We are discussing ways of implementing the current security procedure. We are not discussing how said procedure needs to be changed. We are discussing all related issues, this whole thread is not exactly on-topic from TFA. That includes disputing the procedures as they currently exist. Just because you happen to agree with the current procedures does not make you arbiter over how they are discussed here.
There was at least one actual attempt to commit acts of terrorism with bombs concealed in shoes. I am surprised you bring this up as it only serves to prove that this requirement was reactionary and that potential attackers will continue to exploit the system in other ways. The logical conclusion that we draw from this game of cat and mouse is that we cannot protect ourselves by relying on airport security. To quote Bruce himself: "we should all be glad that Richard Reid wasn't the 'underwear bomber.'"
Recyclability is not an excuse for creating waste. As I have already outlined, it is not a waste if it is providing a useful service. Recycling merely lessens the ecological impact of the plan.
Also, you and the original poster have presented zero actual evidence that the current security procedure is a threat to public health. I have thus far deferred to previous comments in this thread (some from OP), which I figured you would have seen. Here is some of the evidence that has been presented:
"(HFMD is) usually located on the palms of the hands and soles of the feet""Viruses landing on a hard, nonporous surfaces like steel or plastic have been shown to live for about 24 to 48 hours.""The virus can also spread by contact with skin shed from a wart or blood from a wart."
Even if you assume that wearing socks (tight-knit without holes) keeps one's feet relatively safe, why should we even have to risk it at all? Furthermore, why isn't there protection available to people who just happen to wear sandals and forget to bring socks specifically for wearing through airport security?
What it really comes down to is that some people are starting to realize that all this security theater does not make airplanes substantially safer from attack. It can only become increasingly intrusive as each new vector of attack gets a knee-jerk reaction.
How about you read the actual discussion? A better idea would be to support your arguments instead of making vague accusations.
Our definitions of "evidence" must be very different. Yes, my idea of evidence is that there is some. I don't know what yours is, you did not provide any information.
The disposable shoes or whatever the OP was suggesting. In my opinion, the best solution is that people need not remove their shoes. If the TSA can prove that statistically relevant security gains are made by having them removed, then surely it is worth their while to provide recyclable foot coverings to protect us from other real threats.
However, you do not have the right to make others cater to unreasonable demands at taxpayer expense How do you draw the conclusion that not taking one's shoes off costs the taxpayers anything? You must be aware that for decades people tromped through airport terminals without costing taxpayers a dime. In actuality, the only thing costing the taxpayers anything is the addition of the security check points.
The risk is not just low, it is completely non-existent You have provided no evidence to this effect, however the GP post already provided evidence that demonstrates otherwise.
I don't think we should be wasting taxpayer money and natural resources mitigating non-existent risks Which natural resources are you speculating would be wasted?
I think you just have major OCD There is no need to make derogatory remarks about his desire to be more sanitary. There was a time in this country when one was free to exercise a level of hygiene that suited them. Who are you to pronounce judgment on his preferences? Even supposing that the risk was indeed low, as you claim, why should we be subjected to the risk—just so you can feel more safe?
It's interesting that so many major sites would go down in a local power outage? Are they all sharing one data center in SF? If so, why don't they have co-locations in other cities?
I'm wondering if they would allow me to swap this into my current subscription on a Series 2, or whether I have to buy a new subscription with it and end my current one (read: sign a new contract ala mobile phone providers).
They do if you actually tell the browser that you're sending XHTML, and that the browser even knows what that is. Haven't you ever seen what happens if you send invalid XHTML markup with the correct mime-type; application/xhtml+xml? It throws parse errors like any good compiler. The problem is that most developers are too lazy to do this since it requires work-arounds for, you guessed it, Internet Explorer since it still doesn't support XHTML.
My point was that, at least to me, it shows that a company is probably more willing to innovate with their product if they are willing to step out into an entirely new name. It shows a certain level of marketing courage. Some people may not agree, that is why I said that it was my opinion.:D
Every once in a while, it's nice to develop a totally new idea that doesn't leverage the same brand for eternity. It shows a willingness to innovate IMO.
Fair enough; I recognize your interpretation of his comment. But if you really want people to take your opinion seriously, try posting with your real username instead of troll mode.:P
I like how pointing out inaccuracies in someone's FUD anti-Apple post automatically makes you a fanboy here. That term has become the/. equivalent of terrorist, unamerican, or any number of other fear-mongering labels. What ever happened to the impartial observer? I happen to like some Apple products, as well as many (gasp) non-Apple products. All I care about is that the true features and dis-features are presented accurately.
I do not want to buy a song from iTunes for a buck that I already have on disk, just to listen to it on my iPod, or better yet, I don't have an iPod, so iTunes is useless to me I am tired of this argument. It is just plain incorrect.
You do not have to buy music from the iTunes store in order to listen to it on your iPod. If you rip the music into iTunes from your CD, it will be in the AAC/MP4 standard sans DRM.
iTunes does not require an iPod or the iTunes store in order to be a useful application. It is just a media jukebox that can rip and burn CDs. However, it can also purchase music from the iTunes store and copy files onto an iPod.
When are people going to stop deriding iTunes and the iPod on these grounds?
Apparently it was voted number one by readers also. I think Nintendo has a certain cachet for all-around fun games. They may not necessarily be the most popular among the/. niche, but someone out there must like them.
In a very real sense, Ron Paul is a shining example of the roots of the Republican party. Also, don't be so sure that he could not find the support of a large section of the GOP with his pro-life, anti-gun-control, and pro-privacy platform.
That the RIAA is unwilling to pass along the reserved monies from ROMS that have been stockpiling for years, as a result of people using AOMP3, is no fault of the service itself. The RIAA just doesn't want to give AOMP3 any more legal legitimacy than it already possess. Whether ROMS collects enough to fairly compensate the artists is irrelevant to this argument. Every artist should be complaining about the RIAA rather than distribution innovators. Once that near monopoly on music is dismantled, perhaps market competition can decide what is a fair amount of compensation.
You clearly have not been grasping how "intellectual property" is different from real property (real estate in your example), so I will give you a topline explanation of how they're different. So-called intellectual property refers to a limited period of time granted by the government to a content creator during which they have exclusive distribution rights to profit from an idea. This is in stark contrast to real estate where one legal entity retains control over a defined piece of property which can not be held by any other legal entity while they possess it. Their ownership persists forever unless it is transferred to another entity via some transaction, such as a sale.
Thus, the two are really not similar at all because one resource is limited in nature and your taking of it deprives it from another, whereas something like ROMS is a completely legitimate way of compensating a multitude of artists for their work. So legitimate in fact, that even the U.S. has a similar regime for radio. You will probably ignore all of this anyway, but I figured I should write it for you in the off-chance that you might actually care. For a more in-depth explanation of the abstraction of intellectual property from real property, give this book a read-through.
Ahh, the ol' real property to intellectual property analogy. Sorry, that line of logic has been fully discredited by legions of previous comments. Thanks for playing.
Slashdot Mirror
What it really comes down to is that some people are starting to realize that all this security theater does not make airplanes substantially safer from attack. It can only become increasingly intrusive as each new vector of attack gets a knee-jerk reaction.
It's interesting that so many major sites would go down in a local power outage? Are they all sharing one data center in SF? If so, why don't they have co-locations in other cities?
I'm wondering if they would allow me to swap this into my current subscription on a Series 2, or whether I have to buy a new subscription with it and end my current one (read: sign a new contract ala mobile phone providers).
They do if you actually tell the browser that you're sending XHTML, and that the browser even knows what that is. Haven't you ever seen what happens if you send invalid XHTML markup with the correct mime-type; application/xhtml+xml? It throws parse errors like any good compiler. The problem is that most developers are too lazy to do this since it requires work-arounds for, you guessed it, Internet Explorer since it still doesn't support XHTML.
In other words it enabled freedom of speech? *ducks*
I'm pretty sure dumping tea in the harbor didn't kill anyone.
My point was that, at least to me, it shows that a company is probably more willing to innovate with their product if they are willing to step out into an entirely new name. It shows a certain level of marketing courage. Some people may not agree, that is why I said that it was my opinion. :D
Every once in a while, it's nice to develop a totally new idea that doesn't leverage the same brand for eternity. It shows a willingness to innovate IMO.
Instead of passing off your anecdotal observations as fact, why don't you provide a study or some statistics? Thanks!
Fair enough; I recognize your interpretation of his comment. But if you really want people to take your opinion seriously, try posting with your real username instead of troll mode. :P
I like how pointing out inaccuracies in someone's FUD anti-Apple post automatically makes you a fanboy here. That term has become the /. equivalent of terrorist, unamerican, or any number of other fear-mongering labels. What ever happened to the impartial observer? I happen to like some Apple products, as well as many (gasp) non-Apple products. All I care about is that the true features and dis-features are presented accurately.
- You do not have to buy music from the iTunes store in order to listen to it on your iPod. If you rip the music into iTunes from your CD, it will be in the AAC/MP4 standard sans DRM.
- iTunes does not require an iPod or the iTunes store in order to be a useful application. It is just a media jukebox that can rip and burn CDs. However, it can also purchase music from the iTunes store and copy files onto an iPod.
When are people going to stop deriding iTunes and the iPod on these grounds?Apparently it was voted number one by readers also. I think Nintendo has a certain cachet for all-around fun games. They may not necessarily be the most popular among the /. niche, but someone out there must like them.
In a very real sense, Ron Paul is a shining example of the roots of the Republican party. Also, don't be so sure that he could not find the support of a large section of the GOP with his pro-life, anti-gun-control, and pro-privacy platform.
Jeez. When there are plenty of way worse scandals in the real world going on, what do those of us non-MMO-absorbed geeks care?
That the RIAA is unwilling to pass along the reserved monies from ROMS that have been stockpiling for years, as a result of people using AOMP3, is no fault of the service itself. The RIAA just doesn't want to give AOMP3 any more legal legitimacy than it already possess. Whether ROMS collects enough to fairly compensate the artists is irrelevant to this argument. Every artist should be complaining about the RIAA rather than distribution innovators. Once that near monopoly on music is dismantled, perhaps market competition can decide what is a fair amount of compensation.
The usual notation for "hard drives" is H.D.D. for Hard Disk Drive. H.D. has become common notation to indicate High Definition.
You clearly have not been grasping how "intellectual property" is different from real property (real estate in your example), so I will give you a topline explanation of how they're different. So-called intellectual property refers to a limited period of time granted by the government to a content creator during which they have exclusive distribution rights to profit from an idea. This is in stark contrast to real estate where one legal entity retains control over a defined piece of property which can not be held by any other legal entity while they possess it. Their ownership persists forever unless it is transferred to another entity via some transaction, such as a sale.
Thus, the two are really not similar at all because one resource is limited in nature and your taking of it deprives it from another, whereas something like ROMS is a completely legitimate way of compensating a multitude of artists for their work. So legitimate in fact, that even the U.S. has a similar regime for radio. You will probably ignore all of this anyway, but I figured I should write it for you in the off-chance that you might actually care. For a more in-depth explanation of the abstraction of intellectual property from real property, give this book a read-through.
Ahh, the ol' real property to intellectual property analogy. Sorry, that line of logic has been fully discredited by legions of previous comments. Thanks for playing.
AllofMP3 can't help the fact that the RIAA refuses to take the money that is due to them from ROMS.