Unless the regulations are made public, air travelers have no way to determine if the regulations call for impermissible searches, Gilmore said in court papers.
Why do the air travelers need to know if the regulations call for impermissible searches? By that rationale, nothing could ever be made confidential under any circumstances, because there's a possibility that it might contain something impermissible in it. Is that what you're saying?
The searches that are being conducted have already been challenged in the courts, and the courts have consistently ruled that they are reasonable searches, not impermissible ones.
So he lost the case to get the govt to disclose the policy. And yet you claim he knows the policy, however its not in fact disclosed.
Did you even read the appeals court ruling? This was covered in it.
Yes, I read what you wrote, freak. You complained about the fact that Gilmore didn't know the law. But he did know the policy, even if he didn't know "the regulation number" (there probably isn't a number), and even if he wasn't allowed to see the exact policy written down.
An analogy between what happened and actual secret laws, where you can be arrested for violating a law which don't even know about, is a very bad analogy.
It's all quite irrelevant because they don't run your ID numbers anyway. They just use it to match your name to your picture.
Presumably this is run before you even show up at the airport, some time after you buy your ticket.
None of these asshats will be able to recognize a professional fake ID, so the whole thing is worthless anyway.
Any single bit of security can be bypassed. But when you add them all together, you make it harder and harder to pull off an attack without getting caught and stopped.
I don't like the idea of the government tracking people, so I think it's important to put measures into place to make that difficult or impossible. But allowing people to bypass an extensive search by providing ID (which is exactly equivalent to requiring people to undergo an extensive search if they refuse to provide ID), that in itself seems reasonable to me.
Funny I had thought that this was really about the secret regulations that Gilmore (and others) were repeated told that exist but cannot see. Its not relevant if you can fly without showing ID. If the Govt says there is a law it is our right to know them.
Gilmore did know the policy. You said it yourself, he was told repeatedly that he could show ID, he could submit to a more extensive search, or he could leave the airport.
But the TSA in the United States is not a business, it is a U.S. government agency. Them requiring ID to go through the security zones is not a "business policy" but rather a "security measure" put in place by a government agency.
Has that been proven? What if the TSA are enforcing the rules of the airlines? Does it really make a difference?
Unless your card is unsigned, they cannot require ID for either VISA or Mastercard. They may ASK, but their merchant agreement forbids them from not completing the sale if you refuse to provide it.
Well, if your card is unsigned, then it's not valid, and their merchant agreement forbids them from completing the sale.
So if both of us are right, then they can't ever require you to show ID.
YA RLY. Microsoft indeed made a lot of mistakes with its DRM scheme for XBOX, but that doesn't mean the DRM scheme didn't largely serve its purpose anyway. This is a testament to the fact that DRM schemes don't always have to be perfect in order to be effective.
Hardware mods for DRM schemes are pretty much always going to be possible. But they're also the least of the problems for the manufacturers, especially due to the DMCA. Using the DMCA, manufacturers can make it difficult to obtain the equipment needed to make the hardware modifications, which leaves only the geeks who want to take apart their equipment.
Software mods for XBOX did come out - years after the XBOX was released, and even these required certain non-standard hardware be bought or rented (although at least this hardware was not in itself illegal to distribute under the DMCA).
I have an XBOX, which I bought after the softmods came out, with the explicit intent to run Linux on it. I've gotten to the point where I can get into linux manually, by running MechAssault, loading the hack, and then rebooting into linux. But I haven't been brave enough to mess with the machine enough to boot directly into Linux - I'm afraid of making a brick. One problem is that in order for me to boot directly into Linux I have to download a hacked version of the XBOX OS, and since distributing that software violates the copyright on the XBOX OS, it's a pain in the ass to find a copy sitting out there on the web. So even today, while it's possible to hack the XBOX using only hardware which you can purchase at Best Buy (or any major retail store), it's still not something you can do without delving into hacker sites looking for illegal software.
Microsoft made a lot of mistakes with the XBOX DRM system - but it was still a rather effective system.
Not really, because their DRM scheme either becomes a publicity nightmare (like Sony's rootkit) or it gets cracked very shortly after it's released and all those months (or years) of research and development are for naught, forcing them to start over again from scratch.
Microsoft's DRM scheme for the original XBOX worked pretty well. Sure, there were mod chips, but most people didn't have the time and energy to use them.
Many people choose morality according to the Bible
I would say it's very very few people that do that. How many goats have you seen sacrificed lately? How many people kill those who work on Saturday? Besides, what does the Bible say about downloading DVDs over the Internet?
with the thinking that God knows more than we do....
Not a bad assumption. But figuring out what God wants us to do and just accepting what other people say God wants us to do are two different things. Which Bible? Which parts of it? Whose interpretations?
But if you are agreeing to pay for a rental of a movie you have no right; legal, moral, or otherwise, to keep it permanently.
Sure. If I agree.
But, if we know the content we purchased is only valid for a limited time (or number of viewings) we should happily put the content on whatever device we want and then agree to the rental terms.
No. You can't force me to agree to the rental terms. If I purchase a DVD, then I have not agreed to merely rent it.
Completely separate deal. I didn't work through either of those (I started work after Carly was CEO), but this was a new idea when I got on- they hadn't done this at Christmas before, according to my coworkers.
Well, as I said, they did it the Christmas of 1998, when I worked there, and before Carly did. In Florham Park, New Jersey, not California, if it makes a difference. (The Florham Park site is now closed down; I left in 1999 before it closed.)
Did you even have to ask? Of course it was a Carly idea. Note that this idea was after she already asked people with saved time off to use it (and come in to work anyway, thus working for free).
No, it wasn't a Carly idea. They first did it back in 1970. Instead of laying of 10% of the workforce, they gave everyone a 10% cut in work (and a corresponding cut in pay). David Packard even talks about it in his book. And they did it again in December of 1998, while Lew Platt was still CEO. From what I've heard it was also done at other various times in between. And also from what I've heard they never really cut the work by 10%. People only had to come in 9 days every two weeks, but they basically still had the same amount of work to do.
"Rob, we have bad news. The test results came back positive. Turns out when you sneezed on your pet mouse, you gave him diabetes."
Ah, now I understand how I was misunderstood. I meant we gave the rats diabetes as in we injected them with something that destroyed their pancreas or fed them some insanely fat diet which was sure to develop problems (or we bred them in a specific way to make them susceptible to what would otherwise be a very rare occurance). Not that we gave it to them accidentally.
Most McDonalds food is pretty bad for you even in reasonable sized portions. A medium fries for instance contains 5 grams of trans fats. That serving alone (once per day) is enough to raise your heart attack risk by 25%, diabetes or no diabetes.
McDonalds might be a reasonable alternative in 2 years or so (*), but not because of this insulin drug, but because the NYC ban on trans fats might finally get McDonalds to change their menus. Not that I agree with the NYC law, but it'll probably have positive effects.
(*) Actually, their classic grilled chicken sandwich is fairly healthy already, as is their grilled chicken ceasar salad with one of the low fat dressings, but pretty much the rest of the menu is bad.
People with Type II diabetes usually also have high bad cholesterol and low good cholesterol. Just fixing the blood sugar levels without fixing the underlying cause (the poor diet and lack of exercise) doesn't seem like it's going to help much. In fact, it could very well make things worse.
But in your hypothetical, again, we must ask ourself: WHY is he sweating, crying, and pacing? I don't believe it's because he physically needs TV.
First off, it's not my hypothetical, I was just running with it:). Secondly, maybe in some cases the television could be substituted for something else. But if a heroin addict can eleviate withdrawal symptoms with methadone, do we say he doesn't physically need heroin?
In all of these cases, it's not the TV that makes him feel this way, it's his own thought patterns.
The thought patterns are a result of the TV watching, though. Back to the heroin addict, we could say it's not the heroin that makes him feel this way, it's the opioid receptors. But we'd just be nitpicking, in my opinion.
Bear in mind now, my assumption to this entire argument is rooted in the belief that the actions of a person are determined solely by physical causality. Add in free will or some other metaphysical concepts and the whole thing goes out the window.
Someone who smokes a pack a day for 30 years will have problems not smoking for a single day, and his body will show it quite prominently.
A man who watches an hour of TV everyday for 30 years will not get sick if he spends a whole day outside
Usually not. After all, an hour of TV a day is hardly comparable to a pack of cigarettes a day. But what if he does? What if removal of the television causes him to become anxious, to pace back and forth, to sweat, to cry?
I mean, if you are addicted to something, it is squarely your fault for being in that position (unless someone tied you up and injected you with $substance every other day).
Usually, yes, I'd agree with this.
Obviously you can't be held accountable for your actions, for you getting lung cancer -- it is those damn cigarette companies! Because obviously, they tied you up and made you smoke every day.
If you get lung cancer because you smoked cigarettes knowing full well the whole time that cigarettes tend to cause lung cancer then yes, you're clearly to blame for this. Nowadays that's pretty much everyone, though in the past before we knew that cigarettes caused lung cancer I find it harder to say that someone should be held accountable for such a thing.
This culture of making every habit or behaviour into a disease is just ridiculous. Folks just need to be held accountable and responsible for their actions.
But here's the thing: this doesn't follow from any of the rest of your post. Yes, people need to be responsible for their actions. But this doesn't mean that lung cancer isn't a medical condition. Why should internet addiction be any different? Because it deals with the brain, and the brain is more complicated than the lungs?
The ADA is a stupid law. Medical conditions like "internet addiction" make this obvious, but why should it be any different if the medical condition is lung cancer caused by smoking, or paraplegism caused by drunk driving, or blindness caused by staring at the sun?
IANAP (I am not a psychologist) I think the OP is more or less trying to point out that there's a difference between physical addictions (alcohol, nicotine, harder drugs, etc.) and mental addictions (gaming, sex, though rarely both in the same individual =p).
IANAP (I am not a physicist), but isn't the brain a physical object?
Unfortunately, all of the coding I've done work-wise since college is not only proprietary, but often classified. To be honest, with long days at work and a busy life outside of it, I haven't had much time to code on my own. So, what should I show my interviewer?
How about showing them some of the code that is proprietary but not classified?
I think Angela Beesley, cofounder of Wikia, said it best: "So far, there are two ways Wikia has made money - advertising and venture capital/angel investment". (1) Now they've decided to get rid of the advertising. The "???" is clearly "get suckers to give you venture capital".
Seriously though, the last time I heard venture capital referred to as "making money" was right before the last dot com bubble burst.
As far as time zones, that has nothing to do with flexible hours. In fact, without flexible hours you're pretty much guaranteed to not get much overlapping work time. With flexible hours you'll get lucky and find someone working odd hours (for their time zone) occasionally.
Random unscheduled get-togethers would be harder, of course. If they need to be face-to-face, even moreso. If that's a common need then yeah, I can see how everyone working a schedule most of the time could be useful. Depends on the size of the company, and what exactly the workers in question do.
Slashdot Mirror
Why do the air travelers need to know if the regulations call for impermissible searches? By that rationale, nothing could ever be made confidential under any circumstances, because there's a possibility that it might contain something impermissible in it. Is that what you're saying?
The searches that are being conducted have already been challenged in the courts, and the courts have consistently ruled that they are reasonable searches, not impermissible ones.
Did you even read the appeals court ruling? This was covered in it.
Yes, I read what you wrote, freak. You complained about the fact that Gilmore didn't know the law. But he did know the policy, even if he didn't know "the regulation number" (there probably isn't a number), and even if he wasn't allowed to see the exact policy written down.
An analogy between what happened and actual secret laws, where you can be arrested for violating a law which don't even know about, is a very bad analogy.
Presumably this is run before you even show up at the airport, some time after you buy your ticket.
Any single bit of security can be bypassed. But when you add them all together, you make it harder and harder to pull off an attack without getting caught and stopped.
I don't like the idea of the government tracking people, so I think it's important to put measures into place to make that difficult or impossible. But allowing people to bypass an extensive search by providing ID (which is exactly equivalent to requiring people to undergo an extensive search if they refuse to provide ID), that in itself seems reasonable to me.
Gilmore did know the policy. You said it yourself, he was told repeatedly that he could show ID, he could submit to a more extensive search, or he could leave the airport.
Has that been proven? What if the TSA are enforcing the rules of the airlines? Does it really make a difference?
Well, if your card is unsigned, then it's not valid, and their merchant agreement forbids them from completing the sale.
So if both of us are right, then they can't ever require you to show ID.
YA RLY. Microsoft indeed made a lot of mistakes with its DRM scheme for XBOX, but that doesn't mean the DRM scheme didn't largely serve its purpose anyway. This is a testament to the fact that DRM schemes don't always have to be perfect in order to be effective.
Hardware mods for DRM schemes are pretty much always going to be possible. But they're also the least of the problems for the manufacturers, especially due to the DMCA. Using the DMCA, manufacturers can make it difficult to obtain the equipment needed to make the hardware modifications, which leaves only the geeks who want to take apart their equipment.
Software mods for XBOX did come out - years after the XBOX was released, and even these required certain non-standard hardware be bought or rented (although at least this hardware was not in itself illegal to distribute under the DMCA).
I have an XBOX, which I bought after the softmods came out, with the explicit intent to run Linux on it. I've gotten to the point where I can get into linux manually, by running MechAssault, loading the hack, and then rebooting into linux. But I haven't been brave enough to mess with the machine enough to boot directly into Linux - I'm afraid of making a brick. One problem is that in order for me to boot directly into Linux I have to download a hacked version of the XBOX OS, and since distributing that software violates the copyright on the XBOX OS, it's a pain in the ass to find a copy sitting out there on the web. So even today, while it's possible to hack the XBOX using only hardware which you can purchase at Best Buy (or any major retail store), it's still not something you can do without delving into hacker sites looking for illegal software.
Microsoft made a lot of mistakes with the XBOX DRM system - but it was still a rather effective system.
Microsoft's DRM scheme for the original XBOX worked pretty well. Sure, there were mod chips, but most people didn't have the time and energy to use them.
I would say it's very very few people that do that. How many goats have you seen sacrificed lately? How many people kill those who work on Saturday? Besides, what does the Bible say about downloading DVDs over the Internet?
Not a bad assumption. But figuring out what God wants us to do and just accepting what other people say God wants us to do are two different things. Which Bible? Which parts of it? Whose interpretations?
Sure. If I agree.
No. You can't force me to agree to the rental terms. If I purchase a DVD, then I have not agreed to merely rent it.
In what way does it not work? And what other choice is there?
Well, as I said, they did it the Christmas of 1998, when I worked there, and before Carly did. In Florham Park, New Jersey, not California, if it makes a difference. (The Florham Park site is now closed down; I left in 1999 before it closed.)
No, it wasn't a Carly idea. They first did it back in 1970. Instead of laying of 10% of the workforce, they gave everyone a 10% cut in work (and a corresponding cut in pay). David Packard even talks about it in his book. And they did it again in December of 1998, while Lew Platt was still CEO. From what I've heard it was also done at other various times in between. And also from what I've heard they never really cut the work by 10%. People only had to come in 9 days every two weeks, but they basically still had the same amount of work to do.
Ah, now I understand how I was misunderstood. I meant we gave the rats diabetes as in we injected them with something that destroyed their pancreas or fed them some insanely fat diet which was sure to develop problems (or we bred them in a specific way to make them susceptible to what would otherwise be a very rare occurance). Not that we gave it to them accidentally.
Umm, I'm not sure if that was a joke or not, but mice share so many of the ailments that we do because we give them to 'em.
Most McDonalds food is pretty bad for you even in reasonable sized portions. A medium fries for instance contains 5 grams of trans fats. That serving alone (once per day) is enough to raise your heart attack risk by 25%, diabetes or no diabetes.
McDonalds might be a reasonable alternative in 2 years or so (*), but not because of this insulin drug, but because the NYC ban on trans fats might finally get McDonalds to change their menus. Not that I agree with the NYC law, but it'll probably have positive effects.
(*) Actually, their classic grilled chicken sandwich is fairly healthy already, as is their grilled chicken ceasar salad with one of the low fat dressings, but pretty much the rest of the menu is bad.
People with Type II diabetes usually also have high bad cholesterol and low good cholesterol. Just fixing the blood sugar levels without fixing the underlying cause (the poor diet and lack of exercise) doesn't seem like it's going to help much. In fact, it could very well make things worse.
I'm just happy to see that lawn darts made the top of the list. When I heard the title of this article, that's what I immediately thought of.
First off, it's not my hypothetical, I was just running with it :). Secondly, maybe in some cases the television could be substituted for something else. But if a heroin addict can eleviate withdrawal symptoms with methadone, do we say he doesn't physically need heroin?
The thought patterns are a result of the TV watching, though. Back to the heroin addict, we could say it's not the heroin that makes him feel this way, it's the opioid receptors. But we'd just be nitpicking, in my opinion.
Bear in mind now, my assumption to this entire argument is rooted in the belief that the actions of a person are determined solely by physical causality. Add in free will or some other metaphysical concepts and the whole thing goes out the window.
Usually not. After all, an hour of TV a day is hardly comparable to a pack of cigarettes a day. But what if he does? What if removal of the television causes him to become anxious, to pace back and forth, to sweat, to cry?
Usually, yes, I'd agree with this.
If you get lung cancer because you smoked cigarettes knowing full well the whole time that cigarettes tend to cause lung cancer then yes, you're clearly to blame for this. Nowadays that's pretty much everyone, though in the past before we knew that cigarettes caused lung cancer I find it harder to say that someone should be held accountable for such a thing.
But here's the thing: this doesn't follow from any of the rest of your post. Yes, people need to be responsible for their actions. But this doesn't mean that lung cancer isn't a medical condition. Why should internet addiction be any different? Because it deals with the brain, and the brain is more complicated than the lungs?
The ADA is a stupid law. Medical conditions like "internet addiction" make this obvious, but why should it be any different if the medical condition is lung cancer caused by smoking, or paraplegism caused by drunk driving, or blindness caused by staring at the sun?
IANAP (I am not a physicist), but isn't the brain a physical object?
How about showing them some of the code that is proprietary but not classified?
I think Angela Beesley, cofounder of Wikia, said it best: "So far, there are two ways Wikia has made money - advertising and venture capital/angel investment". (1) Now they've decided to get rid of the advertising. The "???" is clearly "get suckers to give you venture capital".
Seriously though, the last time I heard venture capital referred to as "making money" was right before the last dot com bubble burst.
As far as time zones, that has nothing to do with flexible hours. In fact, without flexible hours you're pretty much guaranteed to not get much overlapping work time. With flexible hours you'll get lucky and find someone working odd hours (for their time zone) occasionally.
Random unscheduled get-togethers would be harder, of course. If they need to be face-to-face, even moreso. If that's a common need then yeah, I can see how everyone working a schedule most of the time could be useful. Depends on the size of the company, and what exactly the workers in question do.