On flight 93 they did lock the cockpit door, but the stewardess let the hijackers in.. because she figured it was a "normal" hijacking and would be over soon if she just complied.
As I don't even understand WTF they've done, I'm gunna go ahead and suggest that this isn't the technology I've been waiting for.
Problem: it is now possible for people to take the DNA sequence for a nasty virus off the web and send it into a DNA synthesis company, pay the $20,000 and get vials and vials of the virus sent to them in under a month. And next year the price will drop to $10,000.. and the year after it will drop to $5,000.. and the year after it will drop to $2500.. and the year after it will drop to $1250, etc.
One Solution: tag each strand of DNA that is synthesized with an "batch number" by incorporating a pattern of artificial bases that will be replicated each time the DNA sequence is replicated. So if someone gets a nasty virus synthesized and puts it in the subway or something then you can read the batch number and trace who bought the DNA.
The people didn't "allow" themselves to victimized. They went in with the expectation that this would be like any other hijacking up to that time. And let them selves be a victim of it because they figured it would be over soon. In other words, they failed to take action because they believed no action was necessary.. but if they had always taken action then no hijackings, ever, would have occurred because hijackers would have known that airline passengers are not willing to be victims. As it is now, airline passengers are willing to be victimized before they even get on the plane!
1. the sole of a shoe can contain any significant amount of explosive 2. that walking on such a shoe would not cause the explosive to go off 3. that airport scanner technology can tell the difference between explosives and leather
None of which are the case. The only thing you could maybe fit in the sole of a very hard soled shoe would be a knife.. which hopefully people realize doesn't give a would-be hijacker any more of an advantage than being unarmed - if 50 scared passengers rush you, it doesn't matter that you have a knife. And that's what should have been the lesson of 9/11: if you allow yourself to be victimized you will die.. but if you step up and stop hijackers there is no way to hijack a plane.
All in all, I wish the government would just let the market decide. There should be a "no security" terminal where people can catch a plane much as you catch a bus.. buy your ticket, get on the next available flight. If you want to be harrassed, go to the security theater terminal.
Seriously, are you guys fucking blind or what? The BSA goes to court and gets a court order to collect evidence for a civil lawsuit that is likely to be destroyed if they just sequester the evidence.. they then take the court order to the local police and ask them to enforce the court order for them. If the local police refuse they are legally allowed to hire private security and do it themselves.. the court order authorizes it. And it's not just the BSA.. I've know people who were "raided" by former employers because they refused to hand over source code that the company claimed they owned. The fact that federal marshals are taking this on now is probably a good thing.. as least you can expect them to be more professional than private security firms.
Uh huh.. I, unfortunately, spend a lot of time in airports.. I've never once seen someone taking off their shoes with a smile on their face.. there's only one thing you think when they tell you to take your shoes off: "oh my god this is bullshit." If your friend actually thinks there is a sensible reason to scan the shoes of flyers then I suggest you get him some psychological help.
It's an interesting theory but are you aware of anyone who thinks the bullshit we go through at the airport is for anything other than appearances? It's not just geeks and smart asses who know this, it is everyone.
They show up with court orders dude.. do you honestly think people are letting them in to audit their computers without one?
I don't know which is more fucked.. that courts are happy to give private citizens warrants to search the premises of other private citizens or that the police are often more than happy to help them execute the warrants.
Can someone share w/me the "minimal degree of creativity" involved in writing a cease and desist letter, which is not (typically) a form of artistic expression in any way?
If the cease and desist letter were in haiku form, maybe. If it were sung to music, perhaps. But if its purpose is strictly as a utility and legal document, then where is the creative component? Sounds like the argument used to suggest that software has no creative aspect.. or blueprints.. or manuals.. or recipes.
All of which (expect the last one, for some strange reason) are protected by copyright.
and if you can't copyright it you can certainly patent it or make it a trademark or claim it is a trade secret. There's even people claiming they can copyright mere listings of ingredients these days.
No, it doesn't. "Spreading radiation" from ground level is just a nonsensical suggestion. Mass (even radioactive mass) has this property of calling downwards.. I think they still call it gravity.
You've been tricked by Hollywood and CIA bogeymen. A nuke exploded at ground level is about as effective as a big shitload of tnt exploded at ground level.. i.e., not very.
Well, the thing about nukes is that you need a good delivery device.. oh, and they're pretty conspicuous, so you'd need a secret silo too. That's, umm, really a lot of capital investment. That said, if more concerned citizens had access to "the button" then we'd hardly have any threat of military coup would we?
Ahhh, I see, you're one of those people who hears the term "Super-empowered Individual" and thinks of it as a bad thing. Whereas I'm kinda of the opinion that the problem with our society is the dis-empowerment of the individual.
Guess you think concealed-carry licenses are a bad idea too.
In Australia a company or government agency or individual has to state why they are collecting data and what they will use it for, and they are legally prohibited from using it for any other purpose.. oh, and you can demand to see what data they have stored about you and how they are using it and have it erased if you desire. These are called "privacy" laws. So, sounds about the same as Europe.. USA, behind again.
nobody can NOT store your personal data without warning you Well shit, I better warn you right now that I'm not storing your personal data.. that goes for everyone else reading this: I AM NOT STORING YOUR PERSONAL DATA!
Slashdot Mirror
On flight 93 they did lock the cockpit door, but the stewardess let the hijackers in.. because she figured it was a "normal" hijacking and would be over soon if she just complied.
As I don't even understand WTF they've done, I'm gunna go ahead and suggest that this isn't the technology I've been waiting for.
Problem: it is now possible for people to take the DNA sequence for a nasty virus off the web and send it into a DNA synthesis company, pay the $20,000 and get vials and vials of the virus sent to them in under a month. And next year the price will drop to $10,000.. and the year after it will drop to $5,000.. and the year after it will drop to $2500.. and the year after it will drop to $1250, etc.
One Solution: tag each strand of DNA that is synthesized with an "batch number" by incorporating a pattern of artificial bases that will be replicated each time the DNA sequence is replicated. So if someone gets a nasty virus synthesized and puts it in the subway or something then you can read the batch number and trace who bought the DNA.
They didn't step up soon enough to prevent the hijackers from getting into the cockpit.
By the time they finally did something it was too late.
Isn't the fact that it failed and had no chance of success anyway enough?
Or is the mere threat of an impossible bomb a problem.. oh yes, of course it is.
I think you're laboring under the belief that:
1. the sole of a shoe can contain any significant amount of explosive
2. that walking on such a shoe would not cause the explosive to go off
3. that airport scanner technology can tell the difference between explosives and leather
None of which are the case. The only thing you could maybe fit in the sole of a very hard soled shoe would be a knife.. which hopefully people realize doesn't give a would-be hijacker any more of an advantage than being unarmed - if 50 scared passengers rush you, it doesn't matter that you have a knife. And that's what should have been the lesson of 9/11: if you allow yourself to be victimized you will die.. but if you step up and stop hijackers there is no way to hijack a plane.
All in all, I wish the government would just let the market decide. There should be a "no security" terminal where people can catch a plane much as you catch a bus.. buy your ticket, get on the next available flight. If you want to be harrassed, go to the security theater terminal.
Remember how that guy was foiled without the help of scanning and so the scanning of the shoes is completely superfluous?
Seriously, are you guys fucking blind or what? The BSA goes to court and gets a court order to collect evidence for a civil lawsuit that is likely to be destroyed if they just sequester the evidence.. they then take the court order to the local police and ask them to enforce the court order for them. If the local police refuse they are legally allowed to hire private security and do it themselves.. the court order authorizes it. And it's not just the BSA.. I've know people who were "raided" by former employers because they refused to hand over source code that the company claimed they owned. The fact that federal marshals are taking this on now is probably a good thing.. as least you can expect them to be more professional than private security firms.
Uh huh.. I, unfortunately, spend a lot of time in airports.. I've never once seen someone taking off their shoes with a smile on their face.. there's only one thing you think when they tell you to take your shoes off: "oh my god this is bullshit." If your friend actually thinks there is a sensible reason to scan the shoes of flyers then I suggest you get him some psychological help.
It's an interesting theory but are you aware of anyone who thinks the bullshit we go through at the airport is for anything other than appearances? It's not just geeks and smart asses who know this, it is everyone.
It's perfectly legal for them to hire private security if the police are not willing to help.
They show up with court orders dude.. do you honestly think people are letting them in to audit their computers without one?
I don't know which is more fucked.. that courts are happy to give private citizens warrants to search the premises of other private citizens or that the police are often more than happy to help them execute the warrants.
How isn't cooking? (recipes are not copyrightable - for now).
If the cease and desist letter were in haiku form, maybe. If it were sung to music, perhaps. But if its purpose is strictly as a utility and legal document, then where is the creative component? Sounds like the argument used to suggest that software has no creative aspect.. or blueprints.. or manuals.. or recipes.
All of which (expect the last one, for some strange reason) are protected by copyright.
Copyright exists to promote the sciences and the useful arts. And to answer your question, yes, most everyone has forgotten this, if they ever knew.
Umm, it's already copyrighted.. and yes, redistributing email without permission is copyright infringement.
and if you can't copyright it you can certainly patent it or make it a trademark or claim it is a trade secret. There's even people claiming they can copyright mere listings of ingredients these days.
Why would you argue with me? Sounds like you just agreed with me.
No, it doesn't. "Spreading radiation" from ground level is just a nonsensical suggestion. Mass (even radioactive mass) has this property of calling downwards.. I think they still call it gravity.
You've been tricked by Hollywood and CIA bogeymen. A nuke exploded at ground level is about as effective as a big shitload of tnt exploded at ground level.. i.e., not very.
Well, the thing about nukes is that you need a good delivery device.. oh, and they're pretty conspicuous, so you'd need a secret silo too. That's, umm, really a lot of capital investment. That said, if more concerned citizens had access to "the button" then we'd hardly have any threat of military coup would we?
Ahhh, I see, you're one of those people who hears the term "Super-empowered Individual" and thinks of it as a bad thing. Whereas I'm kinda of the opinion that the problem with our society is the dis-empowerment of the individual.
Guess you think concealed-carry licenses are a bad idea too.
You fuck. You ruined by joke damn it. I was going to say "well, if gypsies gave him a soul, and he'd gotten all the brooding out, then yeah, maybe."
:)
Bastard.
In Australia a company or government agency or individual has to state why they are collecting data and what they will use it for, and they are legally prohibited from using it for any other purpose.. oh, and you can demand to see what data they have stored about you and how they are using it and have it erased if you desire. These are called "privacy" laws. So, sounds about the same as Europe.. USA, behind again.
Whew, lucky I got that out of the way.