Additionally, the FCC is mandating that as of July 1, 2005, all digital cable set top boxes MUST include a functional FireWire port, and as of April 1, 2004, must provide a set top box with a working FireWire port on customer request. Of course, this doesn't help if content providers choose to encrypt the content.
Here's hoping we can fight the Broadcast Flag. Unfortunately, I can see a future where our kids think that the only way they can watch what they want to watch, when they want to watch it, and on the device they wish to watch it on, is by illegally downloading it from a P2P network, instead of being able to legally record it and move it around THEMSELVES with equipment THEY BOUGHT from a service THEY PAY FOR in their OWN HOMES.
FireWire wasn't a stupid decision...it was 5C-protected (copy-protected) FireWire that was a stupid decision.
FireWire was probably the best promise of device interconnectivity to ever exist in recent years. But it has been crippled by several things:
1. Content providers/TV/movie/Hollywood's deathly fear of being able to easily interconnect all devices, including computing equipment, via one perfect, digital connection.
2. A bit due to Apple's early ridiculous licensing and logo requirements to use the "FireWire" name. FireWire is the name that would have taken IEEE-1394 the furthest, but thanks to the early bungling, we're now stuck with "FireWire", "DV", "i.Link", "IEEE-1394", "1394"...what's that sir? Oh, yes, they're all really the same thing.
Imagine having ALL of your entertainment equipment, including your computer, connected digitally via one, simple FireWire cable each, all daisy-chained off one another. All able to control one another when necessary, sending meta-data and device control commands, as well as audio, video, and other data over the wire. No ridiculous bundles of cabling. Everything plug and play. Everything "just works". Even Wireless FireWire (yes, there's a spec). (And yes, FireWire has the bandwidth necessary to handle all this and more.)
That was the promise of FireWire. Instead, we're stuck with final output formats like DVI, and HDCP-protected HDMI, 5C FireWire that virtually nothing supports, and the coming Broadcast Flag.
I read a couple articles elsewhere proclaiming "APPLE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR TOUCHWHEEL!!!@" only to find that Apple is responsible for it.
They conceived it, they narrowly specified its behavior, they brought it to market. Just because a contractor was involved that means Apple's "not responsible" for its creation? Apple's responsible more than ever: the corralled the capabilities and efforts necessary to make it a reality.
I forgot one of the neat things about the Jabber server:
While an open IM application can be useful in a defined group or organization for messaging, obviously, a standalone IM application is of limited utility on its own if you're already communicating with people on other IM networks.
This is why Jabber supports "transports", server components that allow seamless connectivity with AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, MSN, SMS services, and even IRC..
For those unaware, iChat has always used the Jabber protocols for its local (Rendezvous-initiated) messaging. This just dusts off and reveals full-fledged support for Jabber.
Why Jabber? Because Jabber is a completely open IM standard. The IETF has accepted the core Jabber protocols and has standardized them as XMPP, an open IM protocol.
I hate to repeat this, but Bush didn't "lie" about anything. The intelligence gathering capabilities of:
- The US, - The UN, - Most of Europe, including the UK, France, and Germany; - Russia; - Some of Iraq's neighbors; - Iraq and Saddam Hussein himself;
believed Iraq to be in possession of significant quantities of WMD.
This is because:
- The US had long tracked Iraq's possession of WMD, considering we provided them with much of that capability (Let's take another brief tangential stroll down the lane of liberal hypocrisy: that the US once supported Saddam against Iran, and provided Iraq with some of its WMD capabilities is something often bandied about. Classically, it removes accountability for any actions in the intermediary, similar to blaming society wholly for the ills of an inner city youth, or a gun manufacturer for the actions of a criminal with a gun. Hypocritically, it ignores the position held by many in this same camp when Madison's own Progressive Magazine published The Secrets of the H-Bomb some 25 years ago, arguing vehemently [with a different agenda, of course] that the secrets of such weapons cannot and should not be kept by the Big Bad Government, because anyone who wanted to figure them out ultimately would anyway. And, indeed, that the blame would rest with the people who used them inappropriately, not the science behind them. Now, apparently, the US is directly to blame for Iraq having WMD. [Even though it didn't have any WMD...] See why it's difficult to keep up?)
- The UN had closely tracked Iraq's WMD capability for over a decade
- As a matter of course, most of Europe had done the same
- When Hussein accused UN weapons inspectors of being US spies in 1998, at which point the UN pulled the inspectors due to lack of effectiveness, Iraq was known by the UN to be in possession of significant quantities of WMD (e.g., amounts in the thousands of tons). Are we to believe that after all UN oversight was gone, that Iraq secretly and silently destroyed ALL of its WMD capability, without the knowledge of Hussein himself - who believed he was INCREASING his investment in WMD - and all without any records or evidence of such destruction? There are over 740 tons of Sarin alone unaccounted for. 740 tons out of a known 920 tons. Eighty percent. Where is it? (Well, it's in the Sudan, Libya, Syria, who knows?)
- This, of course, ignores the fact that Iraq was egregiously in violation, numerous times, of several binding UNSEC resolutions; resolutions which member nations are required, obligated, and compelled to enforce by the UN charter. The type of enforcement, of course, is up for debate; however, it's clear that the previous course of action was not only not working, it had gotten worse, and ultimately utterly failed. While it also, according to the left, was responsible for over half a million Iraqi deaths.
Let's also not forget the *650,000 tons* (yes, you read that right) of non-WMD UN-banned weapons found by coalition forces in Iraq. 650,000 tons, and counting.
Since it seems that you're sincere on this, I'll try this in another way. Note that I am not against Kerry, or anti-Kerry. This whole thread started by me pointing out that BOTH Bush and Kerry have lied, to varying degrees, about things related to, during, or after their military experience. The whole 527-fueled debate has devolved into nothing useful.
But, again:
You and I do not know whose military decorations, be they ribbons, medals, or both, he threw away that day in 1971.
In conjunction with what you already know of the story, please consider the following:
Only one factual sequence of events, including the ownership and final disposition of the medals and/or ribbons in question, can be true.
Either Kerry threw away his own medals, or he did not. If he did, then saying he did not is untrue. If he did not, then saying he did is untrue. Only one scenario is true; however, he has provided opposing explanations, i.e., I DID throw away my medals, and I DID NOT throw away my medals (but DID throw away medals of another veteran). ONE of those things is not true. Either they were his own medals, or they weren't. The statements that he HAS thrown them away, and HAS NOT thrown them away are NOT both simultaneously true. This means that one of the statements is untrue, otherwise known as a lie.
However, the more troubling aspect is that he changes his story depending on who he's talking to, and what he thinks they want to hear. He's gone from yes, he HAS thrown away all of his decorations, to he only threw his ribbons away but not medals but did throw away the medals of another veteran, to not having thrown ANY of his own ribbons OR medals away, to having thrown away "only his ribbons", but not any of his medals, to there being NO DISTINCTION between ribbons and medals.
Perhaps you can answer me a question. Since I've tried to be reasonable about this, even if you still somehow disagree with this assessment of the events, do you agree with Kerry's handling of this situation? E.g., do you think he should change his story that much, depending on whether or not he's in a campaign, or which way the wind is blowing? Or do you just think he's a victim of the attack dogs and jingoists?
He LIED, specifically, about whether or not he threw away his medals/ribbons.
I do not know WHICH is the lie, because he has said, alternatively, that he has NOT thrown away any; that he has thrown them ALL away; that he has thrown SOME away; or that he threw none of his OWN, but some of another veteran at that veteran's request.
I, personally, do not know WHICH is the lie, because I physically, myself, do not know whether or not Kerry did actually throw away all, some, or none of his own medals. However, HE HIMSELF has said he has thrown away all, some, or none of his own ribbons and/or medals.
ONE OF THOSE THINGS IS A LIE, and I'm not sure why you can't understand that. There is NO WAY for me to tell you WHICH is a lie, because I wasn't physically there. But when you have the following two scenarios, as presented by KERRY HIMSELF:
Kerry DID throw away his medals/ribbons
Kerry DID NOT throw away his medals/ribbons
ONE OF THEM IS A LIE, period, and you cannot refute that. What's worse is not even the lie itself or the subject, but how many times he's changed his story, and the degree of creativity to which he has done so, for this one utterly insignificant event.
I literally cannot believe I just had to explain that.
Further, please note that I DO NOT CARE whether or not Kerry threw all, some, or none of his medals and/or ribbons away over three decades ago. Whether he did or not would not affect my own personal voting decision. What DOES concern me is that he has CLEARLY lied about it, and several times at that. Just because you don't know WHICH is the lie doesn't make them all the truth.
Well, I'm basically going to paste the whole article. I'm sorry if this isn't good enough for you to understand; if it isn't, I'm afraid I can't help. If you're looking for a sound-bite type answer, I guess the best I can do is this:
Kerry claimed he threw away his ribbons and/or medals.
Kerry claimed he DID NOT throw away his own ribbons and/or medals, but that they were actually the medals of another veteran.
One of those statements is not true. Which one? Who knows; Kerry's changed his story so many times that I can't tell (and really don't care).
Can you really not see how many times he's changed his story on this one thing? From "No", to "Yes", to "Partly", and everything in between? It's not the medals themselves, or whether he threw them away, but I hope you can see the problem here.
If, on the other hand, you want to believe that the liberal/left/Democrat side is always perfect, benevolent, and saintly, and the conservative/right/Republican side is pure evil, greed, and lies, that's your right. Go for it.
------
Not one voter in 100 would vote against Kerry for trashing his Vietnam War medals when he was 27 years old. What he did with his combat decorations in 1971 has no bearing on whether he is fit to be president today. That long-ago episode is an issue today only because Kerry's versions of it have changed so many times and because it so perfectly typifies his lifelong habit of saying one thing today and something else tomorrow -- and then denying having done so.
So what does Kerry say he did with those medals? As with so many of his shifts and flip-flops, it's all on the record.
Take 1:
Q. Did Kerry throw his combat decorations away in an antiwar protest 33 years ago?
A. Yes. As The Boston Globe reported on April 24, 1971, "John Kerry . . . said before he threw his medals over the fence: `I'm not doing this for any violent reasons, but for peace and justice, and to try to make this country wake up once and for all.' "
Take 2:
Q. Did Kerry throw his decorations away 33 years ago?
A. Yes. In a Nov. 6, 1971, interview with WRC-TV, he recalled that the protesters had decided to "renounce the symbols which this country gives . . . the medals themselves." When the interviewer asked, "How many did you give back, John?" he answered: "I gave back, I can't remember, six, seven, eight, nine." The interviewer noted that Kerry had won the Bronze and Silver Stars and three Purple Hearts. Kerry: "Well, and above that, I gave back my others."
Take 3:
Q. Did Kerry throw his decorations away 33 years ago?
A. No. In 1984, running for the Senate against a World War II Air Force veteran, he claimed he had refused to do so. "After showing a reporter his medals and ribbons on display in his Back Bay apartment," The Boston Globe reported on Oct. 15, 1984, Kerry "said he had disagreed with other protest leaders on throwing away medals." The medals he was seen tossing, Kerry added, were those of a "veteran from Lincoln [Mass.], at his request."
Take 4:
Q. Did Kerry throw his decorations away 33 years ago?
A. Medals, no; ribbons, yes. During his 1996 reelection campaign, he told the Globe that he only threw the ribbons pinned to his uniform. "Asked why he didn't bring his own medals to throw since it was planned weeks in advance," the Globe reported on Oct. 6, 1996, "Kerry said it was because he didn't have time to go home [to New York] and get them." The medals he was seen tossing, he claimed, belonged to two other veterans -- the one from Lincoln and one from New York. "Kerry says he can't remember their names."
The variations don't end there. For example, his explanation that he "didn't have time to go home and get" the medals -- i.e., he would have trashed them if he could have -- is sharply at odds with his earlier "explanation" to the Boston Herald: "They're my medals. I can do goddam what I want with them."
When you have a half dozen different positions of what actually happened with regard to a single event, some diametrically opposed to one another, it's pretty clear one of them is a lie. And you should get the impression that Kerry has changed his story on this numerous times, because he has. If you like that feature of Kerry, great.
If I am holding a poker chip in my closed hand, out of your view (such that you, yourself cannot determine its color or shape), and I say:
"This poker chip is blue, and round."
and then five minutes later, say:
"This poker chip is red, and square."
and then five minutes later, say:
"I am holding no poker chip."
Now YOU point to the "lie". What's that? You can't? Well, then, by your logic, they must all be true! But to any rational person, it should be clear that not only am I lying about a minimum of one of those things, I'm also trying to play you for a fool and pull the wool over your eyes at the same time.
First of all, "30,000"? You're only off by a factor of 2 or 3. Even iraqbodycount.net, which is sympathetic to your position, estimates Iraqi civilian deaths at 11793 to 13802.
Second, and to rehash some things I've said elsewhere, sanctions against Iraq for 12 years did nothing but kill approximately 50,000 Iraqis needlessly each year, according to Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and other estimates.
So, what of those 600,000-some dead Iraqi people under sanctions? That approximately 50,000 a year, the number we were always bombarded with during the tired "no blood for oil" protest of the 90s?
Well, here's some numbers for you:
Since March of 2003, *including* the 10000-15000 Iraqis US and coalition forces are estimated to have killed during the invasion, there has actually been a NET PRESERVATION of Iraqi lives, on the order of the thousands. A statistically significant PRESERVATION of Iraqi lives, over the previous death estimates of "50,000/year" directly due to sanctions, all from the relatively minimal infrastructure and services improvements made by coalition forces since March 2003. That's how little Saddam cared for his own people, without regard to sanctions. No matter your position on the Iraq war, our direct action has saved, and will continue to save, THOUSANDS of lives of innocent Iraqis. Remember: the only alternative course of action was continuing sanctions. Even the radical idea of lifting sanctions wouldn't have changed Saddam's focus from only concentrating services and resources on Baghdad, leaving over 50% of the population to suffer and fend for itself, not to mention that France, Germany, and Russia would never have allowed the lifting of sanctions, short of military action (which we took). Think about that: exclusively because of US action, statistically, thousands of Iraqis have lived, who otherwise wouldn't have. Countless thousands of others will enjoy this same future, to say nothing of access to basic amenities of life previously not available to rural areas.
Want to follow the money?
Ok, let's follow it.
During sanctions, tens of billions of dollars flowed into, in this order, France, Russia, and Germany for UNOFP contracts administration. TENS OF BILLIONS. Guess when that flow of money stopped? When the US and coalition countries initiated action in March 2003. Guess who didn't want that neverending money spigot turned off...? Thanks to criminal corruption within the UNOFP itself, we may never know the true amount of money that flowed.
So, why not Saudi Arabia? Because Saudi Arabia is an official ally. Saudi Arabia already provides us with needed capabilities in the region, and is critical at this early phase of change in the mideast. Saudi Arabia will be one of the first to go when our support wanes and its royalty is overthrown. By that time, hopefully strong Western-friendly official governments will be present in more nations in the locale which will influence the outcome in the lands of Arabia.
None of what you, or I, say, of course, changes the fact that the people of Iraq are now indeed liberated, even in the face of radicals and insurgents within the country who thirst for control.
But I'm not going to let this devolve into who lied about what, because both sides lied about things related to and/or surrounding their military experience, and I just provided you one one extremely clear example for Kerry (nevermind that several individuals have specifically said that Kerry has categorically lied about things that happened while in Vietnam, said he was in Cambodia when it was impossible for him to be, etc...then the Kerry camp comes out and says "Navy documents refute X, Y, and Z" and the Bush camp does exactly the same thing).
Bush LIED about some things related to his service some 30 years ago.
Kerry LIED about some things related to his service some 30 years ago.
BOTH were honorably discharged from the military.
Bush has said Kerry's service was "honorable". Both "sides" have gone at one another with 527 ads. Persons from BOTH campaigns have been proven to have ties with 527s in some way or another. Texans for Truth is now doing the EXACT same thing Swiftboat Veterans for Truth did. Neither side is better or worse here; sorry to anyone who thinks their "side" is.
What I want to know is:
How does someone's experience as a junior officer over three decades ago have any bearing on their ability to be President of the United States?
And before you answer about things like "character" or truthfulness, in defense of either side, be careful, as both side has lied plenty. (Yes, [insert Bush or Kerry here]-supporters, he's lied a LOT about things related to his service, both during and after.)
Okay, up to here it sounded like you planned to make a reasonable point... Do we have the right to travel without showing ID? Yes. End of story, right? Hmm...
The points I made were perfectly reasonable, as I'm about to explain.
Of course not, and if we had only that, I would agree with you 100% (on this particular point). From the article, howerver, the very first sentence tells us "The U.S. Department of Justice has asked an appellate court to keep its arguments secret for a case in which privacy advocate John Gilmore is challenging federal requirements to show identification before boarding an airplane."
Justice wants to keep its arguments about the already-secret TSA directives secret. Is it ok for the government to have secrets? Under what circumstances? Should *nothing* be secret? These directives are intended to provide airlines and airports with guidance about security issues, some at times relating to very specific security information, are what is kept secret. These are not "laws"; they are guidance and recommendations from the agency charged with these tasks to airports and airlines.
However, I would point out here that the law itself we can read, just not the DoJ's reasons for enforcing it. Subtle, but each has entirely different (though equally chilling) implications.
Actually, the "law" itself can't be read: that's Gilmore's point: there is no such public law stating that ID must be shown to board passenger aircraft. (There are merely guidelines, and FAA and TSA "directives" alerting passengers to show ID...I agree it creates an environment where people feel compelled to show ID, and may not be aware of their rights. But that is another story...the issue here is whether there is a LAW requiring it.) His assertion is that there is, and that the law is therefore "secret" - even though SFO *would* allow him to fly with no ID:
John then went to San Francisco International Airport and attempted to fly to Washington, DC on United Airlines. There he was informed that if he was not willing to show ID he could fly [if he submitted to a search].
Not quite the same as "some unnamed worker".
Actually, it was. His source for the assertion that this is a "secret law" came from this site, here:
At San Francisco's airport, just like the rest of the country's airports, there was a sign that began "A Notice From the Federal Aviation Administration" and includes the sentence "passengers must present identification upon initial check-in.
John worked his way up the bureaucratic chain and was eventually told by United Airlines that there were security directives that mandated the showing of ID, but that he couldn't see them.
So a United Airlines employee says there is a secret directive that mandates the showing of ID - which is already false, since they WERE going to let him fly WITHOUT ID. Second, is what a United Airlines employee says suddenly gospel? Third, there may indeed be plenty of directives and recommendations from the TSA and FAA, some even secret. That does not make them laws that American citizens are obliged to follow. As I've said in other posts, I'm glad he's asking these questions, and, fundamentally, citizens should have a clear right to know what the laws *are*, lest how are they to even be obeyed? My point is that there is NO PROOF, short of his assumptions and tenuous chain of logic from what a UA employee said, that there is any such "secret law", especially in light of the fact that they would allow him to fly with no ID.
No where does he tell us who this person was, or what position they have within UA. Not to mention that UA is NOT the authority on these matters! Therefore, "some unnamed worker". It's more fun to believe that there are secret laws, though, isn't it?
Any ID requirement doesn't necessarily pretend to "prevent" issues; it's simply a place to start for investigators AFTER an incident, regardless of whether the IDs were real or fake...enabling investigators to get a list of names (again, real or not), issuing agencies for the IDs, and sometimes even pictures (which are many times real, even if the ID itself is fake). This information could be critical to an investigation when other lives may be at stake.
So, you're right: showing ID does little for security, but it provides an important investigative avenue AFTER an incident that may be helpful in preventing others that may be in the works at the time.
But remember: Gilmore found that he could indeed fly without ID at SFO, if he submitted to a search. It was his choice not to submit to said search; but it's clear that there is no sensational "secret law" since he, in his own quest on this agenda, found that he could, in fact, fly without ID.
I don't think this is quite correct. You do, in fact, have to have ID in order to travel by motorcycle, car, or boat because you have to have a license on you in order to legally do so (which is a form of ID... usually photo ID)
No, this is perfectly correct. You do not have to present ID to anyone in order to travel via any of those means...as long as you are not violating applicable pedestrian or traffic laws, at which point you may be stopped by a governmental entity and be compelled, by law, to present ID. That's exactly why I made the reference to e.g. following applicable traffic laws in my initial post: assuming you're obeying traffic laws, you don't have to show ID anyone to travel anywhere by car, motorcycle, etc.
Also, I think the Supreme Court recently heard a case where a man (in Texas?) was jailed for refusing to produce ID when asked by a police officer. He was not in a vehicle at the time, so he was a pedestrian.
Yes, you're thinking of this case, in Nevada. This is unrelated to the previous topic. Nevada has a public law on the books that requires a person to identify themselves to a law enforcement officer when requested. This case was a test to see if the law was constitutional (currently, the court decided that it is). Yes, he was a "pedestrian"; but police don't just randomly ask people for ID. In this case, there was a 911 call from a nearby resident who reported seeing a man and a woman arguing in a pickup truck, and seeing the man hit the woman (his daughter actually hit him). The 911 operator dispatched police. The responding officer came upon the scene to find skidmarks and disturbed gravel on the side of the road, indicating the vehicle had been stopped in an aggressive manner. Coupled with the domestic violence call, the officer felt it necessary to ask the man to identify himself, as he was (and is) allowed to do under Nevada law. When he refused some 11 times, the man was arrested. So that case has nothing to do with driving or anything, and not really anything to do with the Gilmore case, since Gilmore already found he could fly without ID if he submitted to a search, and he chose not to.
You don't have to show your ID to anyone to use a motorcycle, car, or boat - that is why I said "as long as you obey applicable traffic laws", because it is only when you don't obey applicable laws that you may be stopped and required to present ID by a governmental entity.
HE was the one who chose not to fly! Are you insinuating that he might not actually have been allowed to fly after all?? HE was the one who chose not to fly, my friend. I flew with absolutely no ID after I had lost my wallet - no credit cards, no business cards, no nothing. All I had was a boarding pass and my luggage. I had to submit to a search as well, and no, it wasn't convenient, but I was certainly allowed to fly with no ID. *Sigh*
And again, the TSA security directives, which are intended to provide airlines and airports with guidance about security issues, some at times relating to very specific security information, are what is kept secret. These are not "laws"; they are guidance and recommendations from the agency charged with these tasks to airports and airlines.
Any ID requirement doesn't necessarily pretend to "prevent" issues; it's simply a place to start for investigators AFTER an incident, regardless of whether the IDs were real or fake...enabling investigators to get a list of names (again, real or not), issuing agencies for the IDs, and sometimes even pictures (which are many times real, even if the ID itself is fake). This information could be critical to an investigation when other lives may be at stake.
So, you're right: showing ID does little for security, but it provides an important investigative avenue AFTER an incident that may be helpful in preventing others that may be in the works at the time.
But remember: Gilmore found that he could indeed fly without ID at SFO, if he submitted to a search. It was his choice not to submit to said search; but it's clear that there is no sensational "secret law" since he, in his own quest on this agenda, found that he could, in fact, fly without ID.
I realize that statement is somewhat circular, as if the law is indeed "secret", we wouldn't know about it.
But Gilmore's whole assertion rests on the claim that there is, in fact, a secret law requiring a person to show ID to fly.
He already proved to himself that this was false, as he says in his own description of events that SFO would have allowed him to fly with no ID if he submitted to a search. He chose not to. If there WERE a "secret law" requiring ID, San Francisco International Airport would not have allowed him to fly without ID, as they were going to let him do.
Ridiculously, his whole claim about this "secret law" is because some random, unnamed United Airlines employee told him there was. Huh? So all of the ticket agents and working slobs within the airlines are just amazingly informed on these topics? I think not.
There are some discrepancies here, most likely because of lack of communication or lack of proper specific words used to define things. First, I have no problem believing that the TSA directives are secret. But they're not "laws". That's why they're called security "directives". These directives instruct the airlines and airports in terms of how to handle security; they're not arbitrary requirements that passengers must submit to or know about ahead of time: they are guidelines and directives for the handling of security issues, some routine and some special or time-specific, within airport and airline processes. That's the TSA's job. And didn't we call for the federalization of airport security?
However, I've seen nothing that indicates there is ANY such "secret law", and the fact that SFO - the second airport he tried - would indeed allow him to fly with no ID devastates his claim.
I'm glad he's asking these questions, but I wish he'd be less sensationalistic and tinfoil-hat about it - especially since his primary claim is that he can't travel anonymously, which is not only tremendously wrong considering there are so many other public and private means to travel with no ID, but also because, to repeat, he would indeed have been able to fly with no ID.
And as I said in another post, yes, all the 9/11 hijackers had valid IDs. So what? The ID requirement doesn't pretend to "prevent" issues; it's simply a place to start for investigators AFTER an incident, regardless of whether the IDs were real or fake...enabling investigators to get a list of names (again, real or not), issuing agencies for the IDs, and sometimes even pictures (which are many times real, even if the ID itself is fake). This information could be critical to an investigation when other lives may be at stake.
But, in case this point is lost on you, HE ALREADY FOUND HE COULD TRAVEL, BY PLANE, WITHOUT ID.
First of all, his primary question is: Do citizens currently need to show ID in order to travel in their own country?
The answer is a resounding "no". He is free to travel by foot, bike, motorcycle, car, boat, or other device himself while not violating applicable pedestrian or traffic laws, or by bus or train, entirely anonymously.
Further, in his quest to "expose" this situation, he found at one of the largest airports in the country, San Francisco International Airport, that he WAS indeed allowed to fly without ID (if he submitted to a search).
Second, because some unnamed worker for United Airlines "told him" that there was a "secret law", are we to believe that there is, then, such a "law"? That a random United Airlines employee is the ultimate fount of information on this topic? The fact that SFO would indeed allow him to fly with no ID negates his claim that ID is required by a "secret law" on its face.
Further, claims variously made by privacy advocates assert that showing ID is worthless; that the September 11 hijackers all had valid, government issued photo ID. Sure they did. But some form of identification, fake or not, gives authorities a place to start in an investigation, rather than nothing at all.
But please, even in light of that, remember: he WAS allowed to fly with no ID at SFO, and chose not to. I expect that he thought he'd find he would be denied everywhere, but then still chose not to fly at SFO simply because he didn't want to be searched and so it wouldn't stop his little "Achtung! Papers, please!" stunt before it started. That's his choice. And if you'd argue against a search, then you might as well argue against ALL security measures at airports.
1) No. I'm talking about ordinary consumers. Ordinary people were more likely to know about DEC in a sense of it being a part of their stock portfolio than they were to think about it as a "personal computer" that they'd have in their home.
2) Again, no. I'm *fully aware* of how HUGE DEC was. Fully. But no one considered these personal computers. And I think we're hitting a semantic issue here, which I'll address in the next point...
3) Ok, I see what the problem is. I'm not calling it a "desktop" in the terms of "a computer that can sit on a desk". Perhaps a more appropriate term would be "personal computer". I think most people would consider every single DEC you named off "workstations", not "personal computers". These were not present in peoples' homes, or in conventional desktop/PC computer settings in any amount of statistical relevance. Perhaps the terminology difference is a bit nuanced, but it's an important distinction. In a world where 99% of the computer buying public considers a "desktop PC" something they get from Dell, Gateway, or the like, with an Intel or Intel-compatible processor within, Apple was the first to ship a 64-bit desktop personal computer, period.
1. What consumer ever heard of "DEC" or "Digital", or had one at home?
2. What group of people considered DEC workstations "desktops"?
3. When Apple said it had "the first 64-bit personal computer", it said this in the context of the desktop. People challenged that with BOXX's 64-bit "desktop" offering, not DEC. Sorry, DEC isn't and wasn't classified as a "desktop" or "personal computer" in any way, shape, or form.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.1394ta.org/About/products/consumer_prod ucts.html
Additionally, the FCC is mandating that as of July 1, 2005, all digital cable set top boxes MUST include a functional FireWire port, and as of April 1, 2004, must provide a set top box with a working FireWire port on customer request. Of course, this doesn't help if content providers choose to encrypt the content.
Here's hoping we can fight the Broadcast Flag. Unfortunately, I can see a future where our kids think that the only way they can watch what they want to watch, when they want to watch it, and on the device they wish to watch it on, is by illegally downloading it from a P2P network, instead of being able to legally record it and move it around THEMSELVES with equipment THEY BOUGHT from a service THEY PAY FOR in their OWN HOMES.
FireWire wasn't a stupid decision...it was 5C-protected (copy-protected) FireWire that was a stupid decision.
:-(
FireWire was probably the best promise of device interconnectivity to ever exist in recent years. But it has been crippled by several things:
1. Content providers/TV/movie/Hollywood's deathly fear of being able to easily interconnect all devices, including computing equipment, via one perfect, digital connection.
2. A bit due to Apple's early ridiculous licensing and logo requirements to use the "FireWire" name. FireWire is the name that would have taken IEEE-1394 the furthest, but thanks to the early bungling, we're now stuck with "FireWire", "DV", "i.Link", "IEEE-1394", "1394"...what's that sir? Oh, yes, they're all really the same thing.
Imagine having ALL of your entertainment equipment, including your computer, connected digitally via one, simple FireWire cable each, all daisy-chained off one another. All able to control one another when necessary, sending meta-data and device control commands, as well as audio, video, and other data over the wire. No ridiculous bundles of cabling. Everything plug and play. Everything "just works". Even Wireless FireWire (yes, there's a spec). (And yes, FireWire has the bandwidth necessary to handle all this and more.)
That was the promise of FireWire. Instead, we're stuck with final output formats like DVI, and HDCP-protected HDMI, 5C FireWire that virtually nothing supports, and the coming Broadcast Flag.
Oh well.
I read a couple articles elsewhere proclaiming "APPLE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR TOUCHWHEEL!!!@" only to find that Apple is responsible for it.
They conceived it, they narrowly specified its behavior, they brought it to market. Just because a contractor was involved that means Apple's "not responsible" for its creation? Apple's responsible more than ever: the corralled the capabilities and efforts necessary to make it a reality.
While an open IM application can be useful in a defined group or organization for messaging, obviously, a standalone IM application is of limited utility on its own if you're already communicating with people on other IM networks.
This is why Jabber supports "transports", server components that allow seamless connectivity with AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, MSN, SMS services, and even IRC..
For those unaware, iChat has always used the Jabber protocols for its local (Rendezvous-initiated) messaging. This just dusts off and reveals full-fledged support for Jabber.
Why Jabber? Because Jabber is a completely open IM standard. The IETF has accepted the core Jabber protocols and has standardized them as XMPP, an open IM protocol.
I hate to repeat this, but Bush didn't "lie" about anything. The intelligence gathering capabilities of:
- The US,
- The UN,
- Most of Europe, including the UK, France, and Germany;
- Russia;
- Some of Iraq's neighbors;
- Iraq and Saddam Hussein himself;
believed Iraq to be in possession of significant quantities of WMD.
This is because:
- The US had long tracked Iraq's possession of WMD, considering we provided them with much of that capability (Let's take another brief tangential stroll down the lane of liberal hypocrisy: that the US once supported Saddam against Iran, and provided Iraq with some of its WMD capabilities is something often bandied about. Classically, it removes accountability for any actions in the intermediary, similar to blaming society wholly for the ills of an inner city youth, or a gun manufacturer for the actions of a criminal with a gun. Hypocritically, it ignores the position held by many in this same camp when Madison's own Progressive Magazine published The Secrets of the H-Bomb some 25 years ago, arguing vehemently [with a different agenda, of course] that the secrets of such weapons cannot and should not be kept by the Big Bad Government, because anyone who wanted to figure them out ultimately would anyway. And, indeed, that the blame would rest with the people who used them inappropriately, not the science behind them. Now, apparently, the US is directly to blame for Iraq having WMD. [Even though it didn't have any WMD...] See why it's difficult to keep up?)
- The UN had closely tracked Iraq's WMD capability for over a decade
- As a matter of course, most of Europe had done the same
- When Hussein accused UN weapons inspectors of being US spies in 1998, at which point the UN pulled the inspectors due to lack of effectiveness, Iraq was known by the UN to be in possession of significant quantities of WMD (e.g., amounts in the thousands of tons). Are we to believe that after all UN oversight was gone, that Iraq secretly and silently destroyed ALL of its WMD capability, without the knowledge of Hussein himself - who believed he was INCREASING his investment in WMD - and all without any records or evidence of such destruction? There are over 740 tons of Sarin alone unaccounted for. 740 tons out of a known 920 tons. Eighty percent. Where is it? (Well, it's in the Sudan, Libya, Syria, who knows?)
- This, of course, ignores the fact that Iraq was egregiously in violation, numerous times, of several binding UNSEC resolutions; resolutions which member nations are required, obligated, and compelled to enforce by the UN charter. The type of enforcement, of course, is up for debate; however, it's clear that the previous course of action was not only not working, it had gotten worse, and ultimately utterly failed. While it also, according to the left, was responsible for over half a million Iraqi deaths.
Let's also not forget the *650,000 tons* (yes, you read that right) of non-WMD UN-banned weapons found by coalition forces in Iraq. 650,000 tons, and counting.
Since it seems that you're sincere on this, I'll try this in another way. Note that I am not against Kerry, or anti-Kerry. This whole thread started by me pointing out that BOTH Bush and Kerry have lied, to varying degrees, about things related to, during, or after their military experience. The whole 527-fueled debate has devolved into nothing useful.
But, again:
You and I do not know whose military decorations, be they ribbons, medals, or both, he threw away that day in 1971.
In conjunction with what you already know of the story, please consider the following:
Only one factual sequence of events, including the ownership and final disposition of the medals and/or ribbons in question, can be true.
Either Kerry threw away his own medals, or he did not. If he did, then saying he did not is untrue. If he did not, then saying he did is untrue. Only one scenario is true; however, he has provided opposing explanations, i.e., I DID throw away my medals, and I DID NOT throw away my medals (but DID throw away medals of another veteran). ONE of those things is not true. Either they were his own medals, or they weren't. The statements that he HAS thrown them away, and HAS NOT thrown them away are NOT both simultaneously true. This means that one of the statements is untrue, otherwise known as a lie.
However, the more troubling aspect is that he changes his story depending on who he's talking to, and what he thinks they want to hear. He's gone from yes, he HAS thrown away all of his decorations, to he only threw his ribbons away but not medals but did throw away the medals of another veteran, to not having thrown ANY of his own ribbons OR medals away, to having thrown away "only his ribbons", but not any of his medals, to there being NO DISTINCTION between ribbons and medals.
Perhaps you can answer me a question. Since I've tried to be reasonable about this, even if you still somehow disagree with this assessment of the events, do you agree with Kerry's handling of this situation? E.g., do you think he should change his story that much, depending on whether or not he's in a campaign, or which way the wind is blowing? Or do you just think he's a victim of the attack dogs and jingoists?
He LIED, specifically, about whether or not he threw away his medals/ribbons.
I do not know WHICH is the lie, because he has said, alternatively, that he has NOT thrown away any; that he has thrown them ALL away; that he has thrown SOME away; or that he threw none of his OWN, but some of another veteran at that veteran's request.
I, personally, do not know WHICH is the lie, because I physically, myself, do not know whether or not Kerry did actually throw away all, some, or none of his own medals. However, HE HIMSELF has said he has thrown away all, some, or none of his own ribbons and/or medals.
ONE OF THOSE THINGS IS A LIE, and I'm not sure why you can't understand that. There is NO WAY for me to tell you WHICH is a lie, because I wasn't physically there. But when you have the following two scenarios, as presented by KERRY HIMSELF:
Kerry DID throw away his medals/ribbons
Kerry DID NOT throw away his medals/ribbons
ONE OF THEM IS A LIE, period, and you cannot refute that. What's worse is not even the lie itself or the subject, but how many times he's changed his story, and the degree of creativity to which he has done so, for this one utterly insignificant event.
I literally cannot believe I just had to explain that.
Further, please note that I DO NOT CARE whether or not Kerry threw all, some, or none of his medals and/or ribbons away over three decades ago. Whether he did or not would not affect my own personal voting decision. What DOES concern me is that he has CLEARLY lied about it, and several times at that. Just because you don't know WHICH is the lie doesn't make them all the truth.
Well, I'm basically going to paste the whole article. I'm sorry if this isn't good enough for you to understand; if it isn't, I'm afraid I can't help. If you're looking for a sound-bite type answer, I guess the best I can do is this:
Kerry claimed he threw away his ribbons and/or medals.
Kerry claimed he DID NOT throw away his own ribbons and/or medals, but that they were actually the medals of another veteran.
One of those statements is not true. Which one? Who knows; Kerry's changed his story so many times that I can't tell (and really don't care).
Can you really not see how many times he's changed his story on this one thing? From "No", to "Yes", to "Partly", and everything in between? It's not the medals themselves, or whether he threw them away, but I hope you can see the problem here.
If, on the other hand, you want to believe that the liberal/left/Democrat side is always perfect, benevolent, and saintly, and the conservative/right/Republican side is pure evil, greed, and lies, that's your right. Go for it.
------
Not one voter in 100 would vote against Kerry for trashing his Vietnam War medals when he was 27 years old. What he did with his combat decorations in 1971 has no bearing on whether he is fit to be president today. That long-ago episode is an issue today only because Kerry's versions of it have changed so many times and because it so perfectly typifies his lifelong habit of saying one thing today and something else tomorrow -- and then denying having done so.
So what does Kerry say he did with those medals? As with so many of his shifts and flip-flops, it's all on the record.
Take 1:
Q. Did Kerry throw his combat decorations away in an antiwar protest 33 years ago?
A. Yes. As The Boston Globe reported on April 24, 1971, "John Kerry . . . said before he threw his medals over the fence: `I'm not doing this for any violent reasons, but for peace and justice, and to try to make this country wake up once and for all.' "
Take 2:
Q. Did Kerry throw his decorations away 33 years ago?
A. Yes. In a Nov. 6, 1971, interview with WRC-TV, he recalled that the protesters had decided to "renounce the symbols which this country gives . . . the medals themselves." When the interviewer asked, "How many did you give back, John?" he answered: "I gave back, I can't remember, six, seven, eight, nine." The interviewer noted that Kerry had won the Bronze and Silver Stars and three Purple Hearts. Kerry: "Well, and above that, I gave back my others."
Take 3:
Q. Did Kerry throw his decorations away 33 years ago?
A. No. In 1984, running for the Senate against a World War II Air Force veteran, he claimed he had refused to do so. "After showing a reporter his medals and ribbons on display in his Back Bay apartment," The Boston Globe reported on Oct. 15, 1984, Kerry "said he had disagreed with other protest leaders on throwing away medals." The medals he was seen tossing, Kerry added, were those of a "veteran from Lincoln [Mass.], at his request."
Take 4:
Q. Did Kerry throw his decorations away 33 years ago?
A. Medals, no; ribbons, yes. During his 1996 reelection campaign, he told the Globe that he only threw the ribbons pinned to his uniform. "Asked why he didn't bring his own medals to throw since it was planned weeks in advance," the Globe reported on Oct. 6, 1996, "Kerry said it was because he didn't have time to go home [to New York] and get them." The medals he was seen tossing, he claimed, belonged to two other veterans -- the one from Lincoln and one from New York. "Kerry says he can't remember their names."
The variations don't end there. For example, his explanation that he "didn't have time to go home and get" the medals -- i.e., he would have trashed them if he could have -- is sharply at odds with his earlier "explanation" to the Boston Herald: "They're my medals. I can do goddam what I want with them."
On Monday's TV show, after being shown the tape
Why don't you pick one?
When you have a half dozen different positions of what actually happened with regard to a single event, some diametrically opposed to one another, it's pretty clear one of them is a lie. And you should get the impression that Kerry has changed his story on this numerous times, because he has. If you like that feature of Kerry, great.
If I am holding a poker chip in my closed hand, out of your view (such that you, yourself cannot determine its color or shape), and I say:
"This poker chip is blue, and round."
and then five minutes later, say:
"This poker chip is red, and square."
and then five minutes later, say:
"I am holding no poker chip."
Now YOU point to the "lie". What's that? You can't? Well, then, by your logic, they must all be true! But to any rational person, it should be clear that not only am I lying about a minimum of one of those things, I'm also trying to play you for a fool and pull the wool over your eyes at the same time.
This is a troll, but I'll address it.
First of all, "30,000"? You're only off by a factor of 2 or 3. Even iraqbodycount.net, which is sympathetic to your position, estimates Iraqi civilian deaths at 11793 to 13802.
Second, and to rehash some things I've said elsewhere, sanctions against Iraq for 12 years did nothing but kill approximately 50,000 Iraqis needlessly each year, according to Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and other estimates.
So, what of those 600,000-some dead Iraqi people under sanctions? That approximately 50,000 a year, the number we were always bombarded with during the tired "no blood for oil" protest of the 90s?
Well, here's some numbers for you:
Since March of 2003, *including* the 10000-15000 Iraqis US and coalition forces are estimated to have killed during the invasion, there has actually been a NET PRESERVATION of Iraqi lives, on the order of the thousands. A statistically significant PRESERVATION of Iraqi lives, over the previous death estimates of "50,000/year" directly due to sanctions, all from the relatively minimal infrastructure and services improvements made by coalition forces since March 2003. That's how little Saddam cared for his own people, without regard to sanctions. No matter your position on the Iraq war, our direct action has saved, and will continue to save, THOUSANDS of lives of innocent Iraqis. Remember: the only alternative course of action was continuing sanctions. Even the radical idea of lifting sanctions wouldn't have changed Saddam's focus from only concentrating services and resources on Baghdad, leaving over 50% of the population to suffer and fend for itself, not to mention that France, Germany, and Russia would never have allowed the lifting of sanctions, short of military action (which we took). Think about that: exclusively because of US action, statistically, thousands of Iraqis have lived, who otherwise wouldn't have. Countless thousands of others will enjoy this same future, to say nothing of access to basic amenities of life previously not available to rural areas.
Want to follow the money?
Ok, let's follow it.
During sanctions, tens of billions of dollars flowed into, in this order, France, Russia, and Germany for UNOFP contracts administration. TENS OF BILLIONS. Guess when that flow of money stopped? When the US and coalition countries initiated action in March 2003. Guess who didn't want that neverending money spigot turned off...? Thanks to criminal corruption within the UNOFP itself, we may never know the true amount of money that flowed.
So, why not Saudi Arabia? Because Saudi Arabia is an official ally. Saudi Arabia already provides us with needed capabilities in the region, and is critical at this early phase of change in the mideast. Saudi Arabia will be one of the first to go when our support wanes and its royalty is overthrown. By that time, hopefully strong Western-friendly official governments will be present in more nations in the locale which will influence the outcome in the lands of Arabia.
None of what you, or I, say, of course, changes the fact that the people of Iraq are now indeed liberated, even in the face of radicals and insurgents within the country who thirst for control.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion /oped/articles/2004/04/29/the_kerry_medals_mystery /
But I'm not going to let this devolve into who lied about what, because both sides lied about things related to and/or surrounding their military experience, and I just provided you one one extremely clear example for Kerry (nevermind that several individuals have specifically said that Kerry has categorically lied about things that happened while in Vietnam, said he was in Cambodia when it was impossible for him to be, etc...then the Kerry camp comes out and says "Navy documents refute X, Y, and Z" and the Bush camp does exactly the same thing).
Kerry LIED about some things related to his service some 30 years ago.
BOTH were honorably discharged from the military.
Bush has said Kerry's service was "honorable". Both "sides" have gone at one another with 527 ads. Persons from BOTH campaigns have been proven to have ties with 527s in some way or another. Texans for Truth is now doing the EXACT same thing Swiftboat Veterans for Truth did. Neither side is better or worse here; sorry to anyone who thinks their "side" is.
What I want to know is:
How does someone's experience as a junior officer over three decades ago have any bearing on their ability to be President of the United States?
And before you answer about things like "character" or truthfulness, in defense of either side, be careful, as both side has lied plenty. (Yes, [insert Bush or Kerry here]-supporters, he's lied a LOT about things related to his service, both during and after.)
The points I made were perfectly reasonable, as I'm about to explain.
Of course not, and if we had only that, I would agree with you 100% (on this particular point). From the article, howerver, the very first sentence tells us "The U.S. Department of Justice has asked an appellate court to keep its arguments secret for a case in which privacy advocate John Gilmore is challenging federal requirements to show identification before boarding an airplane."
Justice wants to keep its arguments about the already-secret TSA directives secret. Is it ok for the government to have secrets? Under what circumstances? Should *nothing* be secret? These directives are intended to provide airlines and airports with guidance about security issues, some at times relating to very specific security information, are what is kept secret. These are not "laws"; they are guidance and recommendations from the agency charged with these tasks to airports and airlines.
However, I would point out here that the law itself we can read, just not the DoJ's reasons for enforcing it. Subtle, but each has entirely different (though equally chilling) implications.
Actually, the "law" itself can't be read: that's Gilmore's point: there is no such public law stating that ID must be shown to board passenger aircraft. (There are merely guidelines, and FAA and TSA "directives" alerting passengers to show ID...I agree it creates an environment where people feel compelled to show ID, and may not be aware of their rights. But that is another story...the issue here is whether there is a LAW requiring it.) His assertion is that there is, and that the law is therefore "secret" - even though SFO *would* allow him to fly with no ID:
John then went to San Francisco International Airport and attempted to fly to Washington, DC on United Airlines. There he was informed that if he was not willing to show ID he could fly [if he submitted to a search].
Not quite the same as "some unnamed worker".
Actually, it was. His source for the assertion that this is a "secret law" came from this site, here:
At San Francisco's airport, just like the rest of the country's airports, there was a sign that began "A Notice From the Federal Aviation Administration" and includes the sentence "passengers must present identification upon initial check-in.
John worked his way up the bureaucratic chain and was eventually told by United Airlines that there were security directives that mandated the showing of ID, but that he couldn't see them.
So a United Airlines employee says there is a secret directive that mandates the showing of ID - which is already false, since they WERE going to let him fly WITHOUT ID. Second, is what a United Airlines employee says suddenly gospel? Third, there may indeed be plenty of directives and recommendations from the TSA and FAA, some even secret. That does not make them laws that American citizens are obliged to follow. As I've said in other posts, I'm glad he's asking these questions, and, fundamentally, citizens should have a clear right to know what the laws *are*, lest how are they to even be obeyed? My point is that there is NO PROOF, short of his assumptions and tenuous chain of logic from what a UA employee said, that there is any such "secret law", especially in light of the fact that they would allow him to fly with no ID.
No where does he tell us who this person was, or what position they have within UA. Not to mention that UA is NOT the authority on these matters! Therefore, "some unnamed worker". It's more fun to believe that there are secret laws, though, isn't it?
And knowi
Any ID requirement doesn't necessarily pretend to "prevent" issues; it's simply a place to start for investigators AFTER an incident, regardless of whether the IDs were real or fake...enabling investigators to get a list of names (again, real or not), issuing agencies for the IDs, and sometimes even pictures (which are many times real, even if the ID itself is fake). This information could be critical to an investigation when other lives may be at stake.
So, you're right: showing ID does little for security, but it provides an important investigative avenue AFTER an incident that may be helpful in preventing others that may be in the works at the time.
But remember: Gilmore found that he could indeed fly without ID at SFO, if he submitted to a search. It was his choice not to submit to said search; but it's clear that there is no sensational "secret law" since he, in his own quest on this agenda, found that he could, in fact, fly without ID.
No, this is perfectly correct. You do not have to present ID to anyone in order to travel via any of those means...as long as you are not violating applicable pedestrian or traffic laws, at which point you may be stopped by a governmental entity and be compelled, by law, to present ID. That's exactly why I made the reference to e.g. following applicable traffic laws in my initial post: assuming you're obeying traffic laws, you don't have to show ID anyone to travel anywhere by car, motorcycle, etc.
Also, I think the Supreme Court recently heard a case where a man (in Texas?) was jailed for refusing to produce ID when asked by a police officer. He was not in a vehicle at the time, so he was a pedestrian.
Yes, you're thinking of this case, in Nevada. This is unrelated to the previous topic. Nevada has a public law on the books that requires a person to identify themselves to a law enforcement officer when requested. This case was a test to see if the law was constitutional (currently, the court decided that it is). Yes, he was a "pedestrian"; but police don't just randomly ask people for ID. In this case, there was a 911 call from a nearby resident who reported seeing a man and a woman arguing in a pickup truck, and seeing the man hit the woman (his daughter actually hit him). The 911 operator dispatched police. The responding officer came upon the scene to find skidmarks and disturbed gravel on the side of the road, indicating the vehicle had been stopped in an aggressive manner. Coupled with the domestic violence call, the officer felt it necessary to ask the man to identify himself, as he was (and is) allowed to do under Nevada law. When he refused some 11 times, the man was arrested. So that case has nothing to do with driving or anything, and not really anything to do with the Gilmore case, since Gilmore already found he could fly without ID if he submitted to a search, and he chose not to.
You don't have to show your ID to anyone to use a motorcycle, car, or boat - that is why I said "as long as you obey applicable traffic laws", because it is only when you don't obey applicable laws that you may be stopped and required to present ID by a governmental entity.
HE was the one who chose not to fly! Are you insinuating that he might not actually have been allowed to fly after all?? HE was the one who chose not to fly, my friend. I flew with absolutely no ID after I had lost my wallet - no credit cards, no business cards, no nothing. All I had was a boarding pass and my luggage. I had to submit to a search as well, and no, it wasn't convenient, but I was certainly allowed to fly with no ID. *Sigh*
And again, the TSA security directives, which are intended to provide airlines and airports with guidance about security issues, some at times relating to very specific security information, are what is kept secret. These are not "laws"; they are guidance and recommendations from the agency charged with these tasks to airports and airlines.
However, note that he was indeed allowed to fly with no ID out of SFO if he submitted to search; he chose not to.
Any ID requirement doesn't necessarily pretend to "prevent" issues; it's simply a place to start for investigators AFTER an incident, regardless of whether the IDs were real or fake...enabling investigators to get a list of names (again, real or not), issuing agencies for the IDs, and sometimes even pictures (which are many times real, even if the ID itself is fake). This information could be critical to an investigation when other lives may be at stake.
So, you're right: showing ID does little for security, but it provides an important investigative avenue AFTER an incident that may be helpful in preventing others that may be in the works at the time.
But remember: Gilmore found that he could indeed fly without ID at SFO, if he submitted to a search. It was his choice not to submit to said search; but it's clear that there is no sensational "secret law" since he, in his own quest on this agenda, found that he could, in fact, fly without ID.
I realize that statement is somewhat circular, as if the law is indeed "secret", we wouldn't know about it.
But Gilmore's whole assertion rests on the claim that there is, in fact, a secret law requiring a person to show ID to fly.
He already proved to himself that this was false, as he says in his own description of events that SFO would have allowed him to fly with no ID if he submitted to a search. He chose not to. If there WERE a "secret law" requiring ID, San Francisco International Airport would not have allowed him to fly without ID, as they were going to let him do.
Ridiculously, his whole claim about this "secret law" is because some random, unnamed United Airlines employee told him there was. Huh? So all of the ticket agents and working slobs within the airlines are just amazingly informed on these topics? I think not.
There are some discrepancies here, most likely because of lack of communication or lack of proper specific words used to define things. First, I have no problem believing that the TSA directives are secret. But they're not "laws". That's why they're called security "directives". These directives instruct the airlines and airports in terms of how to handle security; they're not arbitrary requirements that passengers must submit to or know about ahead of time: they are guidelines and directives for the handling of security issues, some routine and some special or time-specific, within airport and airline processes. That's the TSA's job. And didn't we call for the federalization of airport security?
However, I've seen nothing that indicates there is ANY such "secret law", and the fact that SFO - the second airport he tried - would indeed allow him to fly with no ID devastates his claim.
I'm glad he's asking these questions, but I wish he'd be less sensationalistic and tinfoil-hat about it - especially since his primary claim is that he can't travel anonymously, which is not only tremendously wrong considering there are so many other public and private means to travel with no ID, but also because, to repeat, he would indeed have been able to fly with no ID.
And as I said in another post, yes, all the 9/11 hijackers had valid IDs. So what? The ID requirement doesn't pretend to "prevent" issues; it's simply a place to start for investigators AFTER an incident, regardless of whether the IDs were real or fake...enabling investigators to get a list of names (again, real or not), issuing agencies for the IDs, and sometimes even pictures (which are many times real, even if the ID itself is fake). This information could be critical to an investigation when other lives may be at stake.
But, in case this point is lost on you, HE ALREADY FOUND HE COULD TRAVEL, BY PLANE, WITHOUT ID.
First of all, his primary question is: Do citizens currently need to show ID in order to travel in their own country?
The answer is a resounding "no". He is free to travel by foot, bike, motorcycle, car, boat, or other device himself while not violating applicable pedestrian or traffic laws, or by bus or train, entirely anonymously.
Further, in his quest to "expose" this situation, he found at one of the largest airports in the country, San Francisco International Airport, that he WAS indeed allowed to fly without ID (if he submitted to a search).
Second, because some unnamed worker for United Airlines "told him" that there was a "secret law", are we to believe that there is, then, such a "law"? That a random United Airlines employee is the ultimate fount of information on this topic? The fact that SFO would indeed allow him to fly with no ID negates his claim that ID is required by a "secret law" on its face.
Further, claims variously made by privacy advocates assert that showing ID is worthless; that the September 11 hijackers all had valid, government issued photo ID. Sure they did. But some form of identification, fake or not, gives authorities a place to start in an investigation, rather than nothing at all.
But please, even in light of that, remember: he WAS allowed to fly with no ID at SFO, and chose not to. I expect that he thought he'd find he would be denied everywhere, but then still chose not to fly at SFO simply because he didn't want to be searched and so it wouldn't stop his little "Achtung! Papers, please!" stunt before it started. That's his choice. And if you'd argue against a search, then you might as well argue against ALL security measures at airports.
1) No. I'm talking about ordinary consumers. Ordinary people were more likely to know about DEC in a sense of it being a part of their stock portfolio than they were to think about it as a "personal computer" that they'd have in their home.
2) Again, no. I'm *fully aware* of how HUGE DEC was. Fully. But no one considered these personal computers. And I think we're hitting a semantic issue here, which I'll address in the next point...
3) Ok, I see what the problem is. I'm not calling it a "desktop" in the terms of "a computer that can sit on a desk". Perhaps a more appropriate term would be "personal computer". I think most people would consider every single DEC you named off "workstations", not "personal computers". These were not present in peoples' homes, or in conventional desktop/PC computer settings in any amount of statistical relevance. Perhaps the terminology difference is a bit nuanced, but it's an important distinction. In a world where 99% of the computer buying public considers a "desktop PC" something they get from Dell, Gateway, or the like, with an Intel or Intel-compatible processor within, Apple was the first to ship a 64-bit desktop personal computer, period.
The first company to ship and popularize Sony's revolutionary 3.5" hard-case floppy drives and disks...
1. What consumer ever heard of "DEC" or "Digital", or had one at home?
2. What group of people considered DEC workstations "desktops"?
3. When Apple said it had "the first 64-bit personal computer", it said this in the context of the desktop. People challenged that with BOXX's 64-bit "desktop" offering, not DEC. Sorry, DEC isn't and wasn't classified as a "desktop" or "personal computer" in any way, shape, or form.