What has really killed IPv6 is not cost but lack of interest if not disinterest. You IT department at work does not really want the machine at your desk to be a true internet peer. They have a block of public IPs to hosts your orgs public services on and they can solve their other access problems with NAT. The need is meet and it even simplifies things in some ways depending on your perspective. At home your ISP who for most of America is probably also in the content distribution business does not care. The vast majority of their customers won't mind being NATed when the addresses run out and those ISPs would probably rather everyone be NATed anyway making certain end users were only clients. They know if they did it now their would be an out cry from a noisy few and it might bring the FCC down on them, if they wait they will have a perfect excuse to NAT everyone and nobody will really have any say in the matter because at that point it will be the only real solution.
The trouble with this is it forces us to draw a very arbitrary line in the sand some place. How long to you have to hold an equity before you are investor? An hour, a day, a week, a month, a year? what?
Suppose you buy 1000 shares of Example Co on Monday and on Tuesday the CEO of Example Co is charged with fraud and the public details of the case strike you as pretty damning; should you be forced to wait to sell just because you were a more recent purchaser than someone else? Should you be denied the right to buy more if its your guess the CEO going to jail won't hurt the company much?
The problem with curbing speculation is that somebody has to set the rules and none agree on what those should really be. I would also point out that even investors are speculating just because they are doing it over longer time frames does not make it less speculative.
No, doing that stuff is a short term stimulus at most long term its a hidden tax on all of us. Using fiat debt money to build a super gun is much different than say building a road. If you build the road the economy continues to extract value from its use.
The gun on the other hand gets taken off to war and sooner or later destroyed but all the money that went into it is still here at home doing its evil inflationary work. The same thing is basically true in a sound money system but there you'd have deflation and and over all slowing of the economy as those dollars would just be gone in that case. Either way there is a trade off between guns and butter and unless you actually need the guns because the enemy is at the gates its not a good one.
The types of wars we are fighting today as other posters have pointed out don't in most cases even provide a target for this contraption. Its a big expensive toy.
Well I think the idea behind it from a marketing perspective is to make people feel like its a sort of concierge service and it will be catered directly to them. The thing is with big high dollar enterprisy type stuff is I don't want it to feel that way, I expect it to be that way. A little personal attention and a prompt response is not much to ask for considering the dollars attached to many of these support contracts.
I agree with you My Whatever makes me think I am calling some generalized helpdesk. I want to talk to a professional who can help solve my problem, and BTW Oracle, you are not HP you don't also sell consumer stuff, if we are are calling you we know what are problem *is* we actually need help fixing it not identifying it, skip the first level crap please.
I am sorry but this is what the skeptics have been saying all along. It basically comes down to the science is not good enough to make decisions with, these are theories they are mere hypotheses that are constantly being disproven or modified.
Its not fair to ask people to upend their lives based on this stuff. Its not far to hardworking Americans to transfer up to 1.5% of our GDP to the UN due to climate change, without even a promise it will be spent on that. That is what the Obama Admin is well on its way to agreeing to do.
Proponents of Climate change are just political tools. It has nothing to do with science or saving the planet, its all about pushing their socialist agenda. If you can't see that you are a tool
Really Wikileaks, whatever they claim they have on the banks which they will release in January is probably much more destabilizing than anything coming out of the diplomatic cables. Where the cables are concerned, at the end of the day everyone knows everybody friend and enemy alike is spying on everyone else, and everyone pretty much knows who thinks what about what or at least suspected. There really were no surprises and ultimately all the guns are still pointed in the same directions anyway so nothing really changes.
Bank data on the other hand is a different story. Firstly in our world of fiat funny money opinion, perception and emotion have as much to do with valuation as anything else. Second there are guys with money who would love to short a weak bank to death; and there are still more people who'd love the chance to ride the coat tails of those guys. After that you have bond vigilantes who are also always out for blood and would love to tighten credit up by gouging weak banks. This doubly so now that they know those banks won't be allowed to fail they call something high risk charge cray rates while still being totally confident they will be paid by someone. Lastly there is the issue that the SEC has been pretending lots of these leaders did not know the crisis was coming and did not expect bailouts, and were not therefore knowingly misleading investors. Its been convenient to turn a blind eye, and act like these guys were unaware of all the fraud in the market. If documents proving otherwise get out than some CEOs will probably have to be charged; which feeds back into the first and second things, shorts will want blood and longs and depositors will run away due to lost confidence."
I wonder if some of the anti-Wikipedia fervor evident among US lawmakers will also be brought to bear against the AP and other mainstream media sources.
Please lets not conflate Wikipedia and Wikileaks. That is not good for anyone.
Right, these smart phones are effectively taking us back to the bad old days of a separate client for each network service; just when we were finally getting to where having a recent browser for your platform means you can use any service.
Computer networks and information systems are very controllable The Internet however is The Internet because of its loose control. China does not give access to The Internet to its citizens it gives access to its network which so happens to have internet gateways. Those gateways may be well controlled. China's network though is a walled garden with internet access its not The Internet at all.
One thing about a free society is armed or not there is always going to be some level of violence. You just can't get around that unless you are just going to start collaring ever suspicious character and even then you will still have some crime. There are people who just don't think and act like the rest of us and the social factors of society are not going to result in the same behavior in those individuals that most of us exhibit.
When it comes to people caring small arms I think an armed society is a polite society, most of the time. There is going to be the occasional incident; but fewer than if people were not armed.
Nations are different. Firstly the consequences of a single incident are far far greater especially if nuclear weapons are used. In a society of 300,000,000+ while each lost life to due to crime is a tragedy we can tolerate some level of loss and cannot hope to prevent it. When nations fight 1000s die, and many lives beyond theirs are destroyed. This is much less "tolerable" but fortunately the number of countries numbers in the 100s small enough to keep an eye on them especially so the suspicious characters.
Its kinda like flood insurance. Its often not that the risk of an insurable event is high but if something did happen the potential costs could be be so very very high. I am almost a little surprised these things get private insurance given the governments policy on flood insurance.
Also just because these new reactors won't meltdown does not mean a major dispersal of radioactive materials can't happen. Imagine if a freak F5 tornado hits the facility dead on! An insurer could be paying medial and clean up expenses for decades; amounting to untold billions.
The thing is even as someone who is decidedly convinced that Global Climate change is a hoax or at least that it is caused by human industry and not simply a natural phenomena I still would rather us all drive electric cars. Oil is the major cause of wealth being exported from this country. It happens in two ways firstly its a imported commodity and second it causes us to have to play world police for the middle east; and that is insanely expensive.
Coal on the other hand can in fact be very clean with the latest technology. Personally I think C02 emissions should probably be our nations LAST concern right now but even if you don't there are ways to manage it with modern coal plants. Greens really need stop trying to ban coal and push for migration to clean coal tech. Unless you are one of those that wants to see humanity return to a subsistence life style you can't as a practical matter ignore coal in America. We have a domestic supply that many predict could meet our entire energy needs for nearly 800 years! Not leveraging a resource like that is just stupid. So yea lets use the electric car so coal can again power our transportation.
If you were really a good consultant worth your wage you would do what's best for your clients regardless of your personal political agenda. You can decide what clients to take, and you certainly make choices based on your ideals when its your own business. You should make that choice and not take the client if you know you won't be able to steer them towards what is really the best solution for them.
Sure if you client wants to run a politically sensitive website you might be very correct in advising them that Amazon might not be a good choice because they have a history now drop customers that attract what in their view is the wrong kind of traffic and attention. For the vast majority of other clients who want pretty basic hosting and commerce services Amazon is probably at least as good a choice as anything else and should at least be considered. Be a good consultant and take care of your customers. Do your think every defense attorney really thinks their client is innocent, you think the civil guys always think their client is in the right? No they think they can win or if they are on retainer they do their level best to win putting their personal feelings aside. You should try being a professional and doing that.
The trick with advertising in general is to make an impression. Any impression is better than no impression because people will generally when face with a decision go with the familiar over an unknown even when the familiar is an irritant. There is a line you can cross thought where people form a strong negative impression.
Making an impression is getting progressively harder because of all the noise, and lack of novelty. It used to be you could throw up some bill boards with catchy slogans in pretty plain print and get the job done, not so today. We have seen it all and someone is trying to do something louder and flashier right next to you. Ideally you'd make a positive impression but that is hard when you are turning to the proverbial blink tag to get noticed at all, most advertizers are happy just getting noticed today.
Using technology to force people to view an add is crossing that bright line for lots of people where its not just irritating its infuriating at least if you do to much of it. Google might have really hit the nail upon the head here. If you are not interested in an ad you don't get a sour grapes impression of the product going forward by being force to watch. If you are interested you can watch it and in anycase you are being asked to decide if its interesting in order to dismiss it so you are at least recognizing what the product is and associating an name with it. Those are all huge wins in advertisers books.
This is pretty much applied media studies 101, which is about the limits of my knowledge on the subject but the whole thing makes allot of sense, so much sense I am glad someone is brave enough to try it.
Well one answer is to start thinking of the port as part of the address. I have given this some thought. The major suckage of this scheme will be that there are no longer "well known" ports.
If you use carrier grade NAT you might as well assign all the addresses via DHCP.
You define some new DHCP options that passes a group of ports to the client. These are the ports the NAT engine will be forwarding to that host.
The DHCP client will have to be configured to know about the services the machine will host. You would know that your ISP was going to give you 10 ports and so you would just configure the client with a map that says my first port will be http, my second port will be smtp, my third ftp and so on. The client sends this information back in the DHCP inform. The DHCP server will then create DNS srv records with the service name and the port number as the data.
Once the DHCP negotiate is finished the operating system on the client restarts the services binding them to the correct ports received in the DHCP options.
Browsers and new apps will need to be updated to check the srv records for the ports to append to the url. Users will have to learn to enter urls like http://example.com:7634/ into legacy applications.
It could work for the most part though, without breaking legacy networks and applications. Kludgey sure, but better than nothing.
I am pretty sure as far as the SEC is concerned information published on a website for all to read at the same time, however it was obtained by the publisher is fair game for investors to use. If you short financial based on something you read on wikileaks they are not going to come after you for insider trading.
Nah its probably banks so the real-estate and by extension the credit crisis coming, and internally decided to stay the course and keep the game up as long as possible knowing the politicians would likely feel they had no option other than the rescues/bailouts. That is not really a secret. There were a number of industry insiders and economists that predicted it and knew it. We also know there was wide spread credit fraud and wide spread cased of turning a blind eye to it.
None of that will be knew information. The most will come of it is some sitting CEOs and board members will be forced to admit that *they* specifically knew it, and will have some explaining to do to the SEC. Its not going to be earth shattering.
Who is Assange to judge and / or label corporations or individuals? Isn't his role in life to throw static files on a server so other people can download them? Shouldn't the information speak for itself and be analyzed be individuals that know far more than him and his organization?
I agree that he should not be editing the material just making it available; if that is appropriate. He (or rather any leaker) should be judging whether it should be released at all however. If you learn of a secret that something illegal, immoral or unjust has happened, and especially if it will continue to happen its one thing speak up about it. That is whistle blowing. That is hopefully keeping others from harm. If you learn a secret that is just embarrassing for someone but probably harming no one and you blab it all around just because you can that is being dickhead.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that everyone would like the offenders of industrial espionage to be dragged out in the open. Especially the United States government.
Well you are obviously worng about that. He is getting this from leaked US documents. If they wanted this information out it would be! They obviously don't want it out. Now perhaps the government does want to stop industrial espionage but might have decided that doing something about these know instances is not to our best interests. Perhaps they did not want to respond because they don't want it know that they knew or more importantly don't want it know how they knew. If they have a mole or something lots of intel would be in actionable because they enemy would have a pretty short list of possible leakers to begin with. You might let lots of stuff slide knowing its more valuable to keep that guy in place so you could get a heads up if something really devastating was about to happen; rather than risk burning him on some tech.
There have so far been some things that were interesting but nothing really shocking and nothing worth the cost. Assange is not about being a serious whistle blower working for the greater good. This is about shameless self promotion and nothing more. I can't even think he is a misguided idiot now, if he really thought this was for the good of the world that this stuff comes to light he'd release whatever he has got now to make sure it gets out before someone stops him and eventually someone will stop him. You can't just run around making the movers and shakers of the world look foolish forever before there is some reprisal.
I don't think he does care if this stuff gets out, I think he is just about keeping the media circus and his own fame as grand as possible.
A hell of allot of good that do anyone. Its not like if the TSA sees anything remotely out of the ordinary with the scanner you are not going to then get the pat-down or some other intrusive search as a result.
Slashdot Mirror
What has really killed IPv6 is not cost but lack of interest if not disinterest. You IT department at work does not really want the machine at your desk to be a true internet peer. They have a block of public IPs to hosts your orgs public services on and they can solve their other access problems with NAT. The need is meet and it even simplifies things in some ways depending on your perspective. At home your ISP who for most of America is probably also in the content distribution business does not care. The vast majority of their customers won't mind being NATed when the addresses run out and those ISPs would probably rather everyone be NATed anyway making certain end users were only clients. They know if they did it now their would be an out cry from a noisy few and it might bring the FCC down on them, if they wait they will have a perfect excuse to NAT everyone and nobody will really have any say in the matter because at that point it will be the only real solution.
The trouble with this is it forces us to draw a very arbitrary line in the sand some place. How long to you have to hold an equity before you are investor? An hour, a day, a week, a month, a year? what?
Suppose you buy 1000 shares of Example Co on Monday and on Tuesday the CEO of Example Co is charged with fraud and the public details of the case strike you as pretty damning; should you be forced to wait to sell just because you were a more recent purchaser than someone else? Should you be denied the right to buy more if its your guess the CEO going to jail won't hurt the company much?
The problem with curbing speculation is that somebody has to set the rules and none agree on what those should really be. I would also point out that even investors are speculating just because they are doing it over longer time frames does not make it less speculative.
No, doing that stuff is a short term stimulus at most long term its a hidden tax on all of us. Using fiat debt money to build a super gun is much different than say building a road. If you build the road the economy continues to extract value from its use.
The gun on the other hand gets taken off to war and sooner or later destroyed but all the money that went into it is still here at home doing its evil inflationary work. The same thing is basically true in a sound money system but there you'd have deflation and and over all slowing of the economy as those dollars would just be gone in that case. Either way there is a trade off between guns and butter and unless you actually need the guns because the enemy is at the gates its not a good one.
The types of wars we are fighting today as other posters have pointed out don't in most cases even provide a target for this contraption. Its a big expensive toy.
Well I think the idea behind it from a marketing perspective is to make people feel like its a sort of concierge service and it will be catered directly to them. The thing is with big high dollar enterprisy type stuff is I don't want it to feel that way, I expect it to be that way. A little personal attention and a prompt response is not much to ask for considering the dollars attached to many of these support contracts.
I agree with you My Whatever makes me think I am calling some generalized helpdesk. I want to talk to a professional who can help solve my problem, and BTW Oracle, you are not HP you don't also sell consumer stuff, if we are are calling you we know what are problem *is* we actually need help fixing it not identifying it, skip the first level crap please.
I am sorry but this is what the skeptics have been saying all along. It basically comes down to the science is not good enough to make decisions with, these are theories they are mere hypotheses that are constantly being disproven or modified.
Its not fair to ask people to upend their lives based on this stuff. Its not far to hardworking Americans to transfer up to 1.5% of our GDP to the UN due to climate change, without even a promise it will be spent on that. That is what the Obama Admin is well on its way to agreeing to do.
Proponents of Climate change are just political tools. It has nothing to do with science or saving the planet, its all about pushing their socialist agenda. If you can't see that you are a tool
Will Assange's people put the money where his mouth is and release the key to the insurance file?
Really Wikileaks, whatever they claim they have on the banks which they will release in January is probably much more destabilizing than anything coming out of the diplomatic cables. Where the cables are concerned, at the end of the day everyone knows everybody friend and enemy alike is spying on everyone else, and everyone pretty much knows who thinks what about what or at least suspected. There really were no surprises and ultimately all the guns are still pointed in the same directions anyway so nothing really changes.
Bank data on the other hand is a different story. Firstly in our world of fiat funny money opinion, perception and emotion have as much to do with valuation as anything else. Second there are guys with money who would love to short a weak bank to death; and there are still more people who'd love the chance to ride the coat tails of those guys. After that you have bond vigilantes who are also always out for blood and would love to tighten credit up by gouging weak banks. This doubly so now that they know those banks won't be allowed to fail they call something high risk charge cray rates while still being totally confident they will be paid by someone. Lastly there is the issue that the SEC has been pretending lots of these leaders did not know the crisis was coming and did not expect bailouts, and were not therefore knowingly misleading investors. Its been convenient to turn a blind eye, and act like these guys were unaware of all the fraud in the market. If documents proving otherwise get out than some CEOs will probably have to be charged; which feeds back into the first and second things, shorts will want blood and longs and depositors will run away due to lost confidence."
Sounds good but you'd probably be infringing on someones business process patent, if you tried that.
I wonder if some of the anti-Wikipedia fervor evident among US lawmakers will also be brought to bear against the AP and other mainstream media sources.
Please lets not conflate Wikipedia and Wikileaks. That is not good for anyone.
Right, these smart phones are effectively taking us back to the bad old days of a separate client for each network service; just when we were finally getting to where having a recent browser for your platform means you can use any service.
Computer networks and information systems are very controllable The Internet however is The Internet because of its loose control. China does not give access to The Internet to its citizens it gives access to its network which so happens to have internet gateways. Those gateways may be well controlled. China's network though is a walled garden with internet access its not The Internet at all.
One thing about a free society is armed or not there is always going to be some level of violence. You just can't get around that unless you are just going to start collaring ever suspicious character and even then you will still have some crime. There are people who just don't think and act like the rest of us and the social factors of society are not going to result in the same behavior in those individuals that most of us exhibit.
When it comes to people caring small arms I think an armed society is a polite society, most of the time. There is going to be the occasional incident; but fewer than if people were not armed.
Nations are different. Firstly the consequences of a single incident are far far greater especially if nuclear weapons are used. In a society of 300,000,000+ while each lost life to due to crime is a tragedy we can tolerate some level of loss and cannot hope to prevent it. When nations fight 1000s die, and many lives beyond theirs are destroyed. This is much less "tolerable" but fortunately the number of countries numbers in the 100s small enough to keep an eye on them especially so the suspicious characters.
Its kinda like flood insurance. Its often not that the risk of an insurable event is high but if something did happen the potential costs could be be so very very high. I am almost a little surprised these things get private insurance given the governments policy on flood insurance.
Also just because these new reactors won't meltdown does not mean a major dispersal of radioactive materials can't happen. Imagine if a freak F5 tornado hits the facility dead on! An insurer could be paying medial and clean up expenses for decades; amounting to untold billions.
The thing is even as someone who is decidedly convinced that Global Climate change is a hoax or at least that it is caused by human industry and not simply a natural phenomena I still would rather us all drive electric cars. Oil is the major cause of wealth being exported from this country. It happens in two ways firstly its a imported commodity and second it causes us to have to play world police for the middle east; and that is insanely expensive.
Coal on the other hand can in fact be very clean with the latest technology. Personally I think C02 emissions should probably be our nations LAST concern right now but even if you don't there are ways to manage it with modern coal plants. Greens really need stop trying to ban coal and push for migration to clean coal tech. Unless you are one of those that wants to see humanity return to a subsistence life style you can't as a practical matter ignore coal in America. We have a domestic supply that many predict could meet our entire energy needs for nearly 800 years! Not leveraging a resource like that is just stupid. So yea lets use the electric car so coal can again power our transportation.
If you were really a good consultant worth your wage you would do what's best for your clients regardless of your personal political agenda. You can decide what clients to take, and you certainly make choices based on your ideals when its your own business. You should make that choice and not take the client if you know you won't be able to steer them towards what is really the best solution for them.
Sure if you client wants to run a politically sensitive website you might be very correct in advising them that Amazon might not be a good choice because they have a history now drop customers that attract what in their view is the wrong kind of traffic and attention. For the vast majority of other clients who want pretty basic hosting and commerce services Amazon is probably at least as good a choice as anything else and should at least be considered. Be a good consultant and take care of your customers. Do your think every defense attorney really thinks their client is innocent, you think the civil guys always think their client is in the right? No they think they can win or if they are on retainer they do their level best to win putting their personal feelings aside. You should try being a professional and doing that.
The trick with advertising in general is to make an impression. Any impression is better than no impression because people will generally when face with a decision go with the familiar over an unknown even when the familiar is an irritant. There is a line you can cross thought where people form a strong negative impression.
Making an impression is getting progressively harder because of all the noise, and lack of novelty. It used to be you could throw up some bill boards with catchy slogans in pretty plain print and get the job done, not so today. We have seen it all and someone is trying to do something louder and flashier right next to you. Ideally you'd make a positive impression but that is hard when you are turning to the proverbial blink tag to get noticed at all, most advertizers are happy just getting noticed today.
Using technology to force people to view an add is crossing that bright line for lots of people where its not just irritating its infuriating at least if you do to much of it. Google might have really hit the nail upon the head here. If you are not interested in an ad you don't get a sour grapes impression of the product going forward by being force to watch. If you are interested you can watch it and in anycase you are being asked to decide if its interesting in order to dismiss it so you are at least recognizing what the product is and associating an name with it. Those are all huge wins in advertisers books.
This is pretty much applied media studies 101, which is about the limits of my knowledge on the subject but the whole thing makes allot of sense, so much sense I am glad someone is brave enough to try it.
Sorry we caught you, you are using Windows. Its okay really you don't have to be ashamed; there are lots of people out there just like you.
You can use more than one address in a NAT pool.
Well one answer is to start thinking of the port as part of the address. I have given this some thought. The major suckage of this scheme will be that there are no longer "well known" ports.
If you use carrier grade NAT you might as well assign all the addresses via DHCP.
You define some new DHCP options that passes a group of ports to the client. These are the ports the NAT engine will be forwarding to that host.
The DHCP client will have to be configured to know about the services the machine will host. You would know that your ISP was going to give you 10 ports and so you would just configure the client with a map that says my first port will be http, my second port will be smtp, my third ftp and so on. The client sends this information back in the DHCP inform. The DHCP server will then create DNS srv records with the service name and the port number as the data.
Once the DHCP negotiate is finished the operating system on the client restarts the services binding them to the correct ports received in the DHCP options.
Browsers and new apps will need to be updated to check the srv records for the ports to append to the url. Users will have to learn to enter urls like http://example.com:7634/ into legacy applications.
It could work for the most part though, without breaking legacy networks and applications. Kludgey sure, but better than nothing.
I am pretty sure as far as the SEC is concerned information published on a website for all to read at the same time, however it was obtained by the publisher is fair game for investors to use. If you short financial based on something you read on wikileaks they are not going to come after you for insider trading.
Nah its probably banks so the real-estate and by extension the credit crisis coming, and internally decided to stay the course and keep the game up as long as possible knowing the politicians would likely feel they had no option other than the rescues/bailouts. That is not really a secret. There were a number of industry insiders and economists that predicted it and knew it. We also know there was wide spread credit fraud and wide spread cased of turning a blind eye to it.
None of that will be knew information. The most will come of it is some sitting CEOs and board members will be forced to admit that *they* specifically knew it, and will have some explaining to do to the SEC. Its not going to be earth shattering.
Who is Assange to judge and / or label corporations or individuals? Isn't his role in life to throw static files on a server so other people can download them? Shouldn't the information speak for itself and be analyzed be individuals that know far more than him and his organization?
I agree that he should not be editing the material just making it available; if that is appropriate. He (or rather any leaker) should be judging whether it should be released at all however. If you learn of a secret that something illegal, immoral or unjust has happened, and especially if it will continue to happen its one thing speak up about it. That is whistle blowing. That is hopefully keeping others from harm. If you learn a secret that is just embarrassing for someone but probably harming no one and you blab it all around just because you can that is being dickhead.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that everyone would like the offenders of industrial espionage to be dragged out in the open. Especially the United States government.
Well you are obviously worng about that. He is getting this from leaked US documents. If they wanted this information out it would be! They obviously don't want it out. Now perhaps the government does want to stop industrial espionage but might have decided that doing something about these know instances is not to our best interests. Perhaps they did not want to respond because they don't want it know that they knew or more importantly don't want it know how they knew. If they have a mole or something lots of intel would be in actionable because they enemy would have a pretty short list of possible leakers to begin with. You might let lots of stuff slide knowing its more valuable to keep that guy in place so you could get a heads up if something really devastating was about to happen; rather than risk burning him on some tech.
There have so far been some things that were interesting but nothing really shocking and nothing worth the cost. Assange is not about being a serious whistle blower working for the greater good. This is about shameless self promotion and nothing more. I can't even think he is a misguided idiot now, if he really thought this was for the good of the world that this stuff comes to light he'd release whatever he has got now to make sure it gets out before someone stops him and eventually someone will stop him. You can't just run around making the movers and shakers of the world look foolish forever before there is some reprisal.
I don't think he does care if this stuff gets out, I think he is just about keeping the media circus and his own fame as grand as possible.
A hell of allot of good that do anyone. Its not like if the TSA sees anything remotely out of the ordinary with the scanner you are not going to then get the pat-down or some other intrusive search as a result.