If you watch any of his interviews (twice on the Colbert Report, for example), it's pretty clear that he revels in the attention. He oozes more smug than a coffee shop full of Macbook Pro users who think the J in WWJD stands for Jobs, which is, incidentally, enough smug to power Wikileaks for 3-4 years.
I say this agreeing completely with the philosophy of Wikileaks. It would be nice to have a more affable face on the organization, but nothing's perfect.
The unknown is much more frightening than the known. The Cold War had a known enemy with (mostly) known tactics, though the unknown factor certainly kicked in to high gear during McCarthy's inquisition. (Anyone could be a communist! As if minority political opinions were a) somehow a threat to democracy, not to mention b) unworthy of consideration IN a democracy, no less.)
The "War on Terror" is far more abstract and ambiguous than the Cold War ever was, and the more ambiguous the threat, the more easily otherwise irrational (re)actions can be justified. "They're plotting to destroy us!" Who are "they"? Well, we don't know. How could they possibly destroy us or, in fact, do anything other than bloody our noses? Well, we don't know that either, but we have very active imaginations, and they probably do too!
Maybe it varies, and I try to have as little interaction with law enforcement as is practicable, but if Alaska State Troopers on Discovery is any indication, they do a lot of complaining about how dangerous it is for them with all the guns. Maybe they're just trying to make their job seem more glamorous, and they begrudgingly admit that it's all but necessary to carry a sidearm in the wild, but they really seem to loathe it. It seems likely (and makes sense) that each officer has his own opinion, and the lines probably aren't as clear-cut as chief versus officer.
I have the same choices. I called Comcast and complained about the price of 50Mbit and threatened to switch to Qwest 40Mbit (with some imaginary promotion I pulled out of my rear end), and they offered me $40 off the 50Mbit service. They also offered me some better deal to upgrade to 100Mbit, but I wasn't interested since I can't even cap my 50Mbit anymore:( (probably due to increased uptake in the neighborhood).
I think that's pretty much a myth. Nerds aren't anti-social or asocial at all in my experience, but like any other group, they don't want to socialize with people who can't relate to them. Now they may well tend to be introverted, and many may lack social skills, but that's not at all the same as being anti-social.
Some examples that come to mind:
Commenting on Slashdot is a social activity.
LAN parties. (I miss those).
Standing in line for the latest Tolkien flick.
Math club. Chess club. Band. Young Astronauts. (Do they still have that?)
Comic-Con. Def Con.
These are not the pursuits of asocial or anti-social creatures, yet they are the natural habitat of the nerd. Popular culture wants you to believe that if you're not part of their social circle, then you're against socializing in general. Don't believe that crap for a second. Enjoy the company of your fellow nerds!
If deterrents don't work, then neither will checkpoints, because checkpoints are nothing more than deterrents. Send 5 people through, 4 get caught, and one gets a bomb on the plane. I know this. You know this. The TSA knows this. It's nothing more than security theater.
I doubt I would have made it to trial, assuming that the case involved actually got to trial, merely due to my cynicism. One of the lawyers would likely have asked me to leave before the trial started.
This isn't so much for you since you obviously don't give a shit, but for anyone looking to actually serve on a jury, don't spout off about your cynicism and biases when they're screening you -- just give the answers you know they want to hear. Once you're actually on the jury, *that's* when your opinion matters, not before.
2) 30,800(ish) deaths per year is 0.01% of the population, or one in 10,000 people. On the other hand, there are 11,700 people born in the US every day. Not to sound callous, but it's not exactly the plague we're talking about here.
Barack Obama's. I voted for him. I've also written the White House respectfully laying out my position in opposition to these obscene displays of security theater. I urge everyone to do the same. http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact
The TSA is under direct control of the executive branch, the President, and he has full power and authority to curb these actions, but it won't happen without public pressure. (Hint: YOU are the public.)
I have a better idea. As soon as you're selected for enhanced screening, just remove your clothing (all except your man-thong) to save them the trouble. Smile while you get a pat-down. For bonus points, take Cialis before you hit the airport.
You've obviously never had kids, or even thought about it. You don't control their behavior -- you can't. You can exert physical control over their bodies for a few years, and that's about it. You teach them appropriate behavior, and they learn by exhibiting *all sorts* of behavior until they find the one that works, and new circumstances create new pressures. If you're damn good and/or lucky, they'll learn to handle most situations in a socially appropriate way by the time they're 5 or 6, though you'll still have outbursts up to age 10 or so, though some people never learn. Pretending that everything can be solved by "controlling your kid" is the dumbest comment over 3 I've read all day, and is -- perhaps not coincidentally -- the exact same disgusting attitude exhibited by the TSA about passengers in general. "Control them!"
Flying isn't a right. They aren't saying "submit to a search" which would be a clear violation of your rights. They're saying "submit to a search or you can't get on the plane". You have no intrinsic right to get on the plane, they can be put preconditions on your doing so
Really? I don't have the right to engage in a legal business transaction with zero criminal history or court ordered sanctions without consenting to a government search? Do I have the right to walk down the street? Sit on my porch? Where do my rights end, because I was pretty sure it's where your body and property begins, but I'd love to hear the correct definition.
We *do* have an intrinsic right to get on a plane, or train, or bus, or use our feet, because the government does *not* have the right to bar us from those activities. They can put all the preconditions they want on what I can *bring with me*, but the act of (potentially) getting on a plane does not automatically subject me to search and seizure. If the airplane companies themselves want to set a condition for searches, that's between them and me, but it's none of the government's business unless and until I commit a criminal act or plot to commit one, and not before.
Slashdot Mirror
If you watch any of his interviews (twice on the Colbert Report, for example), it's pretty clear that he revels in the attention. He oozes more smug than a coffee shop full of Macbook Pro users who think the J in WWJD stands for Jobs, which is, incidentally, enough smug to power Wikileaks for 3-4 years.
I say this agreeing completely with the philosophy of Wikileaks. It would be nice to have a more affable face on the organization, but nothing's perfect.
Now that I know that, I almost want to order some. I can see it now...
"Honey, why did you order 5 baby chicks?"
"Because I could."
"But what are we going to do with them?"
"I haven't thought that far ahead..."
If not, try getting really close and saying "F" or "E".
what's the rush in breading children?
Most women can't stomach children without breading.
The unknown is much more frightening than the known. The Cold War had a known enemy with (mostly) known tactics, though the unknown factor certainly kicked in to high gear during McCarthy's inquisition. (Anyone could be a communist! As if minority political opinions were a) somehow a threat to democracy, not to mention b) unworthy of consideration IN a democracy, no less.)
The "War on Terror" is far more abstract and ambiguous than the Cold War ever was, and the more ambiguous the threat, the more easily otherwise irrational (re)actions can be justified. "They're plotting to destroy us!" Who are "they"? Well, we don't know. How could they possibly destroy us or, in fact, do anything other than bloody our noses? Well, we don't know that either, but we have very active imaginations, and they probably do too!
Maybe it varies, and I try to have as little interaction with law enforcement as is practicable, but if Alaska State Troopers on Discovery is any indication, they do a lot of complaining about how dangerous it is for them with all the guns. Maybe they're just trying to make their job seem more glamorous, and they begrudgingly admit that it's all but necessary to carry a sidearm in the wild, but they really seem to loathe it. It seems likely (and makes sense) that each officer has his own opinion, and the lines probably aren't as clear-cut as chief versus officer.
I have the same choices. I called Comcast and complained about the price of 50Mbit and threatened to switch to Qwest 40Mbit (with some imaginary promotion I pulled out of my rear end), and they offered me $40 off the 50Mbit service. They also offered me some better deal to upgrade to 100Mbit, but I wasn't interested since I can't even cap my 50Mbit anymore :( (probably due to increased uptake in the neighborhood).
I think that's pretty much a myth. Nerds aren't anti-social or asocial at all in my experience, but like any other group, they don't want to socialize with people who can't relate to them. Now they may well tend to be introverted, and many may lack social skills, but that's not at all the same as being anti-social.
Some examples that come to mind:
Commenting on Slashdot is a social activity.
LAN parties. (I miss those).
Standing in line for the latest Tolkien flick.
Math club. Chess club. Band. Young Astronauts. (Do they still have that?)
Comic-Con. Def Con.
These are not the pursuits of asocial or anti-social creatures, yet they are the natural habitat of the nerd. Popular culture wants you to believe that if you're not part of their social circle, then you're against socializing in general. Don't believe that crap for a second. Enjoy the company of your fellow nerds!
If deterrents don't work, then neither will checkpoints, because checkpoints are nothing more than deterrents. Send 5 people through, 4 get caught, and one gets a bomb on the plane. I know this. You know this. The TSA knows this. It's nothing more than security theater.
I doubt I would have made it to trial, assuming that the case involved actually got to trial, merely due to my cynicism. One of the lawyers would likely have asked me to leave before the trial started.
This isn't so much for you since you obviously don't give a shit, but for anyone looking to actually serve on a jury, don't spout off about your cynicism and biases when they're screening you -- just give the answers you know they want to hear. Once you're actually on the jury, *that's* when your opinion matters, not before.
Tell that to the people in the Wii thread.
It's idiotic to advocate two diametrically opposed views, yes.
"there will never be a technological device that imparts common sense when it comes to safe driving" ...but we're going to try to implement one anyway.
Of course it's necessary. How many first world countries function without a military? Right, none.
The actions of the military, now that's another argument altogether.
Uh, yeah.. that's way easier than just disconnecting the switch.
Also the brake light doesn't come on when you use the parking brake. I seriously hope you do not have a license.
Less.
The actual number of deaths is twice that, but it's still irrelevant because
1) It's been decreasing every year for the past 5 years despite the "epidemic" of cell phone usage:
2005 39,252
2006 38,648
2007 37,435
2008 34,172
2009 30,797
http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx
A 25% reduction over 5 years. Not too shabby.
2) 30,800(ish) deaths per year is 0.01% of the population, or one in 10,000 people. On the other hand, there are 11,700 people born in the US every day. Not to sound callous, but it's not exactly the plague we're talking about here.
Unfortunately, intelligence is not a prerequisite for being in charge of anything in this country.
I think even the PS2 is pushing it. Maybe the PS1.
I'll see your nonsense and raise you a poppycock.
28347-2349871+236
or
4^2
The latter is more advanced, but the former is much easier to get wrong.
Barack Obama's. I voted for him. I've also written the White House respectfully laying out my position in opposition to these obscene displays of security theater. I urge everyone to do the same. http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact
The TSA is under direct control of the executive branch, the President, and he has full power and authority to curb these actions, but it won't happen without public pressure. (Hint: YOU are the public.)
I have a better idea. As soon as you're selected for enhanced screening, just remove your clothing (all except your man-thong) to save them the trouble. Smile while you get a pat-down. For bonus points, take Cialis before you hit the airport.
It will happen. DUIs already excuse checkpoints; car bombs will only further reinforce the unconstitutional practice.
You've obviously never had kids, or even thought about it. You don't control their behavior -- you can't. You can exert physical control over their bodies for a few years, and that's about it. You teach them appropriate behavior, and they learn by exhibiting *all sorts* of behavior until they find the one that works, and new circumstances create new pressures. If you're damn good and/or lucky, they'll learn to handle most situations in a socially appropriate way by the time they're 5 or 6, though you'll still have outbursts up to age 10 or so, though some people never learn. Pretending that everything can be solved by "controlling your kid" is the dumbest comment over 3 I've read all day, and is -- perhaps not coincidentally -- the exact same disgusting attitude exhibited by the TSA about passengers in general. "Control them!"
Flying isn't a right. They aren't saying "submit to a search" which would be a clear violation of your rights. They're saying "submit to a search or you can't get on the plane". You have no intrinsic right to get on the plane, they can be put preconditions on your doing so
Really? I don't have the right to engage in a legal business transaction with zero criminal history or court ordered sanctions without consenting to a government search? Do I have the right to walk down the street? Sit on my porch? Where do my rights end, because I was pretty sure it's where your body and property begins, but I'd love to hear the correct definition.
We *do* have an intrinsic right to get on a plane, or train, or bus, or use our feet, because the government does *not* have the right to bar us from those activities. They can put all the preconditions they want on what I can *bring with me*, but the act of (potentially) getting on a plane does not automatically subject me to search and seizure. If the airplane companies themselves want to set a condition for searches, that's between them and me, but it's none of the government's business unless and until I commit a criminal act or plot to commit one, and not before.
Judging by his other obsession -- denying human rights for gays -- he's probably raising a terror baby as we speak.