To gain an advantage, eventually you have to make a move that would otherwise not make sense.
Even the best poker players make plays that "don't make sense". Sometimes the commentators actually say that, sometimes they just make something up so it looks like the player was the smartest guy alive for knowing when to do something that common sense and percentages says he shouldn't.
Next time you watch poker on TV, keep track of the number of times Mike Sexton says he can't imagine that a player could possibly call a certain bet, but then he does.
The information you get from knowing two cards would not be enough to make really outrageous plays. For example, your pal folds 2-2. Amazingly, the flop is 2-2-5. You've got a five. Someone bets big, like they've got a set. You call. Is that outrageous? Of course not, you just thought they were bluffing (you SAY "thought", you think "know".)
Yes, casinos can catch card counters by seeing that they bet big when the count favors them and small when it doesn't. The difference is that the house sees all the cards and can do the count. In poker, many hands go by where the house sees only the community cards. In the 2-2-5
example, it is likely that the bluffer you called on the flop will try to bluff on the turn, and when you raise, he's likely to fold. If he folds, nobody knows what you had, or what he had. You could have had two fives instead of just one, so his pretending to have a set was a bluff at the wrong time.
The noise from all the fish that TV has drawn to the sport is more than enough to cover for any
but the most egregious cheating.
You think YOU got it bad? I'm an etymologist and I get people asking me to look at their crabs all the time, too. I actually never bought a microscope until this one real hot (but dumb) chick started working down the hall.
And in online there's nothing stopping me from calling my friend and say I got these cards, what do you got?
Isn't calling out on the same phone line your modem is using a bit difficult?
If you try to cheat in a real casino, people would eventually notice.
I'm not sure how. For example, if you and your friend sit at the same table in the casino, and you've worked up a system where he plays very tight (comes in with nothing less than a 10-10 or A-K), he can explain his play as following one of the books (Helmuth, I think). Before he folds he plays with his chips, just like everyone else does, and uses the chips to signal to you what he has. Maybe makes two stacks of the appropriate height. Since the casino does not know what he folded, they cannot coorelate his actions with specific values of cards.
If he doesn't fold, he uses different chips for card protectors depending on what he has.
Of course, you cannot sit and stare at him until he plays with his chips, or ask him to do it again, and he cannot be obvious about counting out how many chips or you might get caught
as being just plain suspicious. Otherwise, you'd blend into the normal pattern of play.
There are some "violations" that actually break things. There are some "violations" that don't. Violations that don't are not supposed to get RFC2119 language applied to them, like "MUST".
It appears that the authors of RFC2821 walked around RFC2119 by mandating a minimum limit on
something without using RFC2119 language, when breaking that limit doesn't actually break the
system.
E.g., the maximum size of a "local part" is 64 characters. If a client generates a "local part"
longer than that, the system breaks because the wrong data appears at the server, or the server
rejects the message altogether. When the number of RCPT TOs is set to 1, the client is supposed to keep trying, one at a time, and all the messages eventually get through.
That's why what MS did is pretty trivial. System managers ought to be able to set lower values on this to accomodate their systems.
Refer to RFC2821, which is the RFC that MS is being blamed for violating by not allowing 100 RCPT commands per session. Normally, you are right, 5XX is fatal, but 4.5.3.1 Size limits and minimums says:
RFC 821 [30] incorrectly listed the error where an SMTP server
exhausts its implementation limit on the number of RCPT commands
("too many recipients") as having reply code 552. The correct reply
code for this condition is 452. Clients SHOULD treat a 552 code in
this case as a temporary, rather than permanent, failure so the logic
below works. SHOULD means "unless you know what you are doing and have a good reason to do otherwise." The "logic below" is that the sending server removes the ones that were successful and tries the rest again later.
No, according the standards, every recipient rejected for "too many" stays in the queue and
delivery is attempted at the next queue run. While Hotmail's violation of the standard seems bad, the worst effect it should have is to slow the delivery, not prevent it.
If a client actually stops trying to deliver based on a 552 error, then it, too, is violating the standard, in a way that actually prevents delivery. I consider that a more serious violation.
2) prior use / art applies to brevets, not to copyright
Actually, prior art must apply to copyright. It's just not worded that way. If someone else wrote something last week (prior art) that you just wrote today, then THEY hold the copyright and you are infringing on their copyright.
So, IF you can copyright the phrase "one cent", then if ANYONE wrote it before the Canadian Mint
first wrote it, the copyright either belongs to someone else or has expired and the phrase is in the public domain. I highly suspect the phrase was used before Canada became a country.
is NOT terrorism. The/. headline is wrong and deliberately inflammatory.
If you RTFA, you'll see that the terrorism charge stems from having "material for terrorist purposes", unrelated to posessing the book. He was collecting the materials necessary to make bombs or other terrorist devices with the intent to use them that way. That's why the charge says "purposes".
You can buy ammonium nitrate. You can buy diesel fuel. That's not a crime, by itself. Put the ammonium nitrate onto your garden, and the fuel into your diesel car. End of story.
If you don't have a diesel vehicle of any kind, though, you might have to explain why you bought the combination of the two. If they find out you have a book that tells you how to make BOMBS out of the combination, well, it would appear your intent is to make a bomb.
Even then, there are acceptable reasons to do that. Farmers, sometimes, need to remove tree stumps from areas they are going to plant. Boom. Stump gone. Not terrorism.
If you cannot persuade them that your intent is not criminal, you get charged. You get charged with having the material with an intent, and they'll throw in the book as evidence of the intent. I.e., why did you buy an-fo? Because the book says that's how to
make a bomb.
Just having the book isn't illegal and doesn't show an intent, other than to own the book. Owning the book and buying the things it tells you to buy to make a bomb indicates an intent to make a bomb. That's when it's illegal.
Any use of technology MUST be a part of Big Brother, and is NEVER used for s legitimate task,...
I thought Big Brother WAS a legitimate task. Dick WAS the show here in the US this season,
but I think I'd prefer Nicki and the tourette's guy and the stricter rules of the UK.
"But it wasn't my FAULT Big Brother... how long do I have to sit here?" "Whinging is not sitting quietly, Nicki."
I'm sorry you don't like the show. It certainly says things that make one think, I think.
To answer your question, a fake electronic gadget, one that does nothing and hurts no one, has blinking LEDs, an obvious circuit board, and no wires going from said blinking lights and circuit board to the "putty" and/or "play-doh" in her hands.
No visible wires. She was wearing a hoody, which could easily have covered any wires.
So, if I wanted to blow someone up, I'd create a bomb with blinking LEDs and an obvious circuit board, because everyone knows that blinking LEDs and a visible circuit board means it "does nothing and hurts no one". They'd see the device, say "it's a fake", poke it with their toe, and die. I win, they lose.
If you want to make a real bomb look like a fake bomb, you're an idiot, because it still looks like a bomb.
Which is it? Does a device that has blinking LEDs and a circuit board look like something that "does nothing and hurts no one", or does it look like a bomb, which is intended to "do something and hurt someone"?
Disguise it as something else, like the jacket you're wearing, or a backpack, or an alarm clock, or anything else that doesn't make people look at it and wonder if it's a bomb.
According to you, a package with blinking LEDs and a visible circuit board is a fake electronic gadget, not a bomb. That should be sufficient disguise.
The fact is, there is no definition of what a bomb has to look like, not even one that says what a bomb CANNOT look like. It used to be that bombs could not look like boom-boxes (pun intended), but PAN-AM 103 taught us better. Bombs don't look like shoes. Bombs don't look like two bottles of water. Bombs don't look like "blinking LEDs and exposed circuit boards".
As someone else in the discussion said, this innocent college student could have been an attempt at seeing just what people would think of something with blinking LEDs and an exposed circuit board.
Do you think the next level of escalation was to surround her with locked and loaded machine guns?
Given the situation, yes.
A person, as far as I know..is not required by any law to answer another civilian about anything....
That's probably true, but not relevant. "Unusual behaviour" does not mean "illegal behaviour". It was unusual behaviour for someone to ignore a question about an unusual item they were carrying posed by an airport employee. It was especially unusual if one assumes that this was allegedly "wearable art" and the student was proud enough of it to wear it alot, but the airport employee didn't know that, only that a simple question about an item someone was carrying resulted in that person turning around and walking away. And not just away, out of the terminal.
But, if the ticket agent told security and then someone in security, maybe first followed her and observed the shirt...maybe even came up to her and asked her questions...that sounds more reasonable as second line of defense.
We don't know that they didn't follow her to observe the shirt. We know she had already refused to answer questions about it from a "random person", so there would be no reason to expect her to do so under the same circumstances. Further, she was leaving the premises, apparently, and time was short. Would you rather they had let a "person of interest" simply dissappear back into Boston to try again tomorrow (like the idiot French did with the shoe bomber?) or should they deal with a problem while it can still be dealt with?
I think anyone looking at her, hopefully a TRAINED law enforcement pro, would tell that this was nothing...
Law enforcement training does not teach anyone what a breadboard with an innocent LED blinker circuit looks like. A law enforcement pro would look at the entire package -- including the person's actions -- to determine if it was necessary to stop someone.
...before surrounding her with machineguns one trigger pull away from ripping her apart.
While such hyperbole is wonderful in a novel, it does nothing to further the discussion here. She certainly was not "one trigger pull" away from being "ripped apart". Even so, the same kind of statement could be made about the cops. "They were questioning a suspect with the knowledge that they might be one button push from being ripped apart."
It's their job to stop people who are acting suspiciously and determine what is wrong. Sometimes that person isn't a moronic college student doing something really stupid. Sometimes that person does actually want to hurt people. Sometimes that person hasn't even done anything illegal yet -- at least nothing clearly identifiable to the casual observer. To do their job safely (for them, and the person they are questioning), THEY
need to be in charge of the situation. A suspect who runs endangers everyone in the vis cinity, including himself.
Now, what SHOULD be questioned is the later statements by the cops about her being lucky to be alive, etc. That's just nonsense. Whoever said that should not be allowed to be a PIO for anything. That was stupid, but the way the matter was taken care of at the airport was professional and direct. And every bit of it was the student's fault for being stupid and arrogant.
Those "f***ing" ticket clerks are the first line of defense in detecting something like this. They see the people who are checking in, they interact with them. If there is something odd about the way someone acts (and what someone is wearing), those ticket clerks are about the first people to see it, and they have every right and responsibility to raise an alarm. In this case, an apparently highly-distracted but seemingly intelligent person was wearing an unusual electronic device on her chest, carrying a putty-like substance in her hands, and REFUSED to answer any questions about the device. I say "apparently highly-distracted", because any simpleton could have gotten the arrival information from any of the arrival monitors spread thoughout the terminal, but she was unable to do so on her own.
You might have ignored her, but the question should have been enough to trigger some kind of thought about "what am I wearing and where am I?", and then you, if you have any brains at all, will start explaining what you are wearing because you know the next people to ask you aren't going to be friendly ticket clerks trying to be helpful, they will be humorless security carrying guns.
So her head is stuck so far in the clouds solving tricky engineering problems she forgets what other people thing...
Did you read any of the articles? She is a sophomore. It's not like she's trying to figure out what DNA looks like or cure cancer or anything.
People shouldn't have to be attacked with guns for being "eclectic" and not worrying about what other people think.
She wasn't attacked with guns for being eclectic and not worrying about what other people think.
She wasn't attacked with guns. The officers who stopped her were carrying guns, but that is not "attacking" in any sense of the word.
She wasn't stopped for being eclectic, she was stopped for having an electronic device strapped to her body, carrying "putty", and refusing a reasonable request to explain what the stuff was.
She made no threats and followed all the directions... which probably did NOT involve asking her to simply turn the shirt over to security at the first counter she stopped at.
She was not reported to have stopped at any counter, she was reported as having stopped an airport employee to ask about an arrival time.
Right. All that a security checkpoint would do is ask her to remove the shirt. An electronic device of homebrew manufacture with blinking lights and some putty-like substance in her hands. Sure.
You know that ASKING somebody what they're doing without pointing an ACTUAL deadly weapon at them.
That's what the airport employee did, and her question was ignored.
There is no report that the airport employee who asked her about her shirt was carrying a deadly weapon, much less pointing one at anyone.
Now these narrow minded cops are going to deprive the troops of somebody brilliant that can HELP them in their missions!!
There is no indication that this moron has ever had any intention of helping any troops.
So who's the terrorist here?
That's a simple question. The moron college student who was too stupid to answer a simple question about what she was wearing and scared people into thinking she was doing something dangerous.
I read this guy's blog. He twists the details when it suits him.
He talks about the need to show a drivers license to walk through a parking lot. He wasn't walking through a parking lot. He CALLED THE POLICE to come deal with HIS PROBLEM. Part of the police dealing with his problem was for them to identify
him. He refused to provide identification. That's impeding the progress of a police investigation that HE ASKED FOR. That's against the law, and the officer showed him that in writing.
Further down, he claims he was arrested for not proving his "right to exist". As if a driver's license was proof of any such thing, or that the issue at hand was his "right to exist".
Of course the store has the right to inspect bags as they leave. It's their property. They have the right to ask you to leave your incoming bags at the front, too. Neither means that they are accusing you of anything. If you don't like their policy, don't shop there. Simple enough.
This guy ought to be arrested for wasting the police and court's time by being a deliberate jackass.
Further, when she was asked about the circuit board by the employee she was asking about the flight, she REFUSED TO ANSWER and then walked out of the terminal. She's
obviously not too proud of her "wearable art", or else she has a severe case of the "high and mighties" and thinks she doesn't need to respond to anyone as lowly as a simple airport employee. Either way, it's abnormal behaviour, as if gluing a patch board on one's hooded sweatshirt wasn't abnormal enough.
The article said that the cops who surrounded her were carrying "machine guns", not that they held her at gunpoint. They did, however, get her attention, which was the point of having the guns. "Oh, it's a project for school." Oh, yeah, the cops have a daily briefing on all the current "school projects" so they know she's telling the truth.
Should they let her go without any punishment for what she did? Do we let off the next guy who does the same thing?
Just what DOES a "real bomb" look like? Just what does a "fake electronic gadget"
look like?
Yes, please, sahib, tell us what they look like so I can make my next real bomb
look like a fake one and not have people run away from it before it goes off.
The season finale from "Burn Notice" had a scene that made it clear. "The best traps are not scary, because people will run away. The best traps make people curious. A speeding pickup truck makes people want to run away. A slowly backing up truck makes them curious." That's when the slowly-backing-up truck blew up and took out the bad guys, who were walking towards it.
What percent of the population keep a number for that long, anyway?
I've had my main landline number for 16 years. I had my second line for ten. My first cellular number I had for 12. I'm about 8 or so on the current cell number.
If the Do-Not-Call list were to never expire, eventually it will fill to all available U.S. phone numbers.
So? Who would that harm? The people who aren't harassed by telemarketers? No. Telemarketers? Ok, that's a plus.
Tasers are usually issued to law enforcement with the strict instruction that they should never use it if they wouldn't use a gun in the same situation.
What? In both the city and county where I live, officers are not authorized to carry a taser until they've been through a taser class, which includes them being shot with a taser themselves. I doubt that anyone who is shooting classmates with a taser has been told that they shouldn't do it unless they would use a gun in the same situation.
I just hope we don't embarrass ourselves by bickering about this until it's too late.
I just hope we don't embarass ourselves by flushing the global economy down the toilet, just to find ourselves in a warmer climate due to solar effects that we could not stop no matter how hard we tried.
Facts are hard to ignore. Like http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/ mars_snow_011206-1.html and http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article17 20024.ece. Dust storms caused by winds caused by increased solar heating are the reason on Mars. But Mars is also further away from the sun and gets less solar radiation. If Mars gets enough extra radiation to rise 0.5C, the Earth is getting about 16 times as much. (It is about half the distance from the sun, r-squared rule says four times as much. It is about twice the diameter, again, r-squared says four times as much. four times four, sixteen. About.) Thank goodness for the high heat capacity of water, huh?
Slashdot Mirror
Even the best poker players make plays that "don't make sense". Sometimes the commentators actually say that, sometimes they just make something up so it looks like the player was the smartest guy alive for knowing when to do something that common sense and percentages says he shouldn't.
Next time you watch poker on TV, keep track of the number of times Mike Sexton says he can't imagine that a player could possibly call a certain bet, but then he does.
The information you get from knowing two cards would not be enough to make really outrageous plays. For example, your pal folds 2-2. Amazingly, the flop is 2-2-5. You've got a five. Someone bets big, like they've got a set. You call. Is that outrageous? Of course not, you just thought they were bluffing (you SAY "thought", you think "know".)
Yes, casinos can catch card counters by seeing that they bet big when the count favors them and small when it doesn't. The difference is that the house sees all the cards and can do the count. In poker, many hands go by where the house sees only the community cards. In the 2-2-5 example, it is likely that the bluffer you called on the flop will try to bluff on the turn, and when you raise, he's likely to fold. If he folds, nobody knows what you had, or what he had. You could have had two fives instead of just one, so his pretending to have a set was a bluff at the wrong time.
The noise from all the fish that TV has drawn to the sport is more than enough to cover for any but the most egregious cheating.
You think YOU got it bad? I'm an etymologist and I get people asking me to look at their crabs all the time, too. I actually never bought a microscope until this one real hot (but dumb) chick started working down the hall.
They had a hard time pulling this flight together. There was no weather or other system reason for the delay, but we got in two hours late.
My dad died an hour before I got to the hospital.
They wanted to charge me full price to extend my stay a week so I could go to the funeral.
It was a cattle-car packed-full second-most uncomfortable plane ride of my life, even though it was pre-9/11. I cannot imagine how bad it must be now.
I'm never flying them again.
Isn't calling out on the same phone line your modem is using a bit difficult?
If you try to cheat in a real casino, people would eventually notice.
I'm not sure how. For example, if you and your friend sit at the same table in the casino, and you've worked up a system where he plays very tight (comes in with nothing less than a 10-10 or A-K), he can explain his play as following one of the books (Helmuth, I think). Before he folds he plays with his chips, just like everyone else does, and uses the chips to signal to you what he has. Maybe makes two stacks of the appropriate height. Since the casino does not know what he folded, they cannot coorelate his actions with specific values of cards.
If he doesn't fold, he uses different chips for card protectors depending on what he has.
Of course, you cannot sit and stare at him until he plays with his chips, or ask him to do it again, and he cannot be obvious about counting out how many chips or you might get caught as being just plain suspicious. Otherwise, you'd blend into the normal pattern of play.
You misspelled kibo.
You'd think they'd schedule the backup overnight so as to inconvenience the least number of people.
It appears that the authors of RFC2821 walked around RFC2119 by mandating a minimum limit on something without using RFC2119 language, when breaking that limit doesn't actually break the system.
E.g., the maximum size of a "local part" is 64 characters. If a client generates a "local part" longer than that, the system breaks because the wrong data appears at the server, or the server rejects the message altogether. When the number of RCPT TOs is set to 1, the client is supposed to keep trying, one at a time, and all the messages eventually get through.
That's why what MS did is pretty trivial. System managers ought to be able to set lower values on this to accomodate their systems.
If a client actually stops trying to deliver based on a 552 error, then it, too, is violating the standard, in a way that actually prevents delivery. I consider that a more serious violation.
Actually, prior art must apply to copyright. It's just not worded that way. If someone else wrote something last week (prior art) that you just wrote today, then THEY hold the copyright and you are infringing on their copyright.
So, IF you can copyright the phrase "one cent", then if ANYONE wrote it before the Canadian Mint first wrote it, the copyright either belongs to someone else or has expired and the phrase is in the public domain. I highly suspect the phrase was used before Canada became a country.
Now, TRADEMARK, that's a whole nother story.
If you RTFA, you'll see that the terrorism charge stems from having "material for terrorist purposes", unrelated to posessing the book. He was collecting the materials necessary to make bombs or other terrorist devices with the intent to use them that way. That's why the charge says "purposes".
You can buy ammonium nitrate. You can buy diesel fuel. That's not a crime, by itself. Put the ammonium nitrate onto your garden, and the fuel into your diesel car. End of story.
If you don't have a diesel vehicle of any kind, though, you might have to explain why you bought the combination of the two. If they find out you have a book that tells you how to make BOMBS out of the combination, well, it would appear your intent is to make a bomb.
Even then, there are acceptable reasons to do that. Farmers, sometimes, need to remove tree stumps from areas they are going to plant. Boom. Stump gone. Not terrorism.
If you cannot persuade them that your intent is not criminal, you get charged. You get charged with having the material with an intent, and they'll throw in the book as evidence of the intent. I.e., why did you buy an-fo? Because the book says that's how to make a bomb.
Just having the book isn't illegal and doesn't show an intent, other than to own the book. Owning the book and buying the things it tells you to buy to make a bomb indicates an intent to make a bomb. That's when it's illegal.
I thought Big Brother WAS a legitimate task. Dick WAS the show here in the US this season, but I think I'd prefer Nicki and the tourette's guy and the stricter rules of the UK.
"But it wasn't my FAULT Big Brother ... how long do I have to sit here?" "Whinging is not sitting quietly, Nicki."
To answer your question, a fake electronic gadget, one that does nothing and hurts no one, has blinking LEDs, an obvious circuit board, and no wires going from said blinking lights and circuit board to the "putty" and/or "play-doh" in her hands.
No visible wires. She was wearing a hoody, which could easily have covered any wires.
So, if I wanted to blow someone up, I'd create a bomb with blinking LEDs and an obvious circuit board, because everyone knows that blinking LEDs and a visible circuit board means it "does nothing and hurts no one". They'd see the device, say "it's a fake", poke it with their toe, and die. I win, they lose.
If you want to make a real bomb look like a fake bomb, you're an idiot, because it still looks like a bomb.
Which is it? Does a device that has blinking LEDs and a circuit board look like something that "does nothing and hurts no one", or does it look like a bomb, which is intended to "do something and hurt someone"?
Disguise it as something else, like the jacket you're wearing, or a backpack, or an alarm clock, or anything else that doesn't make people look at it and wonder if it's a bomb.
According to you, a package with blinking LEDs and a visible circuit board is a fake electronic gadget, not a bomb. That should be sufficient disguise.
The fact is, there is no definition of what a bomb has to look like, not even one that says what a bomb CANNOT look like. It used to be that bombs could not look like boom-boxes (pun intended), but PAN-AM 103 taught us better. Bombs don't look like shoes. Bombs don't look like two bottles of water. Bombs don't look like "blinking LEDs and exposed circuit boards".
As someone else in the discussion said, this innocent college student could have been an attempt at seeing just what people would think of something with blinking LEDs and an exposed circuit board.
Given the situation, yes.
A person, as far as I know..is not required by any law to answer another civilian about anything....
That's probably true, but not relevant. "Unusual behaviour" does not mean "illegal behaviour". It was unusual behaviour for someone to ignore a question about an unusual item they were carrying posed by an airport employee. It was especially unusual if one assumes that this was allegedly "wearable art" and the student was proud enough of it to wear it alot, but the airport employee didn't know that, only that a simple question about an item someone was carrying resulted in that person turning around and walking away. And not just away, out of the terminal.
But, if the ticket agent told security and then someone in security, maybe first followed her and observed the shirt...maybe even came up to her and asked her questions...that sounds more reasonable as second line of defense.
We don't know that they didn't follow her to observe the shirt. We know she had already refused to answer questions about it from a "random person", so there would be no reason to expect her to do so under the same circumstances. Further, she was leaving the premises, apparently, and time was short. Would you rather they had let a "person of interest" simply dissappear back into Boston to try again tomorrow (like the idiot French did with the shoe bomber?) or should they deal with a problem while it can still be dealt with?
I think anyone looking at her, hopefully a TRAINED law enforcement pro, would tell that this was nothing...
Law enforcement training does not teach anyone what a breadboard with an innocent LED blinker circuit looks like. A law enforcement pro would look at the entire package -- including the person's actions -- to determine if it was necessary to stop someone.
While such hyperbole is wonderful in a novel, it does nothing to further the discussion here. She certainly was not "one trigger pull" away from being "ripped apart". Even so, the same kind of statement could be made about the cops. "They were questioning a suspect with the knowledge that they might be one button push from being ripped apart."
It's their job to stop people who are acting suspiciously and determine what is wrong. Sometimes that person isn't a moronic college student doing something really stupid. Sometimes that person does actually want to hurt people. Sometimes that person hasn't even done anything illegal yet -- at least nothing clearly identifiable to the casual observer. To do their job safely (for them, and the person they are questioning), THEY need to be in charge of the situation. A suspect who runs endangers everyone in the vis cinity, including himself.
Now, what SHOULD be questioned is the later statements by the cops about her being lucky to be alive, etc. That's just nonsense. Whoever said that should not be allowed to be a PIO for anything. That was stupid, but the way the matter was taken care of at the airport was professional and direct. And every bit of it was the student's fault for being stupid and arrogant.
You might have ignored her, but the question should have been enough to trigger some kind of thought about "what am I wearing and where am I?", and then you, if you have any brains at all, will start explaining what you are wearing because you know the next people to ask you aren't going to be friendly ticket clerks trying to be helpful, they will be humorless security carrying guns.
Did you read any of the articles? She is a sophomore. It's not like she's trying to figure out what DNA looks like or cure cancer or anything.
People shouldn't have to be attacked with guns for being "eclectic" and not worrying about what other people think.
She wasn't attacked with guns for being eclectic and not worrying about what other people think.
- She wasn't attacked with guns. The officers who stopped her were carrying guns, but that is not "attacking" in any sense of the word.
- She wasn't stopped for being eclectic, she was stopped for having an electronic device strapped to her body, carrying "putty", and refusing a reasonable request to explain what the stuff was.
She made no threats and followed all the directions... which probably did NOT involve asking her to simply turn the shirt over to security at the first counter she stopped at.- She was not reported to have stopped at any counter, she was reported as having stopped an airport employee to ask about an arrival time.
- Right. All that a security checkpoint would do is ask her to remove the shirt. An electronic device of homebrew manufacture with blinking lights and some putty-like substance in her hands. Sure.
You know that ASKING somebody what they're doing without pointing an ACTUAL deadly weapon at them.- That's what the airport employee did, and her question was ignored.
- There is no report that the airport employee who asked her about her shirt was carrying a deadly weapon, much less pointing one at anyone.
Now these narrow minded cops are going to deprive the troops of somebody brilliant that can HELP them in their missions!!There is no indication that this moron has ever had any intention of helping any troops.
So who's the terrorist here?
That's a simple question. The moron college student who was too stupid to answer a simple question about what she was wearing and scared people into thinking she was doing something dangerous.
He talks about the need to show a drivers license to walk through a parking lot. He wasn't walking through a parking lot. He CALLED THE POLICE to come deal with HIS PROBLEM. Part of the police dealing with his problem was for them to identify him. He refused to provide identification. That's impeding the progress of a police investigation that HE ASKED FOR. That's against the law, and the officer showed him that in writing.
Further down, he claims he was arrested for not proving his "right to exist". As if a driver's license was proof of any such thing, or that the issue at hand was his "right to exist".
Of course the store has the right to inspect bags as they leave. It's their property. They have the right to ask you to leave your incoming bags at the front, too. Neither means that they are accusing you of anything. If you don't like their policy, don't shop there. Simple enough.
This guy ought to be arrested for wasting the police and court's time by being a deliberate jackass.
If I had mod points, I'd mod this up. This is absolutely correct.
Further, when she was asked about the circuit board by the employee she was asking about the flight, she REFUSED TO ANSWER and then walked out of the terminal. She's obviously not too proud of her "wearable art", or else she has a severe case of the "high and mighties" and thinks she doesn't need to respond to anyone as lowly as a simple airport employee. Either way, it's abnormal behaviour, as if gluing a patch board on one's hooded sweatshirt wasn't abnormal enough.
The article said that the cops who surrounded her were carrying "machine guns", not that they held her at gunpoint. They did, however, get her attention, which was the point of having the guns. "Oh, it's a project for school." Oh, yeah, the cops have a daily briefing on all the current "school projects" so they know she's telling the truth.
Should they let her go without any punishment for what she did? Do we let off the next guy who does the same thing?
Yes, please, sahib, tell us what they look like so I can make my next real bomb look like a fake one and not have people run away from it before it goes off.
The season finale from "Burn Notice" had a scene that made it clear. "The best traps are not scary, because people will run away. The best traps make people curious. A speeding pickup truck makes people want to run away. A slowly backing up truck makes them curious." That's when the slowly-backing-up truck blew up and took out the bad guys, who were walking towards it.
I've had my main landline number for 16 years. I had my second line for ten. My
first cellular number I had for 12. I'm about 8 or so on the current cell number.
If the Do-Not-Call list were to never expire, eventually it will fill to all available U.S. phone numbers.
So? Who would that harm? The people who aren't harassed by telemarketers? No. Telemarketers? Ok, that's a plus.
What? In both the city and county where I live, officers are not authorized to carry a taser until they've been through a taser class, which includes them being shot with a taser themselves. I doubt that anyone who is shooting classmates with a taser has been told that they shouldn't do it unless they would use a gun in the same situation.
Two words: Maria Cantwell. The woman who thought that YOUR email system was installed so she could use it to sell you Real products.
She's now a Senator, and still clueless.
Ummm, if text in the hair means "copyright", who is this "sex" who has the copyright on my Farah Fawcett poster?
I just hope we don't embarass ourselves by flushing the global economy down the toilet, just to find ourselves in a warmer climate due to solar effects that we could not stop no matter how hard we tried.
Facts are hard to ignore. Like http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem