In my experience, a few years of experience plus several certifications is worth the few years of experience. I think a lot of companies are beginning to catch on to the fact that people can have a bunch of certifications and still be worthless when it comes to getting anything done. Not to berate those who have gone for certs, but they just don't translate into real world ability the way that actually doing it for a few years does. It's nice to have a few knowledge-based theories about why the network is slow as hell for everyone, but explainations generally take a back seat to getting it fixed.
The reason most large companies do like to see college on your resume is that colleges don't sit you down and throw a bunch of info about one topic at you. Most colleges construct major requirements in such a way as to produce well-rounded individuals. While art history may not help you kill the network virus that's spreading through the corporate LAN, it does help you to a certain degree with other things, like social interaction. This comes in handy when you berate the idiot who brought his infected-all-to-hell laptop into work and plugged it into the LAN without telling anyone. This is why trade schools are helping less with finding work, and why college remains a good starting point for a resume.
"even with optimized code, clock-for-clock, the P3 is still faster"
This may not be true in specific applications that support both SSE-2 and hyperthreading. Though I don't have a spcific head-to-head matchup, one particular program I might expect to see higher clock-for-clock performance on the P4 than the P3 is Cinebench 2003.
This merely shows that under absolutely perfect circumstances, the P4 can perform well. What it also shows is that the P4 requires those perfect conditions to go much of anywhere.
You also forgot to mention that there was no "086".:)
Good job, Slashdot... This has only been covered at the Inquirer and Ace's for a couple of months. Some relevant articles can be had at Ace's here, there, and over yonder.
Look to the discussion forums for further analysis by competent folks.
Warning: Only hit the links if you're intelligent. The average mind need not apply.
Really? What criminal act are the police investigating with regards to university network logs? The RIAA is a private organization launching civil lawsuits. Nowhere do the police get involved in this process. The university cannot be compelled to produce that which it does not have. Nor can a university can be compelled to maintain records which have yet to be subpoenaed. Which brings us to our next point...
"tampering with the evidence."
Tampering with what evidence? No criminal act has even been alleged. Now, if the university is subpoenaed for particular records, and they still have them, then and only then are they in trouble if they subsequently destroy those records. The problem in this case is the failure to comply with the subpoena.
Your argument is tantamount to saying that if I find a shoe on my lawn and decide to sue the wearer for tresspassing, the shoe store that originally sold the shoes would be in trouble if they no longer have records of the sale. That's plainly ridiculous.
"HELLO!?!? I JUST PAID $10 to sit in this theatre and you're preaching to me to not steal off the internet!??! HELLO? WE'RE THE DAMN PAYING CUSTOMERS."
My first reaction to seeing that ad for the first time was, "there's going to be some guy, some place, who's going to think to himself, "Holy shit! I can get movies online for free?! What the hell am I doing here then??""
"Yes, because middle-aged women are just dying to see T'Pol or Seven of Nine in a skin tight bunny suit. Or is it aimed at that undeserved lesbian demographic?"
Could be that Berman & co wanted to see if they could find a way to get hot bi-sexual women into Star Trek conventions so they could hit on them.:)
Unmemorable characters? You've got to be kidding. Character development was the hallmark of Voyager. Kes left the show mid-way through, yet most people who watched even occassionally are sure to remember her. Who could forget the wise-cracking EMH who turned into a compassionate individual and a valued member of the crew? How can anyone ignore the transition of Tom Paris, from unprincipled mercenary to dutiful Starfleet officer, and finally to loving husband and soon-to-be father? Harry Kim went from being a lost little schoolboy scared to death of anything that moved to being a confident officer not afraid to take charge and make a decision. His drive to get home kept hope alive. Chakotay, the angry warrior, turned into a wise and cautious adviser to his Captain, who easily would have been his wife if circumstances allowed. Seven of Nine's transition from single-dimensioned drone to caring individual is pretty plain to see. The point is that the evolution of the crew turned them into much more than just a crew - it made them a family. Go back and watch every episode from Season 1 to Season 7 and tell me differently.
"The previously immortal and near unbeatable borg were made to look like a bunch of pussies in this."
The Borg's power was destroyed in First Contact. Before then, the hive mind made an unbeatable force of nature function nearly without fault. Introducing the Borg queen, which was done in FC, was what turned the Borg into pussies. Once you leave the fate of the collective in the hands of one individual, you completely destroy all that made them powerful. Voyager did nothing to help the Borg, but it wasn't what turned things against them either.
"Time travel became more cliche than it previously was."
I would disagree. Manipulation of space-time and tinkering with alternate realities/dimensions functioned in a number of ways. First, it really hammered home what Einstein, Hawking, and others have been telling us for a century - that there are no absolutes. It also delved into questions of destiny, fate, morality, and so on. With time travel plots, we were given a glimpse of the types of problems that exist if you allow for the possibility of time travel. Different loops and paradoxes were explained in a new and interesting way. I don't think that Hawking would berate anyone for educating the masses on complicated theories in new and interesting ways. That such episodes were more commonplace than in previous series merely shows that Voyager's writers were more open to taking chances. In some episodes, things worked well, whereas in others, things simply didn't work at all. Would you have prefered that no risks were taken? DS9 pre-season 4 was what you get when you take no risks.
"Star Trek: Enterprise Theme song sucks."
I actually like it a lot. It is, in fact, the only part of the show I do like. I enjoy seeing the evolution of mankind's exploration and discovery. I think it's a great reminder of how far we've gone and how much further we have yet to go. The fact that the rest of the show is incoherent and completely out of touch with 4 series of Star Trek world-build doesn't make me like the theme song any less.:)
"I'll throw your complaint right back at you--Janeway, Tuvok and Torres were assimilated in one episode and they likewise recovered without any implants stuck to them."
Which is quickly remedied when you consider the fact that they had planned on being assimilated the entire time. Picard was taken by force and surprise. Those three had the Doctor prepare them with at least one defense against the assimilation technique (neural suppressors) that was mentioned, and possibly others to ensure that no permanent damage would be done so long as they weren't away from sick bay for too long.
That's not to say that it's definitely what happened - only that it would make plenty of sense.
"Not only that, this was after First Contact and Voyager established that Borg routinely cut off body parts, replacing them with Borg equivalents,"
They do, once the new drones have been returned to a safe location where the modifications can be made without interference. Also, modifications, for a group hell-bent on efficiency, would only be made when necessary. As I recall, they were on a Borg Sphere at the time, which is a long-range tactical vessel. Somehow, I doubt the borg were short on any particular type of drone on that ship. Thus, it would be reasonable to assume that any new drones would be kept intact until there was a reason to justify the time, effort, and resources required to modify them.
"And then there's invented stuff for ratings fluff like the "relationship" between Seven and Chokotay that came out of nowhere."
The relationship didn't "come out of nowhere", though it was slightly more sudden than one would expect. Chakotay had a crush on Seven for quite some time. Seven's own feelings for him were limited by some of her regulatory implants. Once they were removed, the sudden rush of new emotions made things progress far more rapidly than would normally be the case. Don't forget that she was 6 or 7 when she was assimilated, so Chakotay would be her "first love". This wasn't fluff, this was the natural reaction to the realization that you may spend the rest of your life in one spot - people are going to pair up.
" They never went anywhere with Kes,"
Kes was a peripheral character at the start of the show. She was part of the Neelix tour guide package. She developed into a valued member of the crew, assistant to the doctor, and even a ship's counsellor to some extent. The fact is that she had reached the end of her evolution on the show. Sure, they could have kept her on for another year or two, but then you have to start making her look older and older. In one episode, we saw a Kes near her dying days. The reason Kes was there in the first place was that she was attractive. Once she's been made old (remember, she only lives 9 years), she's no longer attractive and becomes more of a burden to the crew than a help. Do you really want your fond memories of Kes spoiled by some old hag barely making her way around the ship and breaking her hip every third episode? Personally, the episode in which Kes returned (Fury) really hurt my image of Kes - it just wasn't her. That episode made me thankful to have seen Kes off under good circumstances. I therefore ignore 'Fury' and choose to remember Kes for all the good things she was. The finality of her evolution (in Gift) was extraordinary. Looking "beyond the subatomic level", she gave us an incredible glimpse of how things could actually look. All of her goodheartedness and all her thankfulness to the crew of Voyager was realized in the actual gift - sending them 10,000 lightyears closer to home and safely beyond Borg space. She went from being the cute chick who came on with the furry guy to being a telepath with amazing abilities that developed over the course of about a dozen episodes spread out over two seasons. To say that she went nowhere is just silly.
"As far as the Maquis plotline goes don't even go there. It was completely forgotten about after Season 2"
It wasn't "forgotten", it slowly disolved, as one would expect it to eventually do. We can argue about the timing or the length of the evolution to a one-crew ship, but the fact remains that spending your life together is eventually going to all but erase some of who you were. The Starfleet crew learned as much from the Marquis as the Marquis learned from the Starfleet crew. Episodes such as 'Learning Curve' showed us that it was actually Chakotay who was pushing along the transition to a one-crew ship.
"And hell, while I'm on that subject, your "character-driven" show gave very little discussion (the Maquis being wiped out was the only acknowledgement if I'm not mistaken) of the Dominion War. If you were far from home and cut off for four or five years and managed to miss something like the Dominion War (WW2 would be the closest analogy probably) and thousands of your presumed friends (in Starfleet) were dead, wouldn't it have some impact on you?"
Well, let's see here... Following the news from home, B'Elana tried killing herself in the holodeck (Extreme Risk), Chakotay got into a physical fight with her, the Captain was absolutely crushed, ex-Marquis crew members started grouping up again, and so on. Did it affect everyone? Yes, but for the Starfleet people, it was like finding out about WWII in 1960. Much of that Starfleet crew was pretty green, so most would have only served on a handful of ships. The captain h
Yeah, sure it was. Let me ask you this: could you take a season 2 TNG crew and plug them into a season 7 episode? (Hint: Make sure you re-watch "All Good Things" before answering). Now cut to Voyager. Could you take a season 2 crew and plug them into a season 7 episode? Not even close; you'd have Marquis and Starfleet crewmembers at each other's throats - not the family that developed. You wouldn't have the steady relationships that the season 7 crew had (eg Tom and B'Elana). You would have a rude, barely useful EMH, instead of the kind, dependable go-to hologram of season 7.
Having watched every episode of both shows, I can tell you with no doubts in my mind that TNG was nowhere near as character-driven as Voyager. In fact, one could easily refer to Voyager as a "Space-based Soap Opera". In terms of the "magic reset button", I don't recall you complaining about Picard's borg implants having been entirely removed. Seems to me that Seven of Nine showed more long-term affects of having been assimilated than Picard. In terms of other illnesses or injuries being healed, you can attribute that to the extremely skilled, highly adaptive EMH.
The fact is, Voyager's underlying themes of principles over pragmatism, humanity over safety, the nature of individuality, free will, etc all contributed to a show that was filled with social lessons for us all. Each show had it's poorer moments (TNG's Traveller, Voyager's "threshold" - crossing the Warp 10 barrier), but what stands out to me is the amazing differences in the people on Voyager from start to finish. Go watch a season 2 episode some time and compare it to a season 7 episode - the progress made for everyone involved is startling. The problem most people have with Voyager is that it doesn't make a whole lot of sense unless you've been following what's going on. Some subplots developed over months, while others were simply continuous throughout the show. If you truly want to appreciate Voyager, you really need to watch every episode in order from start to finish (though not necessarily all at once).
"I guess I was all too subtley pointing out the irony that a so-called "hacker" website can only write a page that can be rendered in IE!"
Yeah... except that this guy just said that it works fine under 1.4. Workes fine for me with Mozilla 1.5 and Firebird 0.7.
"You beratted me for having "old" "ancient" software and went on to compare my Moz 1.3 (9 months old) with software, the newest of which is 6 years old."
No, I berated you for complaining about something not working on a browser that's 3 point versions back from the newest available (about versions back if you count all the x.x.x, alpha, beta, and RCs). Also, the newest version is not six months old, it's three days old (as of the time of this writing). The version before that, 1.5.1, had been released on November 26th. Did you ever bother to look at the Mozilla web site before making that claim?
"Given the qualitly of the code the Moz team generates now, I think it was reasonalbe to think it was the page, not the browser."
So you thought it better to publicly dismiss the HOPE conference because if it doesn't work in all versions of Mozilla, it's not worth the time? Could they have used a simpler web page? Sure; but they also could have put the whole thing into a text file hosted on the web server. They chose instead to use something that your (older, as in not one of the newer ones) web browser either doesn't support, or otherwise had a problem rendering. Had you tried a new version of either Mozilla or Firebird before posting, your post probably would never had existed. The original post was tantamount to a Windows 95 user complaining that his new firewire hard drive isn't working, and thus is a pile of junk, without ever having tried it on another computer with a newer or more advanced OS. Yes, Windows 95 is chronologically far older than Mozilla 1.3, but in the Mozilla development world, that 9 months is a vast and hugely significant time period.
In short, it's time for an upgrade, yes? Try 1.4.1, it works well.
"Microsoft will bury it, just like they buried UNIX back in the 1990's when they called UNIX 'forked' and 'confusing' and offered Microsoft as a 'stable target'."
Microsoft edged *nix out of the low-end server market in the 1990s because companies were able to take any half-wit drunken dumbshit off the street and have him trained (sort of like a monkey) as an admin inside of a few weeks. The resulting drop in reliability from moving to Microsoft products wasn't substantial enough, and didn't kill off enough mission ultra-critical servers to justify moving back to the more expensive *nix solutions.
The fact that you could toss NT onto a hand-built off-the-shelf machine also made a big difference. Instead of moving back to the more expensive, but far more reliable *nix solutions, they simply segmented server functions such that isolated Windows failures didn't cause major problems. With promises of (relatively) cheap upgrades, much better reliability, and far more features on the horizon, Microsoft kept many companies with them by dragging the proverbial carrot along. The simple fact is that Microsoft did a much better job marketing the OS that the *nix vendors did.
" the reliability of any given system is often largely a function of the person running it."
You're absolutely correct here. The most stable OS on Earth can be brought down by someone with enough access and a lack of knowledge. In the same fashion, I'm sure a freshman administrator could take an OpenBSD machine and end up with it being less secure than an unpatched Windows 95 box. The documentation for most OSS projects tends to be lacking, out of date, incomplete, and sometimes outright wrong. The reason for this is rather obvious - writing documentation is perhaps the only activity more boring than reading it. Thus, someone who's read all there is to read in the docs for a particular OSS project can still have little to no idea what they're doing with it. It's not anyone's fault, it's the simple matter of no one being paid to write good, strong documentation. That's one of those jobs that sucks so much that you've almost got to be paid more for doing it than for writing the actual software just to get motivated. Some in the elitest crowd may contend that the source code is, itself, all the necessary documentation.
To be perfectly honest, when I first started working with FreeBSD (I needed a reliable DHCP and tFTP server), I screwed it up so badly that it had to be completely wiped about once every few days. These days, I can sit here and laugh at some of the ridiculous things I was trying to do, because I know better from working my way through problems.
"the ones that matter have been "as reliable as running water" because I chose to keep them off the bleeding edge"
As I replied to another comment, I didn't mean to put down Linux at all. Linux is pretty reliable out of the box in most cases, and keeping yourself off the bleeding edge is a smart way to make sure things stay that way. My comments were centered more around the communities, the thinking, and the habits associated with FreeBSD and Linux. Although there are some instances where the OSs themselves evidence my point (as in firewire, CD/DVD burner support, etc), it's the users who really generate the mentality. As I said, there's nothing wrong with being on the bleeding edge if that's your style. For many like me, though, the running water is plenty.
Right now I use a combination of FreeBSD and Windows 2000 at home and at work for the reliability of one and the feature-richness of the other. If Linux gets to the point of Windows 2000's compatibility and usability (usability for me, not in general - I know it's usable and has been for quite some time), then I'll re-evaluate things. Ideally, I'd like to see FreeBSD make some progress towards desktop-readiness, as that would get me down to using one OS. I also recognize, however, that FreeBSD's intended market is now, and probably always will be, the server market.
"That would resonate a little more with me if it actually resembled my experience with Linux."
I tried to be clear that I in no way intended to disparage Linux. The culture simply tends to be one of always going for the latest 'n greatest stuff. This means getting the latest kernel as soon as it's released, then compiling and running it. Certainly not everyone does this with Linux, but it does seem to be the mainstream view so far as I can tell. That's not to say Linux people are sitting there every day recompiling their kernel. I haven't done any research into the exact frequency of kernel releases from Linusland, but my general feeling from friends that run Linux is that every month or two it's off to the races with doing this or that which requires some fairly substantial work.
The difference that I generally see between that and FreeBSD is that many FreeBSD users just want everything to work as expected - like running water. No one expects anything fancy to happen with their running water. What they do expect is that they can go to the faucet at any time, day or night, turn it on, and get water. To continue the analogy, the mainstream Linux folks seem to enjoy disassembling all the pipes every so often so they can be re-run. They can get all sorts of different flavors and colors of water, but occassionally a couple pipes come loose and need to be hammered back into place. That's not to say that either line of thought is better or worse, merely that the lines of thinking tend to be different.
I'm a minimalist by nature. I don't want to have to jump through hoops to get something going. That doesn't mean I wont sit there and tinker with something if I want to; I just don't like ever having to tinker with it to get it going. In terms of what I use, it's a mix of FreeBSD and Windows 2000, mostly. I'll toy with other things (inluding Linux) now and then, but the combination of FreeBSD and Windows 2000 meets all my needs for reliability and feature-richness at home and work. That's not to say it's for everyone, but it works very well for me.
"The only thing that turns me off is people like you."
People with his pretentious attitude make up a sizable portion of the FreeBSD community. That kind of superior attitude comes mainly from walking through a sea of crashing Windows machines and recompile-reboot-repeat Linux machines only to end up at a FreeBSD machine that's more reliable than running water. Now, that's not to say that there's anything wrong with Linux, but its frequent updates to stay on the absolute bleeding edge does cost it a measure of reliability. On the FreeBSD end of things, you've got "running water", but not many of the newer toys. Things like firewire support, new file systems, CD and DVD burner support don't make it into the FreeBSD-STABLE line until long, long after Linux and Windows have had them.
"Only to tell you that you won't get any Linux user to use BSD by telling them "they don't understand it" (as the article does)"
I think a lot of this comes from the fact that the small Linux fanboy group screams so often and so loudly that it often appears to make up the majority of Linux users. When you see someone shouting "0h D00DZ! I ju3t g0t t3h n3w k3rn3l! Fuck1n C00L!" on a forum, followed by a dozen 'me too' posts similarly formatted, you tend to think of the posters as... well... morons. When enough of them shout long and hard enough, one can't help but feel that you'd be talking to a wall trying to get into a reasoned debate about the pros and cons of each OS.
The fact is that SCO isn't Linux's biggest threat. Microsoft isn't it either. The single most dangerous threat to the success of Linux, especially in the workplace, are the legions of fanboys who show up at the most inopportune times and places to rant and rave irrationally, irreverently, and incessantly; spouting off profanity-filled immature propaganda about how Linux equals the second coming of Christ Almighty. As a community, Linux would do well to figure out a way to shut these idiots up so that Linux's fate can be determined by the merits of its code, rather than the character of a small portion of its users.
Actually, Libertarians tend to be more right-wing oriented. They're basically conservatives whose main issue is reducing the size and power of government. Conservatives and Republicans used to talk at length about how smaller government and more individual freedom were good things. The current crop sees government as an instrument to wield power. Sounds a bit like how the left used to be described.
"Proud owner of a Mensa membership card."
Thank goodness that membership card didn't require more than basic knowledge of the English language to obtain.
You're a moron and a troll. In other words, you'll fit right in with the First Post, GNAA, and Goatse.cx '-1' posters.
"I assume that military forces have a responsiblity to exist in the area that the attack occurs. and that they will use martial law to attempt to protect the rights of the american (u.s.) citizens."
The litmus test for legality of martial law was set in Ex Parte Milligan. To quote the Supremes in Milligan:
"Martial law cannot arise from a threatened invasion. The necessity must be actual and present; the invasion real, such as effectually closes the courts and deposes the civil administration."
Also:
"It follows, from what has been said on this subject, that there are occasions when martial rule can be properly applied. If, in foreign invasion or civil war, the courts are actually closed, and it is impossible to administer criminal justice according to law, then, on the theatre of active military operations, where war really prevails, there is a necessity to furnish a substitute for the civil authority, thus overthrown, to preserve the safety of the army and society; and as no power is left but the military, it is allowed to govern by martial rule until the laws can have their free course. As necessity creates the rule, so it limits its duration; for, if this government is continued after the courts are reinstated, it is a gross usurpation of power. Martial rule can never exist where the courts are open, and in the proper and unobstructed exercise of their jurisdiction. It is also confined to the locality of actual war." [Emph Mine]
"why is it that we can spend our money to send troops abroad to police other nations, but we can't keep troops at the borders (that could include air space) to protect our citizens from attack?"
Well, for one thing, we face no enemy at any land border. As for the oceans, we have the Coast Guard. Local protection for the border states would be provided by National Guard, police, and other law enforcement. If Canada were to (suicidally) invade Maine, the local smokeys and National Guard would be mobilzed for defense while military resources were gathered. Martial law could not be legally declared in Maine unless the Canadian military ran right over the immediate defenses and overthrew the soverign state authority of Maine. At that point, US military forces could declare the entire battle zone (and probably a small buffer zone surrounding immediate combat areas) to be under martial law. The Commander in Chief (President) would have to make the determination as to whether martial law was necessary.
In terms of deploying US troops as a deterrant, there's really nothing to stop anyone from having the military sit a bunch of guys all around our borders fully armed. If, however, a couple soldiers watched one civilian beat the hell out of another civilian, they could not arrest anyone, nor do anything other than protect the guy getting his ass kicked and call the police. That being said, there is little that's more demoralizing to a people than to feel as though they're under the control of cold, heartless military forces. Similarly, there is nothing more demoralizing to a military force than to be forced to police its own citizens. Who signs up to the US Army because they want to drive a tank down Main St in Smalltown, USA while pointing an M-16 at the Americans watching them pass? To sum it all up, there's no need to deploy US military forces to our borders, as there's no known threat with which our civilian forces are incapable of dealing.
"what is it that gives us the right, responsibility or obligation to send troops abroad to police other parts of the world?"
That depends on who you ask. If you ask an isolationist, nothing. If you ask a neocon, then we have to do it to maintain American power and change the world so it's more US-friendly. Outside of that, there are number of arguments, centered around morality, legality, and humanity. How do we, as a people blessed with success, ignore a suffering people's cries as an unelected military force slau
"armed military across the country would protect americans rights and keep the country safe from the jihad."
Someone actually modded this insightful? You've got to be joking. Many of the founding fathers saw a standing military, in and of itself, as a major threat to liberty. Standing armies have historically been used to oppress the population in both times of war and peace. This nation, in an attempt to protect the people from a corrupt regime using the military as a weapon against the people, enacted the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. It restricts the military from engaging in any law enforcement, except where provided for by act of Congress or the US Constitution. This followed the Supreme Court decision of Ex Parte Milligan(1866), which stated that Martial rule (military law) cannot exist or be enforced within the borders of the United States except where it is necessitated by a situation (such as rebellion) in which the courts cease to function, and thus, civilian authority no longer exists. The Supreme Court, like just about everyone else who's ever taken 10 seconds to look at a history book, recognized military forces policing civilians as a grave and dire threat to the liberties guaranteed by our Constitution.
The threat posed by the military to the liberties of the American people has been recognized since this country was formed. To say that we should now reverse more than 200 years of historically-based common fucking sense is absolutely insane.
"Anything found in such a search that is NOT a bomb (or other airplane-wrecker) MUST be ignored."
The only problem here is that, assuming something you had set off alarms in the detection devices, the search is totally righteous. Since you're handing over the baggage with the understanding that it will be put through bomb-detection devices, then hand-searched if deemed necessary, your expectation of privacy is really just about nil. If you have something illegal that you want to take with you, why not ship it via UPS, USPS, or other similar method? What I would agree with is a requirement that anything setting off alarms be documented from the moment it sets off sensors to the time the situation is resolved. This would provide for ensuring that random hand checks are not performed unnecessarily. If the sensors detect something, and whatever they detect is documented (all sensor readings from the bag are kept and reproduceable), then there is no reason to assume that the search performed is anything less than righteous.
Grounds for a search being thrown out would include a couple of cops stopping you with your bags before you even enter the airport, then searching without a warrant or consent. At that point, anything found including a bomb ought to be excluded from any criminal proceedings, and all evidence obtained thereafter as a result of the search tossed out with it.
I completely agree that we cannot allow for fishing expeditions in the name of fighting terrorism, but I cannot ignore the boatloads of case law that says when the police or other agents are acting in good faith, their search is not unreasonable.
Now, if someone tries to come out with a "hey, I hand-searched his bag for no particular reason and found $illegal_item", then I would agree that it needs to be tossed. If they've got alarms ringing all over the place telling them that you've handed them a bag of bombs, then I see no reason to exclude the results of the perfectly reasonable hand-search that follows.
If there's going to be criticism, I'd rather it at least come from someone with the knowledge to critique practical aspects, rather than arguing just for the sake of argument.;)
"Sure, it may work for a quick city hopper flight of an hour or less. But anything more, and you'd have pilots going to the toilet IN the cockpit. They'd get no meals. No fluids that they didn't stash in there with them."
Alright, then let me toss my original idea past you. In labs where extremely infectious agents are studied (such as the CDC labs), there are a set of two doors one must walk through to go from the outside to the inside of the lab housing the agents. Both doors cannot be opened at once, and the inside between the two doors is well monitored. I was thinking of adapting that idea for use on existing planes. It would require some reconfiguration of some parts towards the front, but the balance between security and operability is good.
Basically, the idea is to have two doors between the cockpit and the passenger cabin. Both doors cannot be opened at the same time. There are cameras mounted between the two doors (at least two cameras), with small monitors mounted within the cockpit. Only the cockpit can control the two doors. Right outside the cockpit, there are also a few cameras covering the angles near the outside door. When one of you needs to exit the cockpit for whatever reason, you check the monitors to make sure no one is in the area between the two security doors. You then open the first door, and step inside. One of the other pilots then monitors the outter door's cameras while the first door closes. Assuming all appears well, the outside door is opened and you're free to roam about as you please. Any potential hijackers would have to convince you to open each security door one at a time to let them into the cockpit. Obviously, you're not going to do that because you understand that there is now far more at stake than the lives aboard your airplane. As a secondary precaution, I would suggest that pressing the "hijack" button, or alert button, or whatever it's called that alerts the ground to a serious security issue on board would seal both doors until the plane lands and something is done by a mechanic to reopen them. This allows you to move about the plane freely without fear of giving potential hijackers an opportunity to do something to your airplane.
"About the ONLY real security measure you have on an aircraft post-9/11 is the passengers on that aircraft, who if they see a hijack about to start, should rush the hijackers and detain them (or worse - I wouldn't lose any sleep over the "accidental death" of a would be hijacker)."
I agree completely that passengers should help the flight crew to subdue anyone who appears to be a threat. I also believe that having a couple of air marshals on board, especially with one or more in plain clothes, further increases the chances for success in securing the airplane. Basically, for hijackers to even gain control of the cabin (setting aside their lack of ability to enter the cockpit as per my last security measure), they would have to take out at least two well-trained individuals and a plane filled with untrained, but highly motivated people.
"All this business about fingerprinting citizens entering the US, CAPPS, TIA, colour-coded threat levels etc - all of it is useless and simply a way to slowly strip away your rights, frog in boiling water style."
I am in full agreement with you that all this technology provides security only to those in power who seek to control every person in this country; citizen or not.
By the way, how do you feel about the whole 'guns in the cockpit' debate? Personally, I think having a firearm discharge in the cockpit is probably one of the most dangerous things that can happen on a plane. I don't know the ins and outs of the equipment on board, but if they're claiming my cell phone can cause pro
Slashdot Mirror
In my experience, a few years of experience plus several certifications is worth the few years of experience. I think a lot of companies are beginning to catch on to the fact that people can have a bunch of certifications and still be worthless when it comes to getting anything done. Not to berate those who have gone for certs, but they just don't translate into real world ability the way that actually doing it for a few years does. It's nice to have a few knowledge-based theories about why the network is slow as hell for everyone, but explainations generally take a back seat to getting it fixed.
The reason most large companies do like to see college on your resume is that colleges don't sit you down and throw a bunch of info about one topic at you. Most colleges construct major requirements in such a way as to produce well-rounded individuals. While art history may not help you kill the network virus that's spreading through the corporate LAN, it does help you to a certain degree with other things, like social interaction. This comes in handy when you berate the idiot who brought his infected-all-to-hell laptop into work and plugged it into the LAN without telling anyone. This is why trade schools are helping less with finding work, and why college remains a good starting point for a resume.
"even with optimized code, clock-for-clock, the P3 is still faster"
:)
This may not be true in specific applications that support both SSE-2 and hyperthreading. Though I don't have a spcific head-to-head matchup, one particular program I might expect to see higher clock-for-clock performance on the P4 than the P3 is Cinebench 2003.
This merely shows that under absolutely perfect circumstances, the P4 can perform well. What it also shows is that the P4 requires those perfect conditions to go much of anywhere.
You also forgot to mention that there was no "086".
Good job, Slashdot... This has only been covered at the Inquirer and Ace's for a couple of months. Some relevant articles can be had at Ace's here, there, and over yonder.
Look to the discussion forums for further analysis by competent folks.
Warning: Only hit the links if you're intelligent. The average mind need not apply.
" so does this mean the varios linux distro's will be able to include a dvd player by default?"
Yep, as soon as we can find a DVD player in this damn spaghetti System V code.
"interfering with a police investigation"
Really? What criminal act are the police investigating with regards to university network logs? The RIAA is a private organization launching civil lawsuits. Nowhere do the police get involved in this process. The university cannot be compelled to produce that which it does not have. Nor can a university can be compelled to maintain records which have yet to be subpoenaed. Which brings us to our next point...
"tampering with the evidence."
Tampering with what evidence? No criminal act has even been alleged. Now, if the university is subpoenaed for particular records, and they still have them, then and only then are they in trouble if they subsequently destroy those records. The problem in this case is the failure to comply with the subpoena.
Your argument is tantamount to saying that if I find a shoe on my lawn and decide to sue the wearer for tresspassing, the shoe store that originally sold the shoes would be in trouble if they no longer have records of the sale. That's plainly ridiculous.
"HELLO!?!? I JUST PAID $10 to sit in this theatre and you're preaching to me to not steal off the internet!??! HELLO? WE'RE THE DAMN PAYING CUSTOMERS."
My first reaction to seeing that ad for the first time was, "there's going to be some guy, some place, who's going to think to himself, "Holy shit! I can get movies online for free?! What the hell am I doing here then??""
"Yes, because middle-aged women are just dying to see T'Pol or Seven of Nine in a skin tight bunny suit. Or is it aimed at that undeserved lesbian demographic?"
:)
Could be that Berman & co wanted to see if they could find a way to get hot bi-sexual women into Star Trek conventions so they could hit on them.
"Star Trek: Voyager:
:)
Unmemorable characters"
Unmemorable characters? You've got to be kidding. Character development was the hallmark of Voyager. Kes left the show mid-way through, yet most people who watched even occassionally are sure to remember her. Who could forget the wise-cracking EMH who turned into a compassionate individual and a valued member of the crew? How can anyone ignore the transition of Tom Paris, from unprincipled mercenary to dutiful Starfleet officer, and finally to loving husband and soon-to-be father? Harry Kim went from being a lost little schoolboy scared to death of anything that moved to being a confident officer not afraid to take charge and make a decision. His drive to get home kept hope alive. Chakotay, the angry warrior, turned into a wise and cautious adviser to his Captain, who easily would have been his wife if circumstances allowed. Seven of Nine's transition from single-dimensioned drone to caring individual is pretty plain to see. The point is that the evolution of the crew turned them into much more than just a crew - it made them a family. Go back and watch every episode from Season 1 to Season 7 and tell me differently.
"The previously immortal and near unbeatable borg were made to look like a bunch of pussies in this."
The Borg's power was destroyed in First Contact. Before then, the hive mind made an unbeatable force of nature function nearly without fault. Introducing the Borg queen, which was done in FC, was what turned the Borg into pussies. Once you leave the fate of the collective in the hands of one individual, you completely destroy all that made them powerful. Voyager did nothing to help the Borg, but it wasn't what turned things against them either.
"Time travel became more cliche than it previously was."
I would disagree. Manipulation of space-time and tinkering with alternate realities/dimensions functioned in a number of ways. First, it really hammered home what Einstein, Hawking, and others have been telling us for a century - that there are no absolutes. It also delved into questions of destiny, fate, morality, and so on. With time travel plots, we were given a glimpse of the types of problems that exist if you allow for the possibility of time travel. Different loops and paradoxes were explained in a new and interesting way. I don't think that Hawking would berate anyone for educating the masses on complicated theories in new and interesting ways. That such episodes were more commonplace than in previous series merely shows that Voyager's writers were more open to taking chances. In some episodes, things worked well, whereas in others, things simply didn't work at all. Would you have prefered that no risks were taken? DS9 pre-season 4 was what you get when you take no risks.
"Star Trek: Enterprise Theme song sucks."
I actually like it a lot. It is, in fact, the only part of the show I do like. I enjoy seeing the evolution of mankind's exploration and discovery. I think it's a great reminder of how far we've gone and how much further we have yet to go. The fact that the rest of the show is incoherent and completely out of touch with 4 series of Star Trek world-build doesn't make me like the theme song any less.
"I'll throw your complaint right back at you--Janeway, Tuvok and Torres were assimilated in one episode and they likewise recovered without any implants stuck to them."
Which is quickly remedied when you consider the fact that they had planned on being assimilated the entire time. Picard was taken by force and surprise. Those three had the Doctor prepare them with at least one defense against the assimilation technique (neural suppressors) that was mentioned, and possibly others to ensure that no permanent damage would be done so long as they weren't away from sick bay for too long.
That's not to say that it's definitely what happened - only that it would make plenty of sense.
"Not only that, this was after First Contact and Voyager established that Borg routinely cut off body parts, replacing them with Borg equivalents,"
They do, once the new drones have been returned to a safe location where the modifications can be made without interference. Also, modifications, for a group hell-bent on efficiency, would only be made when necessary. As I recall, they were on a Borg Sphere at the time, which is a long-range tactical vessel. Somehow, I doubt the borg were short on any particular type of drone on that ship. Thus, it would be reasonable to assume that any new drones would be kept intact until there was a reason to justify the time, effort, and resources required to modify them.
"And then there's invented stuff for ratings fluff like the "relationship" between Seven and Chokotay that came out of nowhere."
The relationship didn't "come out of nowhere", though it was slightly more sudden than one would expect. Chakotay had a crush on Seven for quite some time. Seven's own feelings for him were limited by some of her regulatory implants. Once they were removed, the sudden rush of new emotions made things progress far more rapidly than would normally be the case. Don't forget that she was 6 or 7 when she was assimilated, so Chakotay would be her "first love". This wasn't fluff, this was the natural reaction to the realization that you may spend the rest of your life in one spot - people are going to pair up.
" They never went anywhere with Kes,"
Kes was a peripheral character at the start of the show. She was part of the Neelix tour guide package. She developed into a valued member of the crew, assistant to the doctor, and even a ship's counsellor to some extent. The fact is that she had reached the end of her evolution on the show. Sure, they could have kept her on for another year or two, but then you have to start making her look older and older. In one episode, we saw a Kes near her dying days. The reason Kes was there in the first place was that she was attractive. Once she's been made old (remember, she only lives 9 years), she's no longer attractive and becomes more of a burden to the crew than a help. Do you really want your fond memories of Kes spoiled by some old hag barely making her way around the ship and breaking her hip every third episode? Personally, the episode in which Kes returned (Fury) really hurt my image of Kes - it just wasn't her. That episode made me thankful to have seen Kes off under good circumstances. I therefore ignore 'Fury' and choose to remember Kes for all the good things she was. The finality of her evolution (in Gift) was extraordinary. Looking "beyond the subatomic level", she gave us an incredible glimpse of how things could actually look. All of her goodheartedness and all her thankfulness to the crew of Voyager was realized in the actual gift - sending them 10,000 lightyears closer to home and safely beyond Borg space. She went from being the cute chick who came on with the furry guy to being a telepath with amazing abilities that developed over the course of about a dozen episodes spread out over two seasons. To say that she went nowhere is just silly.
"As far as the Maquis plotline goes don't even go there. It was completely forgotten about after Season 2"
It wasn't "forgotten", it slowly disolved, as one would expect it to eventually do. We can argue about the timing or the length of the evolution to a one-crew ship, but the fact remains that spending your life together is eventually going to all but erase some of who you were. The Starfleet crew learned as much from the Marquis as the Marquis learned from the Starfleet crew. Episodes such as 'Learning Curve' showed us that it was actually Chakotay who was pushing along the transition to a one-crew ship.
"And hell, while I'm on that subject, your "character-driven" show gave very little discussion (the Maquis being wiped out was the only acknowledgement if I'm not mistaken) of the Dominion War. If you were far from home and cut off for four or five years and managed to miss something like the Dominion War (WW2 would be the closest analogy probably) and thousands of your presumed friends (in Starfleet) were dead, wouldn't it have some impact on you?"
Well, let's see here... Following the news from home, B'Elana tried killing herself in the holodeck (Extreme Risk), Chakotay got into a physical fight with her, the Captain was absolutely crushed, ex-Marquis crew members started grouping up again, and so on. Did it affect everyone? Yes, but for the Starfleet people, it was like finding out about WWII in 1960. Much of that Starfleet crew was pretty green, so most would have only served on a handful of ships. The captain h
"TNG was a character-driven show."
Yeah, sure it was. Let me ask you this: could you take a season 2 TNG crew and plug them into a season 7 episode? (Hint: Make sure you re-watch "All Good Things" before answering). Now cut to Voyager. Could you take a season 2 crew and plug them into a season 7 episode? Not even close; you'd have Marquis and Starfleet crewmembers at each other's throats - not the family that developed. You wouldn't have the steady relationships that the season 7 crew had (eg Tom and B'Elana). You would have a rude, barely useful EMH, instead of the kind, dependable go-to hologram of season 7.
Having watched every episode of both shows, I can tell you with no doubts in my mind that TNG was nowhere near as character-driven as Voyager. In fact, one could easily refer to Voyager as a "Space-based Soap Opera". In terms of the "magic reset button", I don't recall you complaining about Picard's borg implants having been entirely removed. Seems to me that Seven of Nine showed more long-term affects of having been assimilated than Picard. In terms of other illnesses or injuries being healed, you can attribute that to the extremely skilled, highly adaptive EMH.
The fact is, Voyager's underlying themes of principles over pragmatism, humanity over safety, the nature of individuality, free will, etc all contributed to a show that was filled with social lessons for us all. Each show had it's poorer moments (TNG's Traveller, Voyager's "threshold" - crossing the Warp 10 barrier), but what stands out to me is the amazing differences in the people on Voyager from start to finish. Go watch a season 2 episode some time and compare it to a season 7 episode - the progress made for everyone involved is startling. The problem most people have with Voyager is that it doesn't make a whole lot of sense unless you've been following what's going on. Some subplots developed over months, while others were simply continuous throughout the show. If you truly want to appreciate Voyager, you really need to watch every episode in order from start to finish (though not necessarily all at once).
"I guess I was all too subtley pointing out the irony that a so-called "hacker" website can only write a page that can be rendered in IE!"
Yeah... except that this guy just said that it works fine under 1.4. Workes fine for me with Mozilla 1.5 and Firebird 0.7.
"You beratted me for having "old" "ancient" software and went on to compare my Moz 1.3 (9 months old) with software, the newest of which is 6 years old."
No, I berated you for complaining about something not working on a browser that's 3 point versions back from the newest available (about versions back if you count all the x.x.x, alpha, beta, and RCs). Also, the newest version is not six months old, it's three days old (as of the time of this writing). The version before that, 1.5.1, had been released on November 26th. Did you ever bother to look at the Mozilla web site before making that claim?
"Given the qualitly of the code the Moz team generates now, I think it was reasonalbe to think it was the page, not the browser."
So you thought it better to publicly dismiss the HOPE conference because if it doesn't work in all versions of Mozilla, it's not worth the time? Could they have used a simpler web page? Sure; but they also could have put the whole thing into a text file hosted on the web server. They chose instead to use something that your (older, as in not one of the newer ones) web browser either doesn't support, or otherwise had a problem rendering. Had you tried a new version of either Mozilla or Firebird before posting, your post probably would never had existed. The original post was tantamount to a Windows 95 user complaining that his new firewire hard drive isn't working, and thus is a pile of junk, without ever having tried it on another computer with a newer or more advanced OS. Yes, Windows 95 is chronologically far older than Mozilla 1.3, but in the Mozilla development world, that 9 months is a vast and hugely significant time period.
In short, it's time for an upgrade, yes? Try 1.4.1, it works well.
"It's interesting that after having to lucid dream for 3 months straight,"
;)
Being unconscious for that amount of time isn't called sleeping - it's called being in a coma.
"We'll excuse me for sticking with something that works."
As I recall, this thread began with you complaining about it not working, yes?
All I said was that if it's not working, you should try upgrading it.
"Microsoft will bury it, just like they buried UNIX back in the 1990's when they called UNIX 'forked' and 'confusing' and offered Microsoft as a 'stable target'."
Microsoft edged *nix out of the low-end server market in the 1990s because companies were able to take any half-wit drunken dumbshit off the street and have him trained (sort of like a monkey) as an admin inside of a few weeks. The resulting drop in reliability from moving to Microsoft products wasn't substantial enough, and didn't kill off enough mission ultra-critical servers to justify moving back to the more expensive *nix solutions.
The fact that you could toss NT onto a hand-built off-the-shelf machine also made a big difference. Instead of moving back to the more expensive, but far more reliable *nix solutions, they simply segmented server functions such that isolated Windows failures didn't cause major problems. With promises of (relatively) cheap upgrades, much better reliability, and far more features on the horizon, Microsoft kept many companies with them by dragging the proverbial carrot along. The simple fact is that Microsoft did a much better job marketing the OS that the *nix vendors did.
" the reliability of any given system is often largely a function of the person running it."
You're absolutely correct here. The most stable OS on Earth can be brought down by someone with enough access and a lack of knowledge. In the same fashion, I'm sure a freshman administrator could take an OpenBSD machine and end up with it being less secure than an unpatched Windows 95 box. The documentation for most OSS projects tends to be lacking, out of date, incomplete, and sometimes outright wrong. The reason for this is rather obvious - writing documentation is perhaps the only activity more boring than reading it. Thus, someone who's read all there is to read in the docs for a particular OSS project can still have little to no idea what they're doing with it. It's not anyone's fault, it's the simple matter of no one being paid to write good, strong documentation. That's one of those jobs that sucks so much that you've almost got to be paid more for doing it than for writing the actual software just to get motivated. Some in the elitest crowd may contend that the source code is, itself, all the necessary documentation.
To be perfectly honest, when I first started working with FreeBSD (I needed a reliable DHCP and tFTP server), I screwed it up so badly that it had to be completely wiped about once every few days. These days, I can sit here and laugh at some of the ridiculous things I was trying to do, because I know better from working my way through problems.
"the ones that matter have been "as reliable as running water" because I chose to keep them off the bleeding edge"
As I replied to another comment, I didn't mean to put down Linux at all. Linux is pretty reliable out of the box in most cases, and keeping yourself off the bleeding edge is a smart way to make sure things stay that way. My comments were centered more around the communities, the thinking, and the habits associated with FreeBSD and Linux. Although there are some instances where the OSs themselves evidence my point (as in firewire, CD/DVD burner support, etc), it's the users who really generate the mentality. As I said, there's nothing wrong with being on the bleeding edge if that's your style. For many like me, though, the running water is plenty.
Right now I use a combination of FreeBSD and Windows 2000 at home and at work for the reliability of one and the feature-richness of the other. If Linux gets to the point of Windows 2000's compatibility and usability (usability for me, not in general - I know it's usable and has been for quite some time), then I'll re-evaluate things. Ideally, I'd like to see FreeBSD make some progress towards desktop-readiness, as that would get me down to using one OS. I also recognize, however, that FreeBSD's intended market is now, and probably always will be, the server market.
"That would resonate a little more with me if it actually resembled my experience with Linux."
I tried to be clear that I in no way intended to disparage Linux. The culture simply tends to be one of always going for the latest 'n greatest stuff. This means getting the latest kernel as soon as it's released, then compiling and running it. Certainly not everyone does this with Linux, but it does seem to be the mainstream view so far as I can tell. That's not to say Linux people are sitting there every day recompiling their kernel. I haven't done any research into the exact frequency of kernel releases from Linusland, but my general feeling from friends that run Linux is that every month or two it's off to the races with doing this or that which requires some fairly substantial work.
The difference that I generally see between that and FreeBSD is that many FreeBSD users just want everything to work as expected - like running water. No one expects anything fancy to happen with their running water. What they do expect is that they can go to the faucet at any time, day or night, turn it on, and get water. To continue the analogy, the mainstream Linux folks seem to enjoy disassembling all the pipes every so often so they can be re-run. They can get all sorts of different flavors and colors of water, but occassionally a couple pipes come loose and need to be hammered back into place. That's not to say that either line of thought is better or worse, merely that the lines of thinking tend to be different.
I'm a minimalist by nature. I don't want to have to jump through hoops to get something going. That doesn't mean I wont sit there and tinker with something if I want to; I just don't like ever having to tinker with it to get it going. In terms of what I use, it's a mix of FreeBSD and Windows 2000, mostly. I'll toy with other things (inluding Linux) now and then, but the combination of FreeBSD and Windows 2000 meets all my needs for reliability and feature-richness at home and work. That's not to say it's for everyone, but it works very well for me.
"The only thing that turns me off is people like you."
People with his pretentious attitude make up a sizable portion of the FreeBSD community. That kind of superior attitude comes mainly from walking through a sea of crashing Windows machines and recompile-reboot-repeat Linux machines only to end up at a FreeBSD machine that's more reliable than running water. Now, that's not to say that there's anything wrong with Linux, but its frequent updates to stay on the absolute bleeding edge does cost it a measure of reliability. On the FreeBSD end of things, you've got "running water", but not many of the newer toys. Things like firewire support, new file systems, CD and DVD burner support don't make it into the FreeBSD-STABLE line until long, long after Linux and Windows have had them.
"Only to tell you that you won't get any Linux user to use BSD by telling them "they don't understand it" (as the article does)"
I think a lot of this comes from the fact that the small Linux fanboy group screams so often and so loudly that it often appears to make up the majority of Linux users. When you see someone shouting "0h D00DZ! I ju3t g0t t3h n3w k3rn3l! Fuck1n C00L!" on a forum, followed by a dozen 'me too' posts similarly formatted, you tend to think of the posters as... well... morons. When enough of them shout long and hard enough, one can't help but feel that you'd be talking to a wall trying to get into a reasoned debate about the pros and cons of each OS.
The fact is that SCO isn't Linux's biggest threat. Microsoft isn't it either. The single most dangerous threat to the success of Linux, especially in the workplace, are the legions of fanboys who show up at the most inopportune times and places to rant and rave irrationally, irreverently, and incessantly; spouting off profanity-filled immature propaganda about how Linux equals the second coming of Christ Almighty. As a community, Linux would do well to figure out a way to shut these idiots up so that Linux's fate can be determined by the merits of its code, rather than the character of a small portion of its users.
" Your liberterian left wing propaganda"
Actually, Libertarians tend to be more right-wing oriented. They're basically conservatives whose main issue is reducing the size and power of government. Conservatives and Republicans used to talk at length about how smaller government and more individual freedom were good things. The current crop sees government as an instrument to wield power. Sounds a bit like how the left used to be described.
"Proud owner of a Mensa membership card."
Thank goodness that membership card didn't require more than basic knowledge of the English language to obtain.
You're a moron and a troll. In other words, you'll fit right in with the First Post, GNAA, and Goatse.cx '-1' posters.
"I assume that military forces have a responsiblity to exist in the area that the attack occurs. and that they will use martial law to attempt to protect the rights of the american (u.s.) citizens."
The litmus test for legality of martial law was set in Ex Parte Milligan. To quote the Supremes in Milligan:
"Martial law cannot arise from a threatened invasion. The necessity must be actual and present; the invasion real, such as effectually closes the courts and deposes the civil administration."
Also:
"It follows, from what has been said on this subject, that there are occasions when martial rule can be properly applied. If, in foreign invasion or civil war, the courts are actually closed, and it is impossible to administer criminal justice according to law, then, on the theatre of active military operations, where war really prevails, there is a necessity to furnish a substitute for the civil authority, thus overthrown, to preserve the safety of the army and society; and as no power is left but the military, it is allowed to govern by martial rule until the laws can have their free course. As necessity creates the rule, so it limits its duration; for, if this government is continued after the courts are reinstated, it is a gross usurpation of power. Martial rule can never exist where the courts are open, and in the proper and unobstructed exercise of their jurisdiction. It is also confined to the locality of actual war." [Emph Mine]
"why is it that we can spend our money to send troops abroad to police other nations, but we can't keep troops at the borders (that could include air space) to protect our citizens from attack?"
Well, for one thing, we face no enemy at any land border. As for the oceans, we have the Coast Guard. Local protection for the border states would be provided by National Guard, police, and other law enforcement. If Canada were to (suicidally) invade Maine, the local smokeys and National Guard would be mobilzed for defense while military resources were gathered. Martial law could not be legally declared in Maine unless the Canadian military ran right over the immediate defenses and overthrew the soverign state authority of Maine. At that point, US military forces could declare the entire battle zone (and probably a small buffer zone surrounding immediate combat areas) to be under martial law. The Commander in Chief (President) would have to make the determination as to whether martial law was necessary.
In terms of deploying US troops as a deterrant, there's really nothing to stop anyone from having the military sit a bunch of guys all around our borders fully armed. If, however, a couple soldiers watched one civilian beat the hell out of another civilian, they could not arrest anyone, nor do anything other than protect the guy getting his ass kicked and call the police. That being said, there is little that's more demoralizing to a people than to feel as though they're under the control of cold, heartless military forces. Similarly, there is nothing more demoralizing to a military force than to be forced to police its own citizens. Who signs up to the US Army because they want to drive a tank down Main St in Smalltown, USA while pointing an M-16 at the Americans watching them pass? To sum it all up, there's no need to deploy US military forces to our borders, as there's no known threat with which our civilian forces are incapable of dealing.
"what is it that gives us the right, responsibility or obligation to send troops abroad to police other parts of the world?"
That depends on who you ask. If you ask an isolationist, nothing. If you ask a neocon, then we have to do it to maintain American power and change the world so it's more US-friendly. Outside of that, there are number of arguments, centered around morality, legality, and humanity. How do we, as a people blessed with success, ignore a suffering people's cries as an unelected military force slau
" Imagemap that can't be rendered in Moz 1.3?
Move along, nothing to see here, not worth the effort."
Apparently it doesn't work very well under Linux 0.1 either. Nor does it look quite right with Internet Explorer 2.0 or Netscape 1.0.
Guess what - when you use old/ancient versions of software, some things are not going to work.
Moderators: Please don't mod this up, especially not as 'insightful' - it's just common sense.
"armed military across the country would protect americans rights and keep the country safe from the jihad."
Someone actually modded this insightful? You've got to be joking. Many of the founding fathers saw a standing military, in and of itself, as a major threat to liberty. Standing armies have historically been used to oppress the population in both times of war and peace. This nation, in an attempt to protect the people from a corrupt regime using the military as a weapon against the people, enacted the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. It restricts the military from engaging in any law enforcement, except where provided for by act of Congress or the US Constitution. This followed the Supreme Court decision of Ex Parte Milligan(1866), which stated that Martial rule (military law) cannot exist or be enforced within the borders of the United States except where it is necessitated by a situation (such as rebellion) in which the courts cease to function, and thus, civilian authority no longer exists. The Supreme Court, like just about everyone else who's ever taken 10 seconds to look at a history book, recognized military forces policing civilians as a grave and dire threat to the liberties guaranteed by our Constitution.
The threat posed by the military to the liberties of the American people has been recognized since this country was formed. To say that we should now reverse more than 200 years of historically-based common fucking sense is absolutely insane.
What part of this did someone find "insightful"?
"Anything found in such a search that is NOT a bomb (or other airplane-wrecker) MUST be ignored."
The only problem here is that, assuming something you had set off alarms in the detection devices, the search is totally righteous. Since you're handing over the baggage with the understanding that it will be put through bomb-detection devices, then hand-searched if deemed necessary, your expectation of privacy is really just about nil. If you have something illegal that you want to take with you, why not ship it via UPS, USPS, or other similar method? What I would agree with is a requirement that anything setting off alarms be documented from the moment it sets off sensors to the time the situation is resolved. This would provide for ensuring that random hand checks are not performed unnecessarily. If the sensors detect something, and whatever they detect is documented (all sensor readings from the bag are kept and reproduceable), then there is no reason to assume that the search performed is anything less than righteous.
Grounds for a search being thrown out would include a couple of cops stopping you with your bags before you even enter the airport, then searching without a warrant or consent. At that point, anything found including a bomb ought to be excluded from any criminal proceedings, and all evidence obtained thereafter as a result of the search tossed out with it.
I completely agree that we cannot allow for fishing expeditions in the name of fighting terrorism, but I cannot ignore the boatloads of case law that says when the police or other agents are acting in good faith, their search is not unreasonable.
Now, if someone tries to come out with a "hey, I hand-searched his bag for no particular reason and found $illegal_item", then I would agree that it needs to be tossed. If they've got alarms ringing all over the place telling them that you've handed them a bag of bombs, then I see no reason to exclude the results of the perfectly reasonable hand-search that follows.
Ok, so how about the doors thing? :)
"Speaking as a pilot, your idea"
;)
If there's going to be criticism, I'd rather it at least come from someone with the knowledge to critique practical aspects, rather than arguing just for the sake of argument.
"Sure, it may work for a quick city hopper flight of an hour or less. But anything more, and you'd have pilots going to the toilet IN the cockpit. They'd get no meals. No fluids that they didn't stash in there with them."
Alright, then let me toss my original idea past you. In labs where extremely infectious agents are studied (such as the CDC labs), there are a set of two doors one must walk through to go from the outside to the inside of the lab housing the agents. Both doors cannot be opened at once, and the inside between the two doors is well monitored. I was thinking of adapting that idea for use on existing planes. It would require some reconfiguration of some parts towards the front, but the balance between security and operability is good.
Basically, the idea is to have two doors between the cockpit and the passenger cabin. Both doors cannot be opened at the same time. There are cameras mounted between the two doors (at least two cameras), with small monitors mounted within the cockpit. Only the cockpit can control the two doors. Right outside the cockpit, there are also a few cameras covering the angles near the outside door. When one of you needs to exit the cockpit for whatever reason, you check the monitors to make sure no one is in the area between the two security doors. You then open the first door, and step inside. One of the other pilots then monitors the outter door's cameras while the first door closes. Assuming all appears well, the outside door is opened and you're free to roam about as you please. Any potential hijackers would have to convince you to open each security door one at a time to let them into the cockpit. Obviously, you're not going to do that because you understand that there is now far more at stake than the lives aboard your airplane. As a secondary precaution, I would suggest that pressing the "hijack" button, or alert button, or whatever it's called that alerts the ground to a serious security issue on board would seal both doors until the plane lands and something is done by a mechanic to reopen them. This allows you to move about the plane freely without fear of giving potential hijackers an opportunity to do something to your airplane.
"About the ONLY real security measure you have on an aircraft post-9/11 is the passengers on that aircraft, who if they see a hijack about to start, should rush the hijackers and detain them (or worse - I wouldn't lose any sleep over the "accidental death" of a would be hijacker)."
I agree completely that passengers should help the flight crew to subdue anyone who appears to be a threat. I also believe that having a couple of air marshals on board, especially with one or more in plain clothes, further increases the chances for success in securing the airplane. Basically, for hijackers to even gain control of the cabin (setting aside their lack of ability to enter the cockpit as per my last security measure), they would have to take out at least two well-trained individuals and a plane filled with untrained, but highly motivated people.
"All this business about fingerprinting citizens entering the US, CAPPS, TIA, colour-coded threat levels etc - all of it is useless and simply a way to slowly strip away your rights, frog in boiling water style."
I am in full agreement with you that all this technology provides security only to those in power who seek to control every person in this country; citizen or not.
By the way, how do you feel about the whole 'guns in the cockpit' debate? Personally, I think having a firearm discharge in the cockpit is probably one of the most dangerous things that can happen on a plane. I don't know the ins and outs of the equipment on board, but if they're claiming my cell phone can cause pro