Dave Bowman: Where the hell'd you get that idea, HAL? HAL: Dave, although you took thorough precautions in the pod against my hearing you, I could see your lips move.
Which bothers me every time I watch that movie... I mean, especially the way the shot is framed you can see Hal's "eye" right through the pod window... and especially with the way Hal has been acting up to this point, that unmoving eye is creepy. If I was secretly plotting to disconnect the computer that I didn't trust, I'd have made sure it couldn't see me just so I wouldn't get paranoid and freak out. But hey, hindsight and the chosen POV of the director being 20/20 and all that.
Each pylon is capable of being fitted with an MCBR - the Multiple Coconut Bomb Rack (later re-named by some pencil-pusher to the Multiple Carriage Bomb Rack.)
Well, it makes sense... Much as an African swallow can grip a variety of fruits by their husk, so to can a variety of fruits be carried by the A4's bomb racks. The original name was from before they made use of this fact and were only carrying coconuts.
For reasons known only to himself, Roland decided to pick this particular random news release
*holds fingers to temples, eyes closed tightly as if deep in concentration*
I'm going to say... to get his name on the front page of Slashdot again.
Thank you, thank you, I'll be here all week. Also if you're in law enforcement, and need a really obvious crime to be solved by a "psychic", call me, I have low rates!
Agree... Even coal plants are *MUCH MORE* energy-efficient than the traditional gasoline engine. So, less pollution than a standard car.
You're absolutely right, you get a big environmental boost right off the bat just by going from millions of tiny mobile power plants to a few large stationary ones, and it only gets better from there.
It's rather hilarious how their own blog admits that your chemist friend (and every other independent expert) was right and the whole idea of bringing components of a liquid explosive onto the plane is ludicrous.
So there's the question you quoted, where they insist that yes there was a real threat and that's why they have the liquid ban. Then they have this question, the one every sane person in America asked moments after hearing about the new policy:
"Why can't multiple people bring on explosives in three-ounce containers and mix them post security? "
And then here's a snippet of part 4 of their answer:
"The preparation of these bombs is very much more complex than tossing together several bottles-worth of formula and lighting it up. In fact, in recent tests, a National Lab was asked to formulate a test mixture and it took several tries using the best equipment and best scientists for it to even ignite. That was with a bomb prepared in advance in a lab setting. A less skilled person attempting to put it together inside a secure area or a plane is not a good bet."
Hear that? An entire group of top scientists in a laboratory setting had a hard time making a working explosive. Obviously this applies to a single person making a binary explosive as well as it does a group. If they had made this the answer to the first question, it would look like they were saying there wasn't a serious threat and the whole policy is stupid. But by moving it down a couple questions, it looks like they're only saying that multiple people cooperating to do this isn't a serious threat, so don't worry about the obvious hole in their procedures...
Personally I think they are just playing word games anyway. When they say "real threat" and "serious plot", they are using alternate meanings of the words to confuse. If I say "I'm going to fucking kill you!" is that a threat? Sure, I'm threatening you, and maybe I'm serious about it. But is it a threat in the sense of risk analysis? No, not really, since I have no idea who you are and I don't work for any ISP much less yours so I have no way to carry out my threat.
The blog is just like TSA itself -- theater designed to mollify the complacent, stir up the fearful, and above all, demonstrate that Your Government Knows What It's Doing And Has Everything Under Control.
The notion that you're going to achieve security by having drones check things by rote is laughable.
I remember reading a blog a couple years ago by a guy who worked for TSA. It was hilarious or scary depending on your level of paranoia -- to me, it was pure comedy.
According to my memory of his recollection, the way TSA works is that the screeners get tested occasionally by some other part of the agency who will come and put something into the baggage, like say a gun, and the screener has to find it or they and the manager are in deep crap. So the managers trained them to identify the items TSA used, and nothing else. They were taught to identify that gun, not any other. The manager actually got irate when the blogger wanted to know about the general principles of identifying contraband, vs the specifics of identifying the half-dozen objects the TSA used as tests.
I'm glad to know though that the Security Officers will do "whatever it takes" to make sure they keep their jobs haha!
Yeah, I'm kinda bothered by the comments that seem to think this means the opposite -- that this observation weakens the evidence for our current theories.
Oh, it's worse than all that. You're still going to get that electricity for the batteries from mostly-coal.
Uh-huh. And then we replace the coal plant with a nuclear plant, or augment it with wind power, or whatever, and your car magically becomes more environmentally friendly without you having to do anything!
This is the beauty of the plug-in electric car. It decouples transportation from the source of power. So when a better source of power comes along, you don't have to replace the entire fleet of existing cars to benefit, which would mean overcoming a huge amount of inertia.
Living just outside of Chicago, I've a similar question, but of cabin heat.
Um, well, if the electric engine doesn't produce enough heat to warm the cabin (a positive feature I'd say), then it would be trivial to just create a simple electric heater you can turn on when you want heat, and it would heat up nearly instantly because it doesn't have to warm up an entire engine block before hot air starts coming through the vent.
The best and newest ones aren't; in fact lithium is taking over the market and pushing down into the low-end brands. My roommate just picked up a 7-piece set of 18V LiIon tools, and they're pretty bad-ass. Much lighter than old 12V NiCd or NiMH tools, with more power to boot.
We routinely waterboard our own special forces as part of training.
Yes we deliberately torture our special forces because we are training them to endure some of the worst conditions imaginable, including being captured by the enemy.
Which means it isn't torture... how? In any event it's pretty obvious that voluntarily undergoing training exercises from people who in the end are trying to strengthen you is different than being involuntarily tortured by people who intend to break you.
Gee, it can't be that bad. I'm damn sick of these ideas that waterboarding mentally ruins a person for life, that waterboarding is pure evil, etc.
Oh, so now as long as it doesn't mentally ruin them for life, it doesn't count? It's okay? No (permanent) harm, no foul?
What the fuck is wrong with you?
Sure, it's not nice treatment. It's a little more severe than changing a prisoner's diet to cold mush, maybe. (is that torture?)
Depends -- does eating cold mush instill the instinctual panic of impending death? Would you scream and beg not to be forced to eat cold mush?
I don't think you have any idea what the fuck you're talking about. I don't think you've ever so much as been lightly choked, much less nearly drowned. Give me 5 minutes, and I could clear up this cold mush vs waterboarding issue for you, I promise.
Keeping people in prison is not nice treatment. Is that torture? Personally, if I got to choose between that and waterboarding, I'd go for the waterboarding.
The part where we tacitly, and with a snicker, allow prisoners to be raped is in fact torture imo yes. Bet that has a lot to do with your decision, too.
Or maybe it has to do with you not wanting to be imprisoned for years, and thinking anything that only lasts 5 minutes is worth it. Well what if that wasn't the deal. What if you were already imprisoned, you had no idea when you were going to be released, and after they waterboarded you they just threw you back into your cell, maybe to do it again the next day? Walk in the park? Or maybe one of those other prisons where they just feed you cold mush is starting to sound good?
Honestly, people like you, I'd love to give you a taste of your own medicine. I'd love to try out a variety of techniques that don't "mentally ruin" you, see how long it takes before you decide that they're "serious", at least when they're happening to you. Most people like that are chickenhawk pussies and wouldn't last 30 seconds. People who've actually gone through it, like McCain, don't have that problem of wondering which tortures are serious or not.
The only ones who benefit from international saber-rattling are the "establishment" who would otherwise be kicked out of power. There is actually a lot of discontent with the current leadership of Iran, but by threatening Iran we only strengthen them.
You're dead on with this, man.
It's a sad effect of binary "us or them" thinking that allows us to believe that the Iranian people hating their government means that they must love us. Unfortunately the truth is they hate the U.S. government more, so when their government can be seen to oppose ours, it actually improves the government's standing with the people.
One big issue where this applies is the whole nuclear program thing. The Iranian people are solidly behind developing domestic nuclear power, and see us as interfering with their sovereignty. They may be displeased with their government for being antagonistic and for getting them sanctioned, but they also don't want to see the government completely capitulate.
That's true, and while overall I've lost a lot of respect for McCain in the last four years, his vocal opposition to torture, and willingness to flat-out call torture techniques* torture with the authority of a former POW, has allowed me to retain some of that respect.
So anyway, given that he is still far more hawkish and pro-Iranian-invasion, what this means is that your choices are like this:
McCain: Less torture, more war! Clinton: Less war, more torture!
Man it's going to be a tough choice if it comes down to those two.
* Seriously, like you need to be a POW to call waterboarding torture. If anybody doesn't think that's torture, I'd bet you a million bucks I could change their mind with a chair, some leather straps, a hose, and five minutes with which to "persuade" them.
So first off I hope Obama gets the nomination, and second I think Bill Richardson would make a great running mate. Richardson has the experience to offset what is Obama's biggest perceived weakness, and the foreign policy chops to at least stand up to what will obviously be McCain's major campaign thrust.
Ideally it'd be the other way around with Obama given a chance to get some experience as VP, but "ideal" and "U.S. election system" aren't even in ICBM range of each other. While Richardson's complete lack of exposure was crippling in his race for the nomination, that wouldn't matter in the main race as he'd automatically get air time.
Slashdot Mirror
...
You're absolutely right. That's even more weird.
Dave Bowman: Where the hell'd you get that idea, HAL?
HAL: Dave, although you took thorough precautions in the pod against my hearing you, I could see your lips move.
Which bothers me every time I watch that movie... I mean, especially the way the shot is framed you can see Hal's "eye" right through the pod window... and especially with the way Hal has been acting up to this point, that unmoving eye is creepy. If I was secretly plotting to disconnect the computer that I didn't trust, I'd have made sure it couldn't see me just so I wouldn't get paranoid and freak out. But hey, hindsight and the chosen POV of the director being 20/20 and all that.
So does that mean Bob had nothing to worry about? Or is it different for hamsters?
Each pylon is capable of being fitted with an MCBR - the Multiple Coconut Bomb Rack (later re-named by some pencil-pusher to the Multiple Carriage Bomb Rack.)
Well, it makes sense... Much as an African swallow can grip a variety of fruits by their husk, so to can a variety of fruits be carried by the A4's bomb racks. The original name was from before they made use of this fact and were only carrying coconuts.
For reasons known only to himself, Roland decided to pick this particular random news release
*holds fingers to temples, eyes closed tightly as if deep in concentration*
I'm going to say... to get his name on the front page of Slashdot again.
Thank you, thank you, I'll be here all week. Also if you're in law enforcement, and need a really obvious crime to be solved by a "psychic", call me, I have low rates!
Perfect. That's exactly how I wanted the joke to end. :)
Agree... Even coal plants are *MUCH MORE* energy-efficient than the traditional gasoline engine. So, less pollution than a standard car.
You're absolutely right, you get a big environmental boost right off the bat just by going from millions of tiny mobile power plants to a few large stationary ones, and it only gets better from there.
It's rather hilarious how their own blog admits that your chemist friend (and every other independent expert) was right and the whole idea of bringing components of a liquid explosive onto the plane is ludicrous.
So there's the question you quoted, where they insist that yes there was a real threat and that's why they have the liquid ban. Then they have this question, the one every sane person in America asked moments after hearing about the new policy:
"Why can't multiple people bring on explosives in three-ounce containers and mix them post security? "
And then here's a snippet of part 4 of their answer:
"The preparation of these bombs is very much more complex than tossing together several bottles-worth of formula and lighting it up. In fact, in recent tests, a National Lab was asked to formulate a test mixture and it took several tries using the best equipment and best scientists for it to even ignite. That was with a bomb prepared in advance in a lab setting. A less skilled person attempting to put it together inside a secure area or a plane is not a good bet."
Hear that? An entire group of top scientists in a laboratory setting had a hard time making a working explosive. Obviously this applies to a single person making a binary explosive as well as it does a group. If they had made this the answer to the first question, it would look like they were saying there wasn't a serious threat and the whole policy is stupid. But by moving it down a couple questions, it looks like they're only saying that multiple people cooperating to do this isn't a serious threat, so don't worry about the obvious hole in their procedures...
Personally I think they are just playing word games anyway. When they say "real threat" and "serious plot", they are using alternate meanings of the words to confuse. If I say "I'm going to fucking kill you!" is that a threat? Sure, I'm threatening you, and maybe I'm serious about it. But is it a threat in the sense of risk analysis? No, not really, since I have no idea who you are and I don't work for any ISP much less yours so I have no way to carry out my threat.
The blog is just like TSA itself -- theater designed to mollify the complacent, stir up the fearful, and above all, demonstrate that Your Government Knows What It's Doing And Has Everything Under Control.
The notion that you're going to achieve security by having drones check things by rote is laughable.
I remember reading a blog a couple years ago by a guy who worked for TSA. It was hilarious or scary depending on your level of paranoia -- to me, it was pure comedy.
According to my memory of his recollection, the way TSA works is that the screeners get tested occasionally by some other part of the agency who will come and put something into the baggage, like say a gun, and the screener has to find it or they and the manager are in deep crap. So the managers trained them to identify the items TSA used, and nothing else. They were taught to identify that gun, not any other. The manager actually got irate when the blogger wanted to know about the general principles of identifying contraband, vs the specifics of identifying the half-dozen objects the TSA used as tests.
I'm glad to know though that the Security Officers will do "whatever it takes" to make sure they keep their jobs haha!
White COATS! Damn, ruined my joke, like it needed the help...
*gets dragged away by men in dark suits and shades*
More like men in white suits.
Don't worry, their cells are a lot more comfortable!
It doesn't affect the veracity at all, but it rather substantially affects its relevance and insight.
And then when you get to the end, a big fat lady grabs you out of the water and sits on your chest.
Oh, whew! That's a relief. I seriously thought that sentence was going to end with "face".
Yeah, I'm kinda bothered by the comments that seem to think this means the opposite -- that this observation weakens the evidence for our current theories.
I know from personal experience that you have around 5 seconds from when your engine bursts into flames to when the car explodes.
I just wish they'd stop making them so that they immediately burst into flames as soon as they come to rest upside down.
Oh, it's worse than all that. You're still going to get that electricity for the batteries from mostly-coal.
Uh-huh. And then we replace the coal plant with a nuclear plant, or augment it with wind power, or whatever, and your car magically becomes more environmentally friendly without you having to do anything!
This is the beauty of the plug-in electric car. It decouples transportation from the source of power. So when a better source of power comes along, you don't have to replace the entire fleet of existing cars to benefit, which would mean overcoming a huge amount of inertia.
Living just outside of Chicago, I've a similar question, but of cabin heat.
Um, well, if the electric engine doesn't produce enough heat to warm the cabin (a positive feature I'd say), then it would be trivial to just create a simple electric heater you can turn on when you want heat, and it would heat up nearly instantly because it doesn't have to warm up an entire engine block before hot air starts coming through the vent.
Total non-problem.
The best and newest ones aren't; in fact lithium is taking over the market and pushing down into the low-end brands. My roommate just picked up a 7-piece set of 18V LiIon tools, and they're pretty bad-ass. Much lighter than old 12V NiCd or NiMH tools, with more power to boot.
You keep using that punctuation. I do not think it means what you think it means.
We routinely waterboard our own special forces as part of training.
Yes we deliberately torture our special forces because we are training them to endure some of the worst conditions imaginable, including being captured by the enemy.
Which means it isn't torture... how? In any event it's pretty obvious that voluntarily undergoing training exercises from people who in the end are trying to strengthen you is different than being involuntarily tortured by people who intend to break you.
Gee, it can't be that bad. I'm damn sick of these ideas that waterboarding mentally ruins a person for life, that waterboarding is pure evil, etc.
Oh, so now as long as it doesn't mentally ruin them for life, it doesn't count? It's okay? No (permanent) harm, no foul?
What the fuck is wrong with you?
Sure, it's not nice treatment. It's a little more severe than changing a prisoner's diet to cold mush, maybe. (is that torture?)
Depends -- does eating cold mush instill the instinctual panic of impending death? Would you scream and beg not to be forced to eat cold mush?
I don't think you have any idea what the fuck you're talking about. I don't think you've ever so much as been lightly choked, much less nearly drowned. Give me 5 minutes, and I could clear up this cold mush vs waterboarding issue for you, I promise.
Keeping people in prison is not nice treatment. Is that torture? Personally, if I got to choose between that and waterboarding, I'd go for the waterboarding.
The part where we tacitly, and with a snicker, allow prisoners to be raped is in fact torture imo yes. Bet that has a lot to do with your decision, too.
Or maybe it has to do with you not wanting to be imprisoned for years, and thinking anything that only lasts 5 minutes is worth it. Well what if that wasn't the deal. What if you were already imprisoned, you had no idea when you were going to be released, and after they waterboarded you they just threw you back into your cell, maybe to do it again the next day? Walk in the park? Or maybe one of those other prisons where they just feed you cold mush is starting to sound good?
Honestly, people like you, I'd love to give you a taste of your own medicine. I'd love to try out a variety of techniques that don't "mentally ruin" you, see how long it takes before you decide that they're "serious", at least when they're happening to you. Most people like that are chickenhawk pussies and wouldn't last 30 seconds. People who've actually gone through it, like McCain, don't have that problem of wondering which tortures are serious or not.
Thanks for the info, though I'm not sure what it has to do with anything.
The only ones who benefit from international saber-rattling are the "establishment" who would otherwise be kicked out of power. There is actually a lot of discontent with the current leadership of Iran, but by threatening Iran we only strengthen them.
You're dead on with this, man.
It's a sad effect of binary "us or them" thinking that allows us to believe that the Iranian people hating their government means that they must love us. Unfortunately the truth is they hate the U.S. government more, so when their government can be seen to oppose ours, it actually improves the government's standing with the people.
One big issue where this applies is the whole nuclear program thing. The Iranian people are solidly behind developing domestic nuclear power, and see us as interfering with their sovereignty. They may be displeased with their government for being antagonistic and for getting them sanctioned, but they also don't want to see the government completely capitulate.
That's true, and while overall I've lost a lot of respect for McCain in the last four years, his vocal opposition to torture, and willingness to flat-out call torture techniques* torture with the authority of a former POW, has allowed me to retain some of that respect.
So anyway, given that he is still far more hawkish and pro-Iranian-invasion, what this means is that your choices are like this:
McCain: Less torture, more war!
Clinton: Less war, more torture!
Man it's going to be a tough choice if it comes down to those two.
* Seriously, like you need to be a POW to call waterboarding torture. If anybody doesn't think that's torture, I'd bet you a million bucks I could change their mind with a chair, some leather straps, a hose, and five minutes with which to "persuade" them.
So first off I hope Obama gets the nomination, and second I think Bill Richardson would make a great running mate. Richardson has the experience to offset what is Obama's biggest perceived weakness, and the foreign policy chops to at least stand up to what will obviously be McCain's major campaign thrust.
Ideally it'd be the other way around with Obama given a chance to get some experience as VP, but "ideal" and "U.S. election system" aren't even in ICBM range of each other. While Richardson's complete lack of exposure was crippling in his race for the nomination, that wouldn't matter in the main race as he'd automatically get air time.
I'm sure they meant that Iran's internal net infrastructure is turning into the wind.