before walking through the gate? I can't help but believe I would be arrested if I stood at the little conveyor belt for the x-ray machine and dropped my clothes on to it before going through the metal detector.
I little background before I rant. In a previous lifestyle, as a helicopter pilot for the Army, I worked hand in hand with the DEA and the US Marshalls in several extended counter-narcotics missions. My security clearance was, ummmmm, "above average." During a long weekend off, I made a 30 minute trip across the US-Mexican border, for the specific purpose of buying some gifts of alcohol for friends (I'm a nondrinker). Crossing back into the US, I spent 6 and 1/2 hours being searched, questioned, and watching my vehicle get dismantled because I "raised some red flags" (primarily the bumper stickers protesting US foreign policy in Central America on my '72 Volkswagon camper with the tie-dye curtains). This experience has me a little skeptical of the profiling decisions made by security employees.
I see no effective difference between being exposed to someone looking at a monitor image of me and them looking at my naked body. If I have volunteered to be seen that way, no problem. If it is without my consent, big problem.
I am more offended by the idea individual profiling, which is nothing more than the subjective interpretations of individuals, than I am of the idea of every single person being forced to walk through security naked.
I want security, but I am unwilling to trade my privacy and dignity away blindly to get it. And if you are squeemish about seeing my bony ass saunter through a metal detector au natural, please accept that I am just as squeemish about having someone take that same view of me with high tech equipment.
4. Class requirements are communist. After an extent, forcing all children to learn the same things (true with very minor exeception through high school) is ridiculous.
Homework is communistically enforced regardless of necessity ("responsibility is part of learning" -- bullshit.
I agree with a large portion of your arguments, and I certainly don't want to start a flame war, but I question your labeling of some practices as "communist". The practices you cite seem to me to fit more in the lines of late industrial capitalist standardization and automation. The oft-quoted phrase "from each according to his abilities..." implies to me that under a communist system (something that I do not believe we have experienced on a large scale) school children would be encouraged to challenge themselves and their needs in accomplishing that would be provided. It may just be a case of semantics, but I think the underlying issue is what I perceive as a mistaken tendency to associate authoritarian central control with communism.
Just the thoughts of a wage slave, thanks for listening.
The written policy appears to have been different than the executed policy. Individuals should be given warning of the sea change. At the very least, asking for this buys you time.
Actually, Shannon Faulkner dropped out after four days. After a number of her male counterparts had dropped out.
I think she was really interested in going to the school, it was a struggle to get there. What she was not interested in, was continued ostracization by a bunch of thugs who were implicitly encouraged to treat her in any abusive fashion they chose, so long as they did not actually touch her.
The celebration that ensued with the announcement that she dropped out was incomprehensible. Cadets celebrating the failure of a fellow cadet. Cadre congratulating themselves over the effectiveness of having followed the letter of an order, while avoiding it's intent. I was embarassed for the Citadel and it's graduates. It tarnished their reputation as an institution that once trained outstanding leaders and officers.
But bullets are so much easier, and the results are so immediately clear...
As a pinko-commie sympathizing, vegetarian, card-carrying member of the ACLU, I find the GPL fits nicely into my value system, and I find it easy to support.
As an Army officer and a combat pilot (and Instructor Pilot to other highly trained killing machines), I sometimes find myself answering questions like "what the *&^% are you doing here?" (caveat: I am now in the Individual Ready Reserve, so the question doesn't come up as often as it used to.)
My answer has always been that I support the purpose of the Army, to protect freedom. The oath I took was to defend the Constitution, which has problems, but has mechanisms for improvement. In reality, defending freedom is only one of the purposes of the Army, the primary purpose is arguably to protect the nation.
Completely separate from it's purpose, the Army (military) is often used for oppression. But this is not intrinsic to the military, and is opposed from without and within by a substantial population.
Treating the military with a siege mentality is an ineffective strategy. And that is why I disagree with your statement that I should have severe problems with the Army. I just have severe problems with the way the fascists in Washington use and misuse the Army (military).
I can't wait to answer questions about this posting during my next security clearance review.
I can understand how just reading the text of a website makes could make Woz come across this way. Text always has a way of allowing multiple interpretations.
I had the opportunity to meet Mr. Wozniak at the MacHack a couple of years ago when he was the keynote speaker. He is anything but full of himself.
Dave His big concern during his stay at the conference was that he didn't have the credentials or credibility to be giving the keynote. It was amazing to watch a couple of the organizers out in the hallway, moments before he was to speak, explaining to him that he was the most qualified person they had ever had as keynote. After they had convinced him that the people he was about to speak to considered him a hero/god, his concern shifted to, "how can I meet that expectation, I'm going to disappoint them."
In person, he is soft-spoken and unassuming, and he was clearly uncomfortable with the hero-worship that was going on. He is just very matter of fact about what he has done, and he has done some incredibly amazing things.
Slashdot Mirror
And your suggestion how to get security without trading in your privacy is....?
I am willing to accept less security. Especially if the alternative is capricious and arbitrary invasions of my privacy with little effectiveness.
Dave
before walking through the gate? I can't help but believe I would be arrested if I stood at the little conveyor belt for the x-ray machine and dropped my clothes on to it before going through the metal detector.
I little background before I rant. In a previous lifestyle, as a helicopter pilot for the Army, I worked hand in hand with the DEA and the US Marshalls in several extended counter-narcotics missions. My security clearance was, ummmmm, "above average." During a long weekend off, I made a 30 minute trip across the US-Mexican border, for the specific purpose of buying some gifts of alcohol for friends (I'm a nondrinker). Crossing back into the US, I spent 6 and 1/2 hours being searched, questioned, and watching my vehicle get dismantled because I "raised some red flags" (primarily the bumper stickers protesting US foreign policy in Central America on my '72 Volkswagon camper with the tie-dye curtains). This experience has me a little skeptical of the profiling decisions made by security employees.
I see no effective difference between being exposed to someone looking at a monitor image of me and them looking at my naked body. If I have volunteered to be seen that way, no problem. If it is without my consent, big problem.
I am more offended by the idea individual profiling, which is nothing more than the subjective interpretations of individuals, than I am of the idea of every single person being forced to walk through security naked.
I want security, but I am unwilling to trade my privacy and dignity away blindly to get it. And if you are squeemish about seeing my bony ass saunter through a metal detector au natural, please accept that I am just as squeemish about having someone take that same view of me with high tech equipment.
Dave
4. Class requirements are communist. After an extent, forcing all children to learn the same things (true with very minor exeception through high school) is ridiculous.
Homework is communistically enforced regardless of necessity ("responsibility is part of learning" -- bullshit.
I agree with a large portion of your arguments, and I certainly don't want to start a flame war, but I question your labeling of some practices as "communist". The practices you cite seem to me to fit more in the lines of late industrial capitalist standardization and automation. The oft-quoted phrase "from each according to his abilities..." implies to me that under a communist system (something that I do not believe we have experienced on a large scale) school children would be encouraged to challenge themselves and their needs in accomplishing that would be provided. It may just be a case of semantics, but I think the underlying issue is what I perceive as a mistaken tendency to associate authoritarian central control with communism.
Just the thoughts of a wage slave, thanks for listening.
Dave
Moderate this up.
The written policy appears to have been different than the executed policy. Individuals should be given warning of the sea change. At the very least, asking for this buys you time.
If your lawyer didn't think that bit of information was important, perhaps he understood/knew something you didn't...
Or maybe was just an incompetent boob.
Actually, Shannon Faulkner dropped out after four days. After a number of her male counterparts had dropped out.
I think she was really interested in going to the school, it was a struggle to get there. What she was not interested in, was continued ostracization by a bunch of thugs who were implicitly encouraged to treat her in any abusive fashion they chose, so long as they did not actually touch her.
The celebration that ensued with the announcement that she dropped out was incomprehensible. Cadets celebrating the failure of a fellow cadet. Cadre congratulating themselves over the effectiveness of having followed the letter of an order, while avoiding it's intent. I was embarassed for the Citadel and it's graduates. It tarnished their reputation as an institution that once trained outstanding leaders and officers.
But bullets are so much easier, and the results are so immediately clear...
As a pinko-commie sympathizing, vegetarian, card-carrying member of the ACLU, I find the GPL fits nicely into my value system, and I find it easy to support.
As an Army officer and a combat pilot (and Instructor Pilot to other highly trained killing machines), I sometimes find myself answering questions like "what the *&^% are you doing here?" (caveat: I am now in the Individual Ready Reserve, so the question doesn't come up as often as it used to.)
My answer has always been that I support the purpose of the Army, to protect freedom. The oath I took was to defend the Constitution, which has problems, but has mechanisms for improvement. In reality, defending freedom is only one of the purposes of the Army, the primary purpose is arguably to protect the nation.
Completely separate from it's purpose, the Army (military) is often used for oppression. But this is not intrinsic to the military, and is opposed from without and within by a substantial population.
Treating the military with a siege mentality is an ineffective strategy. And that is why I disagree with your statement that I should have severe problems with the Army. I just have severe problems with the way the fascists in Washington use and misuse the Army (military).
I can't wait to answer questions about this posting during my next security clearance review.
I can understand how just reading the text of a website makes could make Woz come across this way. Text always has a way of allowing multiple interpretations.
I had the opportunity to meet Mr. Wozniak at the MacHack a couple of years ago when he was the keynote speaker. He is anything but full of himself.
Dave
His big concern during his stay at the conference was that he didn't have the credentials or credibility to be giving the keynote. It was amazing to watch a couple of the organizers out in the hallway, moments before he was to speak, explaining to him that he was the most qualified person they had ever had as keynote. After they had convinced him that the people he was about to speak to considered him a hero/god, his concern shifted to, "how can I meet that expectation, I'm going to disappoint them."
In person, he is soft-spoken and unassuming, and he was clearly uncomfortable with the hero-worship that was going on. He is just very matter of fact about what he has done, and he has done some incredibly amazing things.