I use opera and I haven't gotten a popup in years. No need for "no script." Just plainly no popups.
I use Opera too, and I HAVE noticed a few pop-ups starting to get through its filters. In fact, its why I read this article. Normally I just skip all pop-up articles because pop-ups weren't something I ever got. No longer.
Well if it is so simple, Mr Smartypants, how about you tell the nice people the purpose of prisons in the US? Go on. No, not your personal opinion, we want the consensus view. We'll wait.
What do you want - a White Paper?
I don't have to list the purpose of prisons to know that they serve a purpose. No rational human would ever say that prisons in the US serve no purpose. If you don't intuitively see that then you are beyond rational arguments.
I don't think that's right. True, you would have difficulty localizing the jamming signal if you use one big antenna, but several jammers located around the prison, each with maybe a 100-200 foot radius, would work fine with no effect on surrounding areas. You could even jam the cellblock areas and leave the administrative areas unblocked.
Is there a reason why inmates should not be allowed to have cell phones? I mean, they've got a legal right to phone privileges.
Because they use them in criminal activity. They could use them to coordinate activity in prison riots or to keep watch for guards. To coordinate prison breaks with outside accomplices, or to arrange for drugs to be smuggled into the prison (drop points, timing, etc). No, prisoners don't have the right to unlimited phone privileges.
Prisons serve no purpose in the US
In all the years I have been visiting slashdot, this is without a doubt the dumbest thing I have ever heard anyone say.
If it is so easy to block cell phone signals then why can I get cell phone signals inside metal elevators inside skyscrapers in NYC?
Your post shows an alarming ignorance of physics, prison operations and inmate control, as well as realist cost constraint (put detectors in every cell, line all cells with tin... really, those are absurd ideas).
Politicians often lie about things, but this is a HUGE policy and philosophical position. I find it hard to believe that Obama would lie and that he really, secretly wants a government that doesn't obey the law. I think that's nonsense.
And although I'm not happy about the Raytheon lobbyist, there is a huge difference in having TWO ex-lobbyists in the administration and the hundreds that went through the lobbyist revolving-door that was the Bush administration.
Its like me saying my car is clean and you coming along and calling me a liar because there is a little dirt in the wheel-well.
You certainly aren't very creditable a fact-giver. First, the two corporate bail-outs (loans), to GM and Chrysler, were made under the Bush administration. Neither did Obama give the auto industries everything they asked for when he signed the new efficiency standards - in fact they're suing. Neither did he give the Republicans everything they asked for when he refused to overload the stimulus bill with more tax cuts. He has also refused to give the left the political payback to republicans they wanted.
And anyway - since when is not giving people what they want considered to be success? If the majority of Americans support government stimulus, and Obama does that, you somehow interpret that as a failure.
They don't have the right to vote, and they are considered mentally incompetent. But yes, they do have civil rights.
Although it seems strange in America, students may not have civil rights in school. A recent court case found that students did not have even the right of free political speech in schools when they were expelled for holding up an anti-Bush banner. I wouldn't take those student civil rights as a given. Rules in schools are different than everyday citizen rights.
You look it up. I'm not doing your education for you. I was working in the nuclear air-cleaning business at the time and know just a smidgen more about it that you do.
There were unexpected voids in the containment vessel at TMI that were very close to causing failure. This was discovered after the fact when they sent camera robots into the vessel. It was an unexpected consequence of the high radiation and pressure.
And yes, TMI was minutes away from releasing large amounts of radioactive contamination when the activated carbon air scrubbers became so loaded with radioactive particles that the carbon was at its combustion point. When workers closed off the first bank of hot scrubbers to let them cool, the valves to redirect the contaminated air to the backup backup scrubbers failed to open. Only the fact that the valves had been installed incorrectly and let air through anyway saved the day.
TMI was not a major ecological disaster only due to pure dumb luck. There was NOTHING safe about that plant. And anyone who says that it was proof that the safety features worked doesn't know his hat from a hole in the ground.
3 mile island was trivial. Chernobyl was due to crappy Soviet engineering, management, and maintenance. We've had plenty of time to learn from their mistakes.
I can't believe you got modded insightful for this comment. Slashdot really needs an "ignorant of the facts" tag.
Chernobyl failed because the operators exceeded its safety margins purposefully. They were conducting military experiments and had disabled all the safeties to push the reactor well beyond its design limits.
TMI was NOT a trivial accident. Sure, not much radiation was released, but that was pure dumb luck. Few people realize how close we came to a major radiation release and the contamination of hundreds of square miles. TMI was literally minutes away from a major release on more than one occasion, and for more than one reason. It was a comedy of bad design, bad constrction, and bad operation.
3 mile island? Literally not an issue... the safety measures contained the problem.
right...and airbags saved your life in that head-on collision. Therefore head-on collisions are perfectly safe. Or all the passengers escaped through the emergency exits of the burning airliner... therefore burning airliners are perfectly safe.
What you clearly don't know is how close TMI came to being a huge disaster. Hundreds of square miles uninhabitable for generations. In one case a major release of radioactivity into the air was prevented because the emergency air cleaning devices were installed wrong! In another case, voids in the containment wall concrete were growing faster than any predicted scenario and it was only a matter of minutes before there would have been a breach. LUCKILY, cooling water was restored in the nick of time. Again by accident - the operator decided to do the exact opposite of what the instruments were telling him to do and saved the containment.
I don;t think being saved from a major disaster (and I DO mean major) by two separate instances of pure dumb luck means that the safety devices on the the TMI reactor worked.
Oh wait. His map was confusing. He has a lot of lines drawn on it, but on closer examination he did NOT cross tracks.
Still, none of the other photographers were hassled, so I have to wonder why he was singled out. There was a big group of them, and they were even taking pictures on the platform while the police were there arresting him. He was not arrested for taking pictures and none of his pictures were ever deleted or confiscated. Something just doesn't seem right about his account.
Look at the link that shows a map of his path across the platforms. Read some of his comments about the other photographers that were there and why they were there. He, himself, describes in an obscure linked document that the Transit Police asked him to leave before arresting him, but he refused.
Even that is questionable. This is a publicly-funded organization (they provide mass transit, after all) and the photographer had a legally purchased ticket. They do NOT have the right to selectively ask people to leave without a just reason for same (eg. threatening others, intoxication, etc.) Civil rights laws passed in the 1960's protect everyone, not just the african americans who fought for them--if others have the right to stay on the train platform, so does he.
Apparently no one has bothered to read more than the/. summary or the first page of the photographer's blog. Look deeper into the circumstances and you will see that the photographer was arrested for crossing multiple active tracks, multiple times, in the busiest train station in the country in the middle of the day. He was asked to leave because because he was NOT standing on the platform taking pictures.
He was not arrested for taking pictures. He was with a group of photographers, all taking pictures, and none of them were arrested or asked to delete anything.
The transit Police were actually giving him a break by allowing him to leave, but he refused. Using the logic of a 3-year old he claimed he had a ticket and therefore had a "right" to be there. But he did not have a right to put other people's safety in jeopardy by jumping onto tracks to get from platform to platform. There was no reason for the Transit Police to believe he would not continue to jump the tracks if he were allowed to stay. He MADE them arrest him - for trespassing.
Now, he is trying to throw up a red-herring by making his arrest seem like it was a constitutional issue about his right to take pictures.
Operating a wireless device on a plane in flight is not against FAA regulations nor do I think it likely to be against Jet Blue's policy. I was not able to find their policy on the web, but most airlines allow use of some electronic devices after the plane reaches 10,000 feet, including laptops, portable DVD players, mp3 players, etc. Video cameras are fine. They had the right to ask her to delete it and she had the right to say no. They had no right to have her removed from the plane or arrested.
Actually, the rules in aircraft are different. The act of not obeying a member of the crew is itself a violation of Federal Law, and they CAN have you arrested and taken off the plane for refusing an any order.
Wow, great made-up proof. But the photographer in this case did not delete the photos and they are up on his web site right now. He wasn't tasered.
Here is something for you to consider as you vilify the Transit Police who arrested him "for taking pictures": you only heard that from his own self-serving blog. He is setting up a red-herring to deflect his actual illegal activity - trespassing. He was not arrested for taking pictures.
1)He was walking across active tracks in Penn Station. That is clearly trespass. He neglects to mention that when he says he had a ticket and had a right to be there. No ticket allows passengers to walk across active tracks.
2)He was in a group of photographers who had gone to Penn Station to expressly take pictures on the platform. None of the others were arrested for taking pictures on the platform. He neglected to mention that, too.
3)He refused to leave the platform area when the Transit Police asked him to, claiming he had a ticket and was entitled to be there. They had been willing to let him slide on the fact that he had been walking across active tracks if he simply left the area, but they had no alternative but to arrest him when he refused to leave. There was every indication he would have continued to walk across active tracks if he stayed.
This guy is a self-serving jerk who is trying to manipulate people into thinking this is a constitutional issue, when in fact he is simply a moron who put his and other people's safety at risk by walking across active tracks. The fact that he was taking pictures while he violated the law does not give him constitutional immunity from arrest. True, the officer should not have asked him to delete his pictures, but he had every right to ask - just as the photographer had every right to refuse, which he did.
Amtrack security are not police. They are hired security. Nevertheless I'm not going to Don Quixote them in public. I'll do something more permanent after the fact when I'm not risking a huge waste of my time that I will not get recompense for
Excuseme, the Transit Police ARE real police. What a stupid comment. But go ahead, let's hear more wisdom from you about an area in which you are completely ignorant.
Sheesh. You can't be fired for going to court as a witness or a juror. You absolutely CAN be fired if you go to court because you were arrested or if you've filed a private lawsuit.
Do not believe this guy's self-serving web page. He wasn't arrested for taking pictures. He was arrested for walking across active tracks! He was trespassing and was arrested for trespass. If you dig deep enough into his blog you can find this out. He was in a group of photographers who were taking pictures along with him, and none of them were arrested! They even took pictures of him being arrested on the platform and the Transit Police did not bother them! He has tried to throw up a red-herring to fool people into thinking he was arrested in violation of his Constitutional rights. He put his own life and the lives of others in jeopardy (emergency braking of passenger trains, danger to pursuing officers, etc) and he deserved to be arrested.
The only thing the officer had on the photographer was perhaps a loitering charge (where courts have increasingly have found loitering laws unconstitutional) or other public crowd control laws like disturbing the peace and obstructing traffic (in this case pedestrian traffic).
It isn't easy to find on his self-serving web site, but the guy was walking across active tracks. He was not staying on the platforms. No ticket allows passengers to walk across active tracks. He was arrested for trespass, and it was a legitimate charge.
What also isn't clear from his blog, unless you get many links into it, is that he was with a group of picture-takers who had gone to Penn Station to take pictures, and none of them were arrested. He wasn't alone, he wasn't the only picture taker, but he was the only person arrested - for trespassing.
It takes a lot of looking on the photographer's self-serving web site, but the photographer was not "just taking pictures". He was walking across active tracks in Penn Station which IS trespass. No ticket allows passengers to leave the platform and walk on active tracks.
The Transit Police were NOT legally wrong to ask him to delete the pictures - he had the right to refuse to do so. That the pictures have been published n his web site indicate they were not confiscated or deleted by the police.
His summons was for Trespass, and that appears to be a legitimate charge, he WAS trespassing. He is acting like a 3-year old when he argues that since there were no "No Trepsasing" signs he was not trespassing when he walked across the tracks. That's absurd.
I'm a photographer, and I support the free taking of pictures in public spaces, but this was NOT an arrest for taking pictures in Penn Station. This was an arrest for irresponsible trespass and endangering his own and other's safety in Penn Station. As proof, he was in a picture-taking group, many people had been taking pictures at the same time he was, pictures were even taken during his arrest on the platform by members of the group, and NONE OF THEM were arrested.
I can tell you EXACTLY why they did not want their picture taken - they were out of uniform. There are strict NYPD departmental rules about officers a)always wearing their hats, and b)having their pictures taken with no hats. This rule is taken seriously. These guys could be reprimanded and given days off with no pay if their pictures showed up in publication.
Be nice. If you tell them you are going to be taking pictures and give them a chance to get their tops on they would probably not object.
Slashdot Mirror
I use opera and I haven't gotten a popup in years. No need for "no script." Just plainly no popups.
I use Opera too, and I HAVE noticed a few pop-ups starting to get through its filters. In fact, its why I read this article. Normally I just skip all pop-up articles because pop-ups weren't something I ever got. No longer.
Actually, no. It implies he didn't use it, but nothing in that sentence actually says he didn't.
What do you want - a White Paper?
I don't have to list the purpose of prisons to know that they serve a purpose. No rational human would ever say that prisons in the US serve no purpose. If you don't intuitively see that then you are beyond rational arguments.
With that said, I'm through feeding your tr0ll.
I don't think that's right. True, you would have difficulty localizing the jamming signal if you use one big antenna, but several jammers located around the prison, each with maybe a 100-200 foot radius, would work fine with no effect on surrounding areas. You could even jam the cellblock areas and leave the administrative areas unblocked.
Because they use them in criminal activity. They could use them to coordinate activity in prison riots or to keep watch for guards. To coordinate prison breaks with outside accomplices, or to arrange for drugs to be smuggled into the prison (drop points, timing, etc). No, prisoners don't have the right to unlimited phone privileges.
In all the years I have been visiting slashdot, this is without a doubt the dumbest thing I have ever heard anyone say.
If it is so easy to block cell phone signals then why can I get cell phone signals inside metal elevators inside skyscrapers in NYC?
Your post shows an alarming ignorance of physics, prison operations and inmate control, as well as realist cost constraint (put detectors in every cell, line all cells with tin... really, those are absurd ideas).
Politicians often lie about things, but this is a HUGE policy and philosophical position. I find it hard to believe that Obama would lie and that he really, secretly wants a government that doesn't obey the law. I think that's nonsense.
And although I'm not happy about the Raytheon lobbyist, there is a huge difference in having TWO ex-lobbyists in the administration and the hundreds that went through the lobbyist revolving-door that was the Bush administration.
Its like me saying my car is clean and you coming along and calling me a liar because there is a little dirt in the wheel-well.
You certainly aren't very creditable a fact-giver. First, the two corporate bail-outs (loans), to GM and Chrysler, were made under the Bush administration. Neither did Obama give the auto industries everything they asked for when he signed the new efficiency standards - in fact they're suing. Neither did he give the Republicans everything they asked for when he refused to overload the stimulus bill with more tax cuts. He has also refused to give the left the political payback to republicans they wanted.
And anyway - since when is not giving people what they want considered to be success? If the majority of Americans support government stimulus, and Obama does that, you somehow interpret that as a failure.
They don't have the right to vote, and they are considered mentally incompetent. But yes, they do have civil rights.
Although it seems strange in America, students may not have civil rights in school. A recent court case found that students did not have even the right of free political speech in schools when they were expelled for holding up an anti-Bush banner. I wouldn't take those student civil rights as a given. Rules in schools are different than everyday citizen rights.
You look it up. I'm not doing your education for you. I was working in the nuclear air-cleaning business at the time and know just a smidgen more about it that you do.
There were unexpected voids in the containment vessel at TMI that were very close to causing failure. This was discovered after the fact when they sent camera robots into the vessel. It was an unexpected consequence of the high radiation and pressure.
And yes, TMI was minutes away from releasing large amounts of radioactive contamination when the activated carbon air scrubbers became so loaded with radioactive particles that the carbon was at its combustion point. When workers closed off the first bank of hot scrubbers to let them cool, the valves to redirect the contaminated air to the backup backup scrubbers failed to open. Only the fact that the valves had been installed incorrectly and let air through anyway saved the day.
TMI was not a major ecological disaster only due to pure dumb luck. There was NOTHING safe about that plant. And anyone who says that it was proof that the safety features worked doesn't know his hat from a hole in the ground.
3 mile island was trivial. Chernobyl was due to crappy Soviet engineering, management, and maintenance. We've had plenty of time to learn from their mistakes.
I can't believe you got modded insightful for this comment. Slashdot really needs an "ignorant of the facts" tag.
Chernobyl failed because the operators exceeded its safety margins purposefully. They were conducting military experiments and had disabled all the safeties to push the reactor well beyond its design limits.
TMI was NOT a trivial accident. Sure, not much radiation was released, but that was pure dumb luck. Few people realize how close we came to a major radiation release and the contamination of hundreds of square miles. TMI was literally minutes away from a major release on more than one occasion, and for more than one reason. It was a comedy of bad design, bad constrction, and bad operation.
3 mile island? Literally not an issue... the safety measures contained the problem.
right...and airbags saved your life in that head-on collision. Therefore head-on collisions are perfectly safe. Or all the passengers escaped through the emergency exits of the burning airliner... therefore burning airliners are perfectly safe.
What you clearly don't know is how close TMI came to being a huge disaster. Hundreds of square miles uninhabitable for generations. In one case a major release of radioactivity into the air was prevented because the emergency air cleaning devices were installed wrong! In another case, voids in the containment wall concrete were growing faster than any predicted scenario and it was only a matter of minutes before there would have been a breach. LUCKILY, cooling water was restored in the nick of time. Again by accident - the operator decided to do the exact opposite of what the instruments were telling him to do and saved the containment.
I don;t think being saved from a major disaster (and I DO mean major) by two separate instances of pure dumb luck means that the safety devices on the the TMI reactor worked.
Oh wait. His map was confusing. He has a lot of lines drawn on it, but on closer examination he did NOT cross tracks.
Still, none of the other photographers were hassled, so I have to wonder why he was singled out. There was a big group of them, and they were even taking pictures on the platform while the police were there arresting him. He was not arrested for taking pictures and none of his pictures were ever deleted or confiscated. Something just doesn't seem right about his account.
Look at the link that shows a map of his path across the platforms.
Read some of his comments about the other photographers that were there and why they were there. He, himself, describes in an obscure linked document that the Transit Police asked him to leave before arresting him, but he refused.
It's on his web site. You have to dig deep.
Even that is questionable. This is a publicly-funded organization (they provide mass transit, after all) and the photographer had a legally purchased ticket. They do NOT have the right to selectively ask people to leave without a just reason for same (eg. threatening others, intoxication, etc.) Civil rights laws passed in the 1960's protect everyone, not just the african americans who fought for them--if others have the right to stay on the train platform, so does he.
Apparently no one has bothered to read more than the /. summary or the first page of the photographer's blog. Look deeper into the circumstances and you will see that the photographer was arrested for crossing multiple active tracks, multiple times, in the busiest train station in the country in the middle of the day. He was asked to leave because because he was NOT standing on the platform taking pictures.
He was not arrested for taking pictures. He was with a group of photographers, all taking pictures, and none of them were arrested or asked to delete anything.
The transit Police were actually giving him a break by allowing him to leave, but he refused. Using the logic of a 3-year old he claimed he had a ticket and therefore had a "right" to be there. But he did not have a right to put other people's safety in jeopardy by jumping onto tracks to get from platform to platform. There was no reason for the Transit Police to believe he would not continue to jump the tracks if he were allowed to stay. He MADE them arrest him - for trespassing.
Now, he is trying to throw up a red-herring by making his arrest seem like it was a constitutional issue about his right to take pictures.
Operating a wireless device on a plane in flight is not against FAA regulations nor do I think it likely to be against Jet Blue's policy. I was not able to find their policy on the web, but most airlines allow use of some electronic devices after the plane reaches 10,000 feet, including laptops, portable DVD players, mp3 players, etc. Video cameras are fine. They had the right to ask her to delete it and she had the right to say no. They had no right to have her removed from the plane or arrested.
Actually, the rules in aircraft are different. The act of not obeying a member of the crew is itself a violation of Federal Law, and they CAN have you arrested and taken off the plane for refusing an any order.
But these are just security guards aka rent-a-cops if they work for am track.
Transit Police ARE real police.
Wow, great made-up proof. But the photographer in this case did not delete the photos and they are up on his web site right now. He wasn't tasered.
Here is something for you to consider as you vilify the Transit Police who arrested him "for taking pictures": you only heard that from his own self-serving blog. He is setting up a red-herring to deflect his actual illegal activity - trespassing. He was not arrested for taking pictures.
1)He was walking across active tracks in Penn Station. That is clearly trespass. He neglects to mention that when he says he had a ticket and had a right to be there. No ticket allows passengers to walk across active tracks.
2)He was in a group of photographers who had gone to Penn Station to expressly take pictures on the platform. None of the others were arrested for taking pictures on the platform. He neglected to mention that, too.
3)He refused to leave the platform area when the Transit Police asked him to, claiming he had a ticket and was entitled to be there. They had been willing to let him slide on the fact that he had been walking across active tracks if he simply left the area, but they had no alternative but to arrest him when he refused to leave. There was every indication he would have continued to walk across active tracks if he stayed.
This guy is a self-serving jerk who is trying to manipulate people into thinking this is a constitutional issue, when in fact he is simply a moron who put his and other people's safety at risk by walking across active tracks. The fact that he was taking pictures while he violated the law does not give him constitutional immunity from arrest. True, the officer should not have asked him to delete his pictures, but he had every right to ask - just as the photographer had every right to refuse, which he did.
Amtrack security are not police. They are hired security. Nevertheless I'm not going to Don Quixote them in public. I'll do something more permanent after the fact when I'm not risking a huge waste of my time that I will not get recompense for
Excuseme, the Transit Police ARE real police. What a stupid comment. But go ahead, let's hear more wisdom from you about an area in which you are completely ignorant.
Sheesh. You can't be fired for going to court as a witness or a juror. You absolutely CAN be fired if you go to court because you were arrested or if you've filed a private lawsuit.
Do not believe this guy's self-serving web page. He wasn't arrested for taking pictures. He was arrested for walking across active tracks! He was trespassing and was arrested for trespass. If you dig deep enough into his blog you can find this out. He was in a group of photographers who were taking pictures along with him, and none of them were arrested! They even took pictures of him being arrested on the platform and the Transit Police did not bother them! He has tried to throw up a red-herring to fool people into thinking he was arrested in violation of his Constitutional rights. He put his own life and the lives of others in jeopardy (emergency braking of passenger trains, danger to pursuing officers, etc) and he deserved to be arrested.
The only thing the officer had on the photographer was perhaps a loitering charge (where courts have increasingly have found loitering laws unconstitutional) or other public crowd control laws like disturbing the peace and obstructing traffic (in this case pedestrian traffic).
It isn't easy to find on his self-serving web site, but the guy was walking across active tracks. He was not staying on the platforms. No ticket allows passengers to walk across active tracks. He was arrested for trespass, and it was a legitimate charge.
What also isn't clear from his blog, unless you get many links into it, is that he was with a group of picture-takers who had gone to Penn Station to take pictures, and none of them were arrested. He wasn't alone, he wasn't the only picture taker, but he was the only person arrested - for trespassing.
It takes a lot of looking on the photographer's self-serving web site, but the photographer was not "just taking pictures". He was walking across active tracks in Penn Station which IS trespass. No ticket allows passengers to leave the platform and walk on active tracks.
The Transit Police were NOT legally wrong to ask him to delete the pictures - he had the right to refuse to do so. That the pictures have been published n his web site indicate they were not confiscated or deleted by the police.
His summons was for Trespass, and that appears to be a legitimate charge, he WAS trespassing. He is acting like a 3-year old when he argues that since there were no "No Trepsasing" signs he was not trespassing when he walked across the tracks. That's absurd.
I'm a photographer, and I support the free taking of pictures in public spaces, but this was NOT an arrest for taking pictures in Penn Station. This was an arrest for irresponsible trespass and endangering his own and other's safety in Penn Station. As proof, he was in a picture-taking group, many people had been taking pictures at the same time he was, pictures were even taken during his arrest on the platform by members of the group, and NONE OF THEM were arrested.
I can tell you EXACTLY why they did not want their picture taken - they were out of uniform. There are strict NYPD departmental rules about officers a)always wearing their hats, and b)having their pictures taken with no hats. This rule is taken seriously. These guys could be reprimanded and given days off with no pay if their pictures showed up in publication.
Be nice. If you tell them you are going to be taking pictures and give them a chance to get their tops on they would probably not object.