling agency operating out of Costa Rica, who doesn't give a rip about telecommunication laws.
Maybe you could just tell the US Government that you were called by "Terry Wrist" working for "Al-Ki-Da"
But doesn't it also suppress legitimate suits by small players? A family believes that Johnny's cancer was caused by the chemicals dumped by a big company into the local pond. Can the family really afford to take on a huge company? Sure, you'd like to think the little guy would win, especially if he has facts on his side. But realistically, a team of high-powered lawyers can often overwhelm the talent a single family can hire ... and then the family is liable to pay the fees of those same high-priced attorneys?
The obvious solution here is for the losing party's liability to the winning party to be at most equal to their own legal bill. Of course lawyers wouldn't like this...
This particular phenomenon is the biggest argument for tort reform in recent memory. The American legal system is set up in such a way that, if you are sued, you are financially penalized win or lose.
This also enables a kind of protection racket to be operated. By the plaintiff offering to accept a "settlement" of just under the defendents most likely legal fees. Even if a defendent were to fight the case as LIP it's still likely to have a cost to him/her.
For the same reasons you don't have a sewage/water recycling plant in your back yard.
Actually these do exist. They are better known as "septic tanks"...
No shit. They refuse to recognize Israel and their main goal is to eliminate Israel and the Jews from the planet.
Wanting to eliminate Israel and wanting to eliminate "Jews" are rather different things, dispite what the popular media (especially in the US) might lead you to believe. Indeed some of the people calling for the elimination of Israel are Orthodox Jews...
If "their" goal was to eliminate Jewish people you'd expect them to start with Iranian Jews.
Really? Equal? Exactly 50/50? Does the fact that hezbollah killed more soldiers then civillians and israel killed more civillians then soldiers make a difference at all?
How accurate were the weapons used by Hezbollah? What proportion of civilian "collateral damage" would be expected from them? (Is it possible that Hezbollah were attacking military targets in Northern Israel.)
The other problem with "equal" is that Hezbollah don't appear to have invaded any part of Israel nor destroyed any Israeli civil airports or power stations.
There is something like 5 million Jews in the USA.
Not all of these people are even pro-Israel. There are those which are vocally opposed to Israel and probably an unknown number who would be quietly relived were Israel to cease to be. It's even possible that "Christian Zionists" in the US outnumber "Jewish Zionists". There are far more Chinese-Americans, African-Americans, Irish-Americans, German-Americans, Russian-Americans and Hispanic-Americans however there has never been a relationship on par with Israel with any of those nations/regions.
Not all of these are actual countries. Also the situation is different in that these people have ancestors from those parts of the world. Whereas Israel claims that anyone who meets the state's definition of "Jewish" as an Israeli citizen.
Because of Middle East's economic/strategic importance and for a long time, (until the first Gulf War), Israel was our only real ally in the region. Therefore we created a very strong relationship with them which included arming them with our weaponry.
However creating a relationship with that one country made it far more difficult for the US to have relationships with any other country in the region.
After that I asked if they knew that most Beirutis where far from extremist Islam and there was a sizeable Christian minority, most didn't. I actually hang out with a fairly liberal and well educated crowd so I was pretty surprised by this, I can also only imagine what the large bible thumping minority thinks about it...
A more intesting issue would be how similar are the "Bible thumpers" to the "Islamist extremists".
Technology only works if you have power to run it. I could destroy and cRaptor with a paint ball gun if there's no fuel for it. And sooner or later power costs will make modern warfare nigh impossible.
Does the US have the stuff to take care of Iran? Pfffft. They couldn't beat the Viet Cong, Afganistan is still a warzone, so is Iraq. I think what you mean is the US will invade, then like Afganistan(and soon Iraq) get bored and leave.
Military superpowers can utterly fail against guerillas. Especially when they are defending against an invader. The most recent example is Israel/Lebanon. Whilst the US could undobtedly trash Iran actually being able to sucessfully occupy it is another matter entirely.
Dislike the country for real things that happen and not fantasy - there is no master supervillian sitting there stroking a cat and planning to take over the world, there are arms dealers there selling stuff to Hezbolla for money or even gifts - similar to the US relationship with Israel and no more sinister.
Probably rather less sinister. Parts of the US/Israel relationship really should be considered downright disturbing.
Iran has consistantly supported terrorists including Hezbollah and Hamas,
Even if these groups actually are "terrorists" (Hezbollah appears to be more of a "militia") they have never attacked either Europe or North America. Plenty of countries, including the US, support plenty of terrorists.
Sovereign states may have whatever weapons they wish, but when their leadership pronounces that their goal is to wipe out a neighbor state (Israel), it no longer becomes acceptable to the international community to allow such weapons programs to go forth.
Who is this "international community"? Would it be ok if they didn't announce it first?
If Iran does develop a nuclear bomb and uses it against Israel, the retaliatory strike from Israel would result in casualties that are simply beyond anything any previous war has shown us. Yet Iran's leadership may well be foolish enough to do it anyway, if only to ensure that the rest of the middle east would destroy Israel.
The leaderships of Israel and the US don't exactly qualify as sane but even they might reconsider attacking a nuclear armed state.
Never underestimate the blind arrogance of religious zealotry.
No shortage of that with the Israeli and US Governments right now.
The US cannot learn to live with another nation developing nuclear weapons who wants to destroy another nation.
Why should the US care about Asian countries pointing nuclear weapons at other Asian countries? Why would a nuclear exchange between Iraq and Israel be worst than one between India and Pakistan...
Say what you will about current US foreign policy, but we go out of our way to minimize civilian casualties and avoid use of excessive force.
The simplist way to do this would be not to invade other countries.
After 9/11, two options were available to the Bush administration - nuclear strikes on al Qeida bases in Afghanistan, and special forces teams. There was no possibility of ground invasion for some time.
Actually there were plenty of things the US Government could have done, but did not do.
If they have to go to these lengths to investigate an ipod device in a toilet (where, after all, it is likely to be wet and no longer functioning) then what should they do in order to investigate all the hundreds of ipods and telephones and laptops that are taken on every airline flight?
As well as PDAs and watches. Best not let passengers with pacemakers onboard...
So what exactly would they be doing with 1000 cell phones?
Something which may or may not be legal, but is unlikely to have anything much to do with terrorism.
I have to justify every damn handgun I would like to purchase.
Unless you were to buy black market guns...
It's not that easy to create a high explosive in this way. It's actually a rather involved, meticulous process that takes hours and special equipment.
You'd get a violent reaction that would like hurt/kill yourself and put the bathroom out of order. You probably would NOT down the plane.
Even if you do manage to create sufficent high explosive, the placement of the charge(s) can be quite critical if your aim is to cause the plane to break up in flight.
Given that he's consistently worked to undermine the principles that the United States was founded on, I would almost go so far as to say that he's committed treason.
You probably mean "high treason". It would only be "regular" treason if the person/people involved were regular Joes.
And I've seen the mythbusters make a lethal paper crossbow out of newspaper and a lunch tray, as well as eat through an inch thick steel bar with a DC transformer and salsa. Sure, they took their time, but once you've done it once, how hard is it to recreate?
With these examples time is not really a factor. When it comes to assembling a bomb on board an aircraft, especially if you have to make the explosive as well, you only have something under the duration of the flight.
Nonsense. Do you believe everything the terrorists tell you?
Let alone what other people tell about "terrorists'" motivations.
That should only come after exploding shirts!
If terrorists work out how to change their clothes into nitocellulose (or similar) they'll probably go for everthing at once (and wear a jacket).
Humorous aside: During a demonstration a reporter asked isn't the Marine with the sticky foam unit in danger from an opponent with lethal weapons? The Marine general giving the demo responed that a Marine with non-lethal weapons will be accompanied by Marines with highly lethal weapons.
Often there is an intent to make military weapons which seriously injure rather than kill. (Especially if the injuries are life threating but treatable.) Wounding a solider is likely to remove three soldiers from the battle.
As amazingly often as you are claiming a need exists to get in the cabin is almost exactly the frequency one should expect with the number I estimated and the number of worldwide flights. I claim it to be acceptable, you claim it is not. Pointing out anecdotes of the very few cases where it was an issue will not affect the frequency.
Redesigning planes on the basis of one anecdote makes little sense.
Though I could point out that if airliners were designed like this,
Airliners are not designed like this. The change is a non trivial one. Especially if you'd want it retrofitting to existing aircraft.
the cockpit could be sealed off from the rest of the plane and given even greater redundancy so that the chance of hypoxia would decrease.
How does having two independently preasurised compartments add "redundency"? What happens if they are at different preassures? Exactly which bits of the aircraft are part of which compartment? (There are also likely to be problems if these compartments are certain shapes...)
Small bottle of bleach, small bottle of ammonia. Won't pass a "sniff" test, but amounts in bottles small enough to pass unnoticed under clothes can still cause extensive problems especially in a closed, delicate system.
Aircraft arn't actually closed systems when it comes to the air inside them. It also isn't likely to be too difficult to install a "toxic gas alarm" which sounds in the cockpit. Even to have the pressurisation system respond automatically to such a situation.
Maybe I'm missing out on the bomb which you can make by mixing breast milk and cola, but what the hell kind of bomb would you put together?
Well diet-coke and mentos would probably cost the airline in cleaning the plane.
The ingredients used in binary explosives tend to be rather toxic, volatile, and generally a pain in the ass to handle.
That's a PITA even for people who know what they are doing...