That's actually a slippery slope. For example if you're in someone's holiday snap of a landmark should you be allowed to restrict that person's ability to publish it? What if it's not you or your family but your a photograph of your property?
I would rather the publisher be forced to give you a portion of any sales (not profits! sales) of the photo.
The only exceptions are: 1) A circumstance where a photograph may be defamatory or lessen someone's reputation. 2) Where the photograph is taken without the person's knowledge.
I'm thinking of a doctor's likeness used to advertise brand X medicine, or a famous person's home sex tape.
Tell them the truth. That you're not coping and need to re-prioritise.
If they're family offer to help them learn where to get the information they need, but not to solve their problems. Suggest a good computer course and tell them this is what they need if they want to learn. Make it someone else's problem (perhaps a community college teacher) without it becoming nasty. If it's really close family I'd set up once or twice a month where I'd help but only then and only pre-arranged not last minute.
If they're a customer I agree that you should up their rates and not do it for free. If that doesn't mean you get less calls, at least you'll have more cash. The other thing you can do is screen your calls and only get back to them after 2-3 days. They'll either find someone else or you'll get to arrange the times to something more suitable.
Copyright and Trademark are two completely different forms of IP law.
1) Copyright is about giving control of who may copy a work, so that its creator may profit from it without competition from people who did not toil to create the work.
2) Trademark is about letting associating a piece of work with the reputation of a company, and allowing a company to identify itself uniquely in the marketplace.
Both systems are broken. In fact the entire idea of "Intellectual Property" - ownership of ideas - is broken. We do need to compensate artists and inventors but not through the restriction of the use of their creations.
For those of you on/. who've said "Copyright and Patent are bad, but Trademark is good" here's a perfect example of why it's so damn broken. People and companies try to claim ownership of the stupidest things.
You're basically talking rubbish, and if that's how you admin your systems good luck to you.
The sysadmin should not know the user's password, and password changes etc. should be audited. If you have to change their password to fix their problem, it should be on the books. You should never be able to impersonate them transparently and whining like a child about the limitations that imposes on you as an admin just shows you have no understanding of security. Life's not always meant to be convenient. You're paid to deal with those inconveniences.
Trust of the sysadmin should only go as far as it has to if security is important. That's nothing personal about not trusting the sysadmin - it protects the sysadmin from being accused of fraud too.
Well why would you bother with a password anyway then? If a sysadmin could just bypass the password and act on behalf of the user if they're not there, the a rogue admin can act as a user and do anything (e.g. transfer money from company accounts) and it would be tracked back to the user.
What you should be doing is what you do now - make sure the user is there if you need to work on their account.
Failing to plan extra time to be more careful (ie. check for bugs) means missing deadlines. Only an incompetent manger, or a dishonest conman setting the team up to fail is going to insist on extra care in coding and/or code review and not put the extra time required on the plan. There's definitely a time vs quality tradeoff but it has nothing to do with missing deadlines since they should be set correctly.
Oh for goodness sake I know this is/. but could people be more rude, dismissive and intentionally misrepresentative of other user's comments if they tried??? The complaint was NOT about new features or new anything else but about a lack of functionality to make transition to a totally new interface.
It's this simple. An upgrade should provide you with more features AND be easier to use. You're paying for it, so there should be a benefit. When you have to struggle to get back to where you started, the vendor deserves criticism.
Re:Invest in People, Not Skills
on
Head Rush Ajax
·
· Score: 1
You could be God's Own Lead Developer, but if all you know is COBOL
You're right, I don't think I'd hire Azreal, angel of death to program my system in COBOL.
I can't get speech recognition accurate enough that I can type out a damn letter without having to proof read it for sometimes comically embarassing mistakes, and now they reckon you can code with it? I'd hate to be the test code-monkey they tried this on out on. What's the bet they manage to sell it to some PHB though:-)
Yeah, thanks, I know what an analogy is. I'm not saying you can't use it, just that it doesn't sway me because I don't think it's a valid reductio ad absurdum of the position I'm taking. I don't think it makes the point at all.
You know what if you refuse to acknowledge that it's valid that's fine. Others out there will understand it.
First of all, if all goes according to plan, the operator is alerted that it was a drill before any armed personnel are even brought into the situation
Well obviously the whole reason there was a story on/. is that everything didn't go to plan now did it? Who's using a less than valid argument there?
Further, suppose that the system DOES fail and armed personnel are brought in to contain the situation. These people have been trained NOT to kill people
And again you're just burying your head in the sand and saying things that are factually untrue. We have a situation where armed police and security have, due to 9/11 and the London bombings, received instruction to shoot first and ask questions later when they believe the suspect is capable of detonating a bomb. You just refuse to acknowledge this. That's your problem.
Ignorant of the fact? Thanks for handing these facts down to us from on high. It is absolutely not a fact that online operational training is uniformly always a bad idea. It's an opinion you hold.
I'm not handing this down from on high. I damn well provided a situation where it would be unthinkable to conduct training in an operational setting due to danger (the pilot emergency analogy). You promptly stated that this was invalid and refuse to accept it. You further refuse to acknowledge that there is a danger in this circumstance even when I demonstrate one.
Here's another closer analogy for you. At least in Sydney, when police conduct anti-terrorism training (eg. preparing for the Olympics in 2000, and they did do something again last year if I recall), they will set up a training scenario and actually shut down the terrorist target (last year it was a train station). Everyone will know well in advance there's no real terrorist. Everyone will know what's expected of them and under what circumstances to abort the training.
I'm willing to bet that even if I were to dig up hard evidence that this form of training was not considered appropriate by some other airport security force, you'd malign their logic and tell me that's what makes US security the best. You've basically made up your mind beforehand, regardless of any evidence to the point that you're claiming armed security with guns are not likely to use them if you they believe someone's about to detonate a bomb - a statement which I find naive and absurd. Hence I'm not about to waste my time doing research to try to change your mind. You can add stubborn to ignorant.
Enjoy living in your wonderful fantasy world where security thinking there's a real bomb at an airport is not a dangerous situation.
Some people are have very low needs and are happy with $20,000 and a job they find fully rewarding.
The flaw in that logic is that anyone can get sick without warning. The idea of being poor but happy is a charming but dangerous little fantasy. At the end of the day you need to make sure you can live with yourself and don't hate every waking moment but the fact is most people go to a job to earn a living, and living involves unexpected costs sometimes.
Ok, if you're going to accuse me of trolling, try to remember which of us called the other "ignorant."
I called you ignorant because you are ignorant: You've proven you're totally ignorant of the fact that it's not a good idea to use an operational situation for training. Training should be there so that when things go wrong, you can learn and move on WITHOUT affecting the operational situation adversely. Ignorant is not an insult. We're all ignorant of various things. However ignorance can be dangerous and a person should take steps to inform themself when possible. Had I wished to insult or abuse you I'd have picked a stronger form of abuse.
I still think your airline pilot analogy is completely inappropriate to this situation.
Good for you. I still think it's completely appropriate - it's exaggerated to make the point, but it's very easy to understand. You've got to be able to understand it's not a direct 1:1 comparison. It simply makes the point.
How do you use an offline drill to prepare someone for an event that will be silently slipped in among countless monotonous hours staring at image after image?
You use an offline drill by simulating a sufficient period that the person is caught off guard if they're not paying attention. Guess what though - it costs more.
What's more you can train them not to zone out in an operational situation by giving them an incentive for paying attention. eg. Every time you see a stuffed toy with "Department of Homeland Security" on it, you earn an extra $10. Miss 3 of them and you're given a warning, 10 and you might be put on probabtion or shifted to other duties. It still interfeers twith operations but it's preferable instead of planting fake bomb images in the stream because you can't mistake the situation for a dangerous one.
Look you're entitled to disagree with me, which you've already done, but what gives you the right to tell me what analogy I should be allowed to use in an argument? What gives you the right to dismiss what I've said off hand repeatedly and insist you're right without actually countering my arguments. (If all you wanted to do was deny they're valid you've done that several posts ago).
What happened in London isn't relevent here. They have different procedures, different culture, etc. Just because it can happen in London doesn't prove that it will happen here...Just admit that you don't really have a point and move on with your life.
You're in denial, and you're coming across as unbalanced. If I argue the point you tell me it's not relevant. If I point out your personal attacks don't add to the argument, or flaws in your logic you attack me for not sticking to the point. The reason I don't have a point in your view is that you've got your hands over your ears and are shouting "la la la" at the top of your voice.
IT staff will always be needed, but that doesn't mean they'll always be well paid. A lot of necessary professions are poorly paid: Janitor, garbage man, bus/truck driver etc. Some like bus driver even require some skill. What's more these are skills that can't be outsourced. Your argument would suggest picking one of these would be a good career move.
It appears to be very dependent on the length of the article as well with short ones being deemed inauthentic. I passed my astronomy masters papers through it, and it did well predicting they were genuine (scores of 80%-96%), except for a short 4 page proposal which it said was fake (scored around 46%). However for the papers that passed if I just put the abstract in that would fail.
Notice I said one such incident, which anyone with any reading comprehension at all would understand to mean 'name one incident where someone was shot by US TSA personal because of a false positive for explosives detection.'
Go and re-read what you wrote. It was intentionally vague. Turning around and being insulting doesn't suddenly make it clear.
Its completely relevent. You do remember this line from your previous post, right? "In this case no one was hurt but they do shoot suspected suicide bombers if you haven't heard."
Why do you assume the first response of all screens would be to shoot the suspected bomber? Do cops always shot first? Or do they attempt other methods of stopping a suspect first?
Things go wrong when people think their lives are in jeapoardy and the powers that be have decided that a shoot first and ask questions later approach to terrorism is for the greater good. That's on record. Go look it up. That's exactly what the orders were for the London plain clothes police that shot man in the London underground. Six or seven bullets to the head. It's not impossible. It's not unheard of. It has happened. Now it hasn't happened in a US airport and baggage handlers haven't been involved. But add enough situations where it's got the potential to occur and it eventually will.
In this case I didn't mean baggage handlers do, but rather that airport security and the authorities are inclined to do so. If you're suspected of having a bomb, the baggage inspectors don't have to be the ones to shoot you. Try airport security or the FBI or an air marshall - you're just as dead.
I'm not the one jumping to conclusions. I read everything you wrote up the thread.
Well you certainly didn't read about my pilot analogy because you attacked me with a clarification I'd already made elsewhere. Maybe not directly up this particular line but definitely in response to my own grandparent post.
Take a look how you're coming off. You seem to think there's so much danger in the situation in the article that they'd just shoot first all the time. Yet you present NO facts whatsoever to support that fear. You keep mentioning how dangerous it is to put in fake bomb images, yet provide nothing to back up that it is dangerous. You instead say that they don't fake emgergencies on an actual flight to backup your argument. Its pretty clear you're trying to say its just as dangerous to have the test imagines during screening as it would be to have a mock emergency on an actual flight.
I didn't say it's JUST as dangerous. I just said it's dangerous and presented another situation where you don't want to make the drills part of real operations. I was making a point. You're the one that's blown it out of proportion and decided to be literal about it.
You're right about one thing though; I don't know you, so I can only infur your motives from what you posted. You never provided any other way to interperate your posts either, you just attempt to bash me.
That's very funny - _I_ just bashed _you_. You didn't even take the time to read what I wrote and just decided my point of view was invalid and had to be ridiculued. You never bothered to try to understand what I was saying and there are other ways to interpret (sorry interperate) what you said.
Ok, maybe you're not advocating no drilling at all, but what I meant is you're suggesting no effective drilling.
Keep on moving the goal posts then. You have no interest in the argument, and are just trying to get me to react.
Once again I refer you to the airline transport pilot example. You do not just cut an engine out on a real 747 full of passengers in mid air. You simulate an engine failure on a simulator where no one can get hurt. This isn't ineffective and doesn't make the 747 pilot lazy when it comes to the real thing. Something similar can be arranged for these baggage inspectors.
Name one such incident that occured here in the US (since this bug only applies to US screeners).
Name one incident where someone was wrongfully shot in the US? You're joking right?
Or are you saying that since no US screener ever shot anyone, this is irrelevant. Nice technique: define a group or situation small enough and then put the onus on me to go dig up information for you on anything similar because you know it's not worth that much of my time, and because it's not an exact match the argument is artificially weakened. Agreed, and thats not what I said, is it? I never said they were always awful, nor did I say they should always be avoided.
Your exact words were: "Analogies are almost always awful, and should be avoided whenever possible.". You're either thick, or you don't remember what you say, or you're trying to be clever with semantics when you know perfectly well that was the intent of what you said. Any way I look at it I see a troll.
Your argument won't say me because you didn't even comprehend what I had said. Stop trying to rewrite what I wrote; it just makes you look like an ass, because my actual statements are there for everyone else to read.
I comprehend your argument, it's just ridiculous and ill thought out. Now you can add abusive to troll.
You did however continue you with them. I don't respond to every single post everyone makes on this site; I picked your analogy because it was an exceptionally poor one.
My analogy was made in the context of another post where I detailed exactly how pilots are drilled using a simulator. If you could be bothered to read the rest of what I'd written you'd have understood that and the analogy would have made more sense. Instead you didn't even read my other posts to understand the concepts. Remarkable for someone who repeatedly accuses me of not understanding their own posts. What's next "I know I am but what are you"? How old are you? 3?
First, your the hypothetical situtation you propose is fundamentally different than the one the article discusses. The difference is the risk involved with having a false bomb image come up in a screening vs. simulating an emergency on a real flight. had you picked an analogy with similar risks, it would have been more valid.
How do I argue this with you when you refuse to accept a risk that's obvious? Security at airports isn't equiped with firearms just for show. If they think you've got a bomb and you may be in a position to set it off your life isn't worth a thing.
Second, you purposefully chose 'emergency on a plane in flight' to provoke emotions of fear and panic.
Now you're telling me why I chose something as if you could presume to read my mind you arrogant troll. You don't know me and you don't know my motives so don't presume to. Once again read the rest of what I wrote before you jump to unjustified reactionary and childish conclusions.
So because a drill might not be properly identified, we shouldn't have them? That is what you are suggesting, and that's absurd.
That is not what I'm suggesting so you're either failing to understand what I'm saying or misrepresenting it on purpose. Which is it? What I said is that drills do need to be identified as such IN ADVANCE, and that normal operations should not be used for a drill.
These people need to be able to do their job in a situation where it's *not* a drill.
Exactly. Which is why the drill should be separate to the job. It should not interfeer with normal operations.
What do you suggest, they flash a little sign "this image is a test and contains a bomb" over the test images?
Now what you're saying is ridiculous because it's basically what was done but the message flashed afterwards. It's just as prone to error.
No I suggest one day every set period of time the staff are taken somewhere for a half day or a day or so and tested. This shouldn't be at their usual station.
Huh? How did you get a high score on this comment? You basically say you have a key requirement of Chinese and you're suprised that you find it easier to find candidates in China? Like it or not English is currently a dominant world language (in terms of the number of places the language is a primary language, or spoken by the majority.). Chinese isn't. Hindi isn't. English is. When that changes (and it may well change) then and only then should you complain that people aren't speaking the dominant language.
What company are you hiring for? I want to avoid it.
You could still make Maccas food! Anyway I read that in Japan at one stage some company had come up with a way to recycle human waste into food...mmmm yummy. I've always hated that phrase. If life hands you a piece of crap you don't do well in life by calling it a slice of sunshine. Dellusional does not equal prosperous.
You are ignorant, your attitude is dangerous and foolish.
Drills (fire and other) have their risks when they're not represented as such. People are not going to be c calm and rational if they think their lives are in danger. People can get trampled, have arms or legs broken, equipment can be damaged etc. That's why usually you're told that a fire drill is just a drill.
As for people being gunned down, how about the man in britain who was just trying to catch a train, but happened to come out of the same building as some terrorist suspect. They thought he might be a suicide bomber so plain clothed police gunned him down. (Six or more bullets to the head) without identifying themselves and without taking pause to work out what's happening.
If you think someone's got the ability to set off a bomb immediately do you think they're just going to be politely questioned? What planet do you live on????
ARRRRGHHHHH! That's my goddamn point! You don't use a real dangerous operational situation for training purposes! You use a simulator for pilot training when it comes to abnormal operations. Similarly you should have a separate training situation for these airport security inspectors, not just random testing during normal operations. Read the rest of the thread before you judge what I said!
Slashdot Mirror
That's actually a slippery slope. For example if you're in someone's holiday snap of a landmark should you be allowed to restrict that person's ability to publish it? What if it's not you or your family but your a photograph of your property?
I would rather the publisher be forced to give you a portion of any sales (not profits! sales) of the photo.
The only exceptions are:
1) A circumstance where a photograph may be defamatory or lessen someone's reputation.
2) Where the photograph is taken without the person's knowledge.
I'm thinking of a doctor's likeness used to advertise brand X medicine, or a famous person's home sex tape.
Tell them the truth. That you're not coping and need to re-prioritise.
If they're family offer to help them learn where to get the information they need, but not to solve their problems. Suggest a good computer course and tell them this is what they need if they want to learn. Make it someone else's problem (perhaps a community college teacher) without it becoming nasty. If it's really close family I'd set up once or twice a month where I'd help but only then and only pre-arranged not last minute.
If they're a customer I agree that you should up their rates and not do it for free. If that doesn't mean you get less calls, at least you'll have more cash. The other thing you can do is screen your calls and only get back to them after 2-3 days. They'll either find someone else or you'll get to arrange the times to something more suitable.
Copyright and Trademark are two completely different forms of IP law.
/. who've said "Copyright and Patent are bad, but Trademark is good" here's a perfect example of why it's so damn broken. People and companies try to claim ownership of the stupidest things.
1) Copyright is about giving control of who may copy a work, so that its creator may profit from it without competition from people who did not toil to create the work.
2) Trademark is about letting associating a piece of work with the reputation of a company, and allowing a company to identify itself uniquely in the marketplace.
Both systems are broken. In fact the entire idea of "Intellectual Property" - ownership of ideas - is broken. We do need to compensate artists and inventors but not through the restriction of the use of their creations.
For those of you on
You're basically talking rubbish, and if that's how you admin your systems good luck to you.
The sysadmin should not know the user's password, and password changes etc. should be audited. If you have to change their password to fix their problem, it should be on the books. You should never be able to impersonate them transparently and whining like a child about the limitations that imposes on you as an admin just shows you have no understanding of security. Life's not always meant to be convenient. You're paid to deal with those inconveniences.
Trust of the sysadmin should only go as far as it has to if security is important. That's nothing personal about not trusting the sysadmin - it protects the sysadmin from being accused of fraud too.
Well why would you bother with a password anyway then? If a sysadmin could just bypass the password and act on behalf of the user if they're not there, the a rogue admin can act as a user and do anything (e.g. transfer money from company accounts) and it would be tracked back to the user.
What you should be doing is what you do now - make sure the user is there if you need to work on their account.
being more careful can mean missing deadlines
Failing to plan extra time to be more careful (ie. check for bugs) means missing deadlines. Only an incompetent manger, or a dishonest conman setting the team up to fail is going to insist on extra care in coding and/or code review and not put the extra time required on the plan. There's definitely a time vs quality tradeoff but it has nothing to do with missing deadlines since they should be set correctly.
Oh for goodness sake I know this is /. but could people be more rude, dismissive and intentionally misrepresentative of other user's comments if they tried??? The complaint was NOT about new features or new anything else but about a lack of functionality to make transition to a totally new interface.
It's this simple. An upgrade should provide you with more features AND be easier to use. You're paying for it, so there should be a benefit. When you have to struggle to get back to where you started, the vendor deserves criticism.
You could be God's Own Lead Developer, but if all you know is COBOL
You're right, I don't think I'd hire Azreal, angel of death to program my system in COBOL.
I can't get speech recognition accurate enough that I can type out a damn letter without having to proof read it for sometimes comically embarassing mistakes, and now they reckon you can code with it? I'd hate to be the test code-monkey they tried this on out on. What's the bet they manage to sell it to some PHB though :-)
ou'd have read that it is NOT compulsory to carry the ID card in question at all times
For how long though?
Yeah, thanks, I know what an analogy is. I'm not saying you can't use it, just that it doesn't sway me because I don't think it's a valid reductio ad absurdum of the position I'm taking. I don't think it makes the point at all.
/. is that everything didn't go to plan now did it? Who's using a less than valid argument there?
You know what if you refuse to acknowledge that it's valid that's fine. Others out there will understand it.
First of all, if all goes according to plan, the operator is alerted that it was a drill before any armed personnel are even brought into the situation
Well obviously the whole reason there was a story on
Further, suppose that the system DOES fail and armed personnel are brought in to contain the situation. These people have been trained NOT to kill people
And again you're just burying your head in the sand and saying things that are factually untrue. We have a situation where armed police and security have, due to 9/11 and the London bombings, received instruction to shoot first and ask questions later when they believe the suspect is capable of detonating a bomb. You just refuse to acknowledge this. That's your problem.
Ignorant of the fact? Thanks for handing these facts down to us from on high. It is absolutely not a fact that online operational training is uniformly always a bad idea. It's an opinion you hold.
I'm not handing this down from on high. I damn well provided a situation where it would be unthinkable to conduct training in an operational setting due to danger (the pilot emergency analogy). You promptly stated that this was invalid and refuse to accept it. You further refuse to acknowledge that there is a danger in this circumstance even when I demonstrate one.
Here's another closer analogy for you. At least in Sydney, when police conduct anti-terrorism training (eg. preparing for the Olympics in 2000, and they did do something again last year if I recall), they will set up a training scenario and actually shut down the terrorist target (last year it was a train station). Everyone will know well in advance there's no real terrorist. Everyone will know what's expected of them and under what circumstances to abort the training.
I'm willing to bet that even if I were to dig up hard evidence that this form of training was not considered appropriate by some other airport security force, you'd malign their logic and tell me that's what makes US security the best. You've basically made up your mind beforehand, regardless of any evidence to the point that you're claiming armed security with guns are not likely to use them if you they believe someone's about to detonate a bomb - a statement which I find naive and absurd. Hence I'm not about to waste my time doing research to try to change your mind. You can add stubborn to ignorant.
Enjoy living in your wonderful fantasy world where security thinking there's a real bomb at an airport is not a dangerous situation.
Some people are have very low needs and are happy with $20,000 and a job they find fully rewarding.
The flaw in that logic is that anyone can get sick without warning. The idea of being poor but happy is a charming but dangerous little fantasy. At the end of the day you need to make sure you can live with yourself and don't hate every waking moment but the fact is most people go to a job to earn a living, and living involves unexpected costs sometimes.
Ok, if you're going to accuse me of trolling, try to remember which of us called the other "ignorant."
I called you ignorant because you are ignorant: You've proven you're totally ignorant of the fact that it's not a good idea to use an operational situation for training. Training should be there so that when things go wrong, you can learn and move on WITHOUT affecting the operational situation adversely. Ignorant is not an insult. We're all ignorant of various things. However ignorance can be dangerous and a person should take steps to inform themself when possible. Had I wished to insult or abuse you I'd have picked a stronger form of abuse.
I still think your airline pilot analogy is completely inappropriate to this situation.
Good for you. I still think it's completely appropriate - it's exaggerated to make the point, but it's very easy to understand. You've got to be able to understand it's not a direct 1:1 comparison. It simply makes the point.
How do you use an offline drill to prepare someone for an event that will be silently slipped in among countless monotonous hours staring at image after image?
You use an offline drill by simulating a sufficient period that the person is caught off guard if they're not paying attention. Guess what though - it costs more.
What's more you can train them not to zone out in an operational situation by giving them an incentive for paying attention. eg. Every time you see a stuffed toy with "Department of Homeland Security" on it, you earn an extra $10. Miss 3 of them and you're given a warning, 10 and you might be put on probabtion or shifted to other duties. It still interfeers twith operations but it's preferable instead of planting fake bomb images in the stream because you can't mistake the situation for a dangerous one.
Look you're entitled to disagree with me, which you've already done, but what gives you the right to tell me what analogy I should be allowed to use in an argument? What gives you the right to dismiss what I've said off hand repeatedly and insist you're right without actually countering my arguments. (If all you wanted to do was deny they're valid you've done that several posts ago).
What happened in London isn't relevent here. They have different procedures, different culture, etc. Just because it can happen in London doesn't prove that it will happen here...Just admit that you don't really have a point and move on with your life.
You're in denial, and you're coming across as unbalanced. If I argue the point you tell me it's not relevant. If I point out your personal attacks don't add to the argument, or flaws in your logic you attack me for not sticking to the point. The reason I don't have a point in your view is that you've got your hands over your ears and are shouting "la la la" at the top of your voice.
Go away troll.
...and what's the term for a blocked CPU? Constipated???
IT staff will always be needed, but that doesn't mean they'll always be well paid. A lot of necessary professions are poorly paid: Janitor, garbage man, bus/truck driver etc. Some like bus driver even require some skill. What's more these are skills that can't be outsourced. Your argument would suggest picking one of these would be a good career move.
It appears to be very dependent on the length of the article as well with short ones being deemed inauthentic. I passed my astronomy masters papers through it, and it did well predicting they were genuine (scores of 80%-96%), except for a short 4 page proposal which it said was fake (scored around 46%). However for the papers that passed if I just put the abstract in that would fail.
Notice I said one such incident, which anyone with any reading comprehension at all would understand to mean 'name one incident where someone was shot by US TSA personal because of a false positive for explosives detection.'
Go and re-read what you wrote. It was intentionally vague. Turning around and being insulting doesn't suddenly make it clear.
Its completely relevent. You do remember this line from your previous post, right? "In this case no one was hurt but they do shoot suspected suicide bombers if you haven't heard."
Why do you assume the first response of all screens would be to shoot the suspected bomber? Do cops always shot first? Or do they attempt other methods of stopping a suspect first?
Things go wrong when people think their lives are in jeapoardy and the powers that be have decided that a shoot first and ask questions later approach to terrorism is for the greater good. That's on record. Go look it up. That's exactly what the orders were for the London plain clothes police that shot man in the London underground. Six or seven bullets to the head. It's not impossible. It's not unheard of. It has happened. Now it hasn't happened in a US airport and baggage handlers haven't been involved. But add enough situations where it's got the potential to occur and it eventually will.
In this case I didn't mean baggage handlers do, but rather that airport security and the authorities are inclined to do so. If you're suspected of having a bomb, the baggage inspectors don't have to be the ones to shoot you. Try airport security or the FBI or an air marshall - you're just as dead.
I'm not the one jumping to conclusions. I read everything you wrote up the thread.
Well you certainly didn't read about my pilot analogy because you attacked me with a clarification I'd already made elsewhere. Maybe not directly up this particular line but definitely in response to my own grandparent post.
Take a look how you're coming off. You seem to think there's so much danger in the situation in the article that they'd just shoot first all the time. Yet you present NO facts whatsoever to support that fear. You keep mentioning how dangerous it is to put in fake bomb images, yet provide nothing to back up that it is dangerous. You instead say that they don't fake emgergencies on an actual flight to backup your argument. Its pretty clear you're trying to say its just as dangerous to have the test imagines during screening as it would be to have a mock emergency on an actual flight.
I didn't say it's JUST as dangerous. I just said it's dangerous and presented another situation where you don't want to make the drills part of real operations. I was making a point. You're the one that's blown it out of proportion and decided to be literal about it.
You're right about one thing though; I don't know you, so I can only infur your motives from what you posted. You never provided any other way to interperate your posts either, you just attempt to bash me.
That's very funny - _I_ just bashed _you_. You didn't even take the time to read what I wrote and just decided my point of view was invalid and had to be ridiculued. You never bothered to try to understand what I was saying and there are other ways to interpret (sorry interperate) what you said.
Have a nice life.
Ok, maybe you're not advocating no drilling at all, but what I meant is you're suggesting no effective drilling.
Keep on moving the goal posts then. You have no interest in the argument, and are just trying to get me to react.
Once again I refer you to the airline transport pilot example. You do not just cut an engine out on a real 747 full of passengers in mid air. You simulate an engine failure on a simulator where no one can get hurt. This isn't ineffective and doesn't make the 747 pilot lazy when it comes to the real thing. Something similar can be arranged for these baggage inspectors.
Name one such incident that occured here in the US (since this bug only applies to US screeners).
Name one incident where someone was wrongfully shot in the US? You're joking right?
Or are you saying that since no US screener ever shot anyone, this is irrelevant. Nice technique: define a group or situation small enough and then put the onus on me to go dig up information for you on anything similar because you know it's not worth that much of my time, and because it's not an exact match the argument is artificially weakened.
Agreed, and thats not what I said, is it? I never said they were always awful, nor did I say they should always be avoided.
Your exact words were: "Analogies are almost always awful, and should be avoided whenever possible.". You're either thick, or you don't remember what you say, or you're trying to be clever with semantics when you know perfectly well that was the intent of what you said. Any way I look at it I see a troll.
Your argument won't say me because you didn't even comprehend what I had said. Stop trying to rewrite what I wrote; it just makes you look like an ass, because my actual statements are there for everyone else to read.
I comprehend your argument, it's just ridiculous and ill thought out. Now you can add abusive to troll.
You did however continue you with them. I don't respond to every single post everyone makes on this site; I picked your analogy because it was an exceptionally poor one.
My analogy was made in the context of another post where I detailed exactly how pilots are drilled using a simulator. If you could be bothered to read the rest of what I'd written you'd have understood that and the analogy would have made more sense. Instead you didn't even read my other posts to understand the concepts. Remarkable for someone who repeatedly accuses me of not understanding their own posts. What's next "I know I am but what are you"? How old are you? 3?
First, your the hypothetical situtation you propose is fundamentally different than the one the article discusses. The difference is the risk involved with having a false bomb image come up in a screening vs. simulating an emergency on a real flight. had you picked an analogy with similar risks, it would have been more valid.
How do I argue this with you when you refuse to accept a risk that's obvious? Security at airports isn't equiped with firearms just for show. If they think you've got a bomb and you may be in a position to set it off your life isn't worth a thing.
Second, you purposefully chose 'emergency on a plane in flight' to provoke emotions of fear and panic.
Now you're telling me why I chose something as if you could presume to read my mind you arrogant troll. You don't know me and you don't know my motives so don't presume to. Once again read the rest of what I wrote before you jump to unjustified reactionary and childish conclusions.
So because a drill might not be properly identified, we shouldn't have them? That is what you are suggesting, and that's absurd.
That is not what I'm suggesting so you're either failing to understand what I'm saying or misrepresenting it on purpose. Which is it? What I said is that drills do need to be identified as such IN ADVANCE, and that normal operations should not be used for a drill.
These people need to be able to do their job in a situation where it's *not* a drill.
Exactly. Which is why the drill should be separate to the job. It should not interfeer with normal operations.
What do you suggest, they flash a little sign "this image is a test and contains a bomb" over the test images?
Now what you're saying is ridiculous because it's basically what was done but the message flashed afterwards. It's just as prone to error.
No I suggest one day every set period of time the staff are taken somewhere for a half day or a day or so and tested. This shouldn't be at their usual station.
Huh? How did you get a high score on this comment? You basically say you have a key requirement of Chinese and you're suprised that you find it easier to find candidates in China? Like it or not English is currently a dominant world language (in terms of the number of places the language is a primary language, or spoken by the majority.). Chinese isn't. Hindi isn't. English is. When that changes (and it may well change) then and only then should you complain that people aren't speaking the dominant language.
What company are you hiring for? I want to avoid it.
You could still make Maccas food! Anyway I read that in Japan at one stage some company had come up with a way to recycle human waste into food...mmmm yummy. I've always hated that phrase. If life hands you a piece of crap you don't do well in life by calling it a slice of sunshine. Dellusional does not equal prosperous.
You are ignorant, your attitude is dangerous and foolish.
Drills (fire and other) have their risks when they're not represented as such. People are not going to be c calm and rational if they think their lives are in danger. People can get trampled, have arms or legs broken, equipment can be damaged etc. That's why usually you're told that a fire drill is just a drill.
As for people being gunned down, how about the man in britain who was just trying to catch a train, but happened to come out of the same building as some terrorist suspect. They thought he might be a suicide bomber so plain clothed police gunned him down. (Six or more bullets to the head) without identifying themselves and without taking pause to work out what's happening.
If you think someone's got the ability to set off a bomb immediately do you think they're just going to be politely questioned? What planet do you live on????
ARRRRGHHHHH! That's my goddamn point! You don't use a real dangerous operational situation for training purposes! You use a simulator for pilot training when it comes to abnormal operations. Similarly you should have a separate training situation for these airport security inspectors, not just random testing during normal operations. Read the rest of the thread before you judge what I said!