How do a taser armed sky marshall and armored doors stop the guy that successfully uses an underwear bomb? The last attack was one explosion away from a complete success. Everything leading to him getting on the plane is what failed, not anything that was on the plane itself.
And yet Obama has been the man at the top for nearly a year now. Please stop blaming Bush when things happen under a new President. DHS may have initially been setup badly, but that's no excuse for Obama to not get the blame.
Israel hasn't had a terrorist try to take a plane in 30 years. Maybe we should do what they do and interrogate each and every passenger before they board. But I guess that's to inconvenient to the lazy Americans that just want to get where they're going. Note that I am an American and would be perfectly willing to submit to a full body scan and an extra pat down if they got rid of the other stupid rules they have implemented (no getting up 1 hr before arrival, no bottles of liquid, no knives, etc).
If we had real security in place, then yes, these incidents would be non existent. You'd have to try a lot harder than simply walking through an exit to bypass security. Airport security is a complete joke and will continue to be a complete joke until Americans wake the fuck up and realize that people are trying to kill us and are very willing to kill themselves in the process.
FYI, the guy drinking whiskey on the plane isn't usually trying to kill me. If he wants to drink himself to death, fine by me.
Actually, yes. Some of us have thought ahead and put little UPSs on our cable modems and VOIP adapters. Beyond that, as the OP said, some people simply forward the calls to their cell phone in the event of a problem. Besides, I don't know anyone that doesn't have a wireless phone somewhere in their house. If the power goes out, those phones still won't work. Sure, the simple $10 radio shack phone will work, but very few people have those these days.
My mom recently had a problem with her POTS phone. She was getting some kind of cross talk right after some heavy rains. I believe Verizon got it mostly fixed, but through it all her cell phone worked fine.
Only Windows Media Player accepts executable code at the end of a video. Most other media players still do not do that so they are not susceptible to that attack. With the Outlook image thing, it's actually a VBS file with the.gif or.jpg somewhere else in the name and the actual extension spaced way off at the end, so images are actually still ok. Admittedly, turning off the display of extensions is a boneheaded move that MS still makes on their OS. It seems to be their way of trying to be more "Mac like".
Somehow I doubt that MS is going to give Notepad the ability to execute code found in a text file. Mainly because almost no one but a techie will ever use Notepad. Most people that need a "text editor" load up Word or Google Docs.
This sounds like "loser pays" which is similar to the UK. The concept being that the entity bringing the lawsuit ends up paying all court fees if they lose the battle. It has less to do with India being more Democratic and more to do with India setting up their system to keep people from bringing frivolous lawsuits. "Loser pays" keeps people from suing about every little thing since they end up having to pay if the suit is found to be without merit and hence they "lose".
They are war criminals and deserve to be treated accordingly.
Very well, then bring them before a court. You did know that war criminals get sentenced or released on those, didn't you?
Sure, bring him before a military tribunal. They're won't be a show and he'll get his deserved punishment. Instead, we're going to get a show trial and the possibility of a not guilty verdict.
Dude, KSM was arrested on the battlefield, not on US soil. He was brought to Gitmo and was being prepared for a military trial when Holder, and Obama, decided to change the rules because "we need to show the world that the US has a strong justice system". They have been repeating the line that he will likely be convicted anyway (so much for innocent until proven guilty) and Holder even mentioned that if he's not convicted, they still won't let him go (so much for justice).
So again, which is it? Do you arrest him, try him, and free him if he's not found guilty? Or do you put him in front of a military trial? This isn't about pragmatism. This is about following rules of law that have been in place for hundreds of years. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean there isn't already precedent that has been set.
FYI, depending on your State and locality, shooting a murderer who's about to kill people could land you in jail. It's pretty much illegal to own a gun in New York, so they'd send you up for that. In California, it's illegal to shoot anyone that isn't in your house and threatening you. So while it should be very simple (I agree that shooting a murderer who's about to kill people should be legal no matter what), the State's have decided to complicate things for "the poor criminals".
In all the cases you mention, most of those people would normally be citizens upon being tried. When you're captured on the battlefield (where KSM was caught), the rules are different. Normally, you're not read miranda rights, you are interrogated, and you are tried by a military tribunal. Or do you really think the Nazi's were tried in civilian courts? This is why enemy combatants have a different classification from Prisoners of War (feel free to read the Geneva convention if you really think they're just using different names for the same thing).
In this case, Holder, the man charged with enforcing the law, is the one circumventing it for a show to the world.
We may believe everybody deserves these rights, but we don't normally go around trying to enforce our rights onto every country. Our track record lately, as in the past 10 years, is actually still pretty good.
Look back at our nation's history. We have not been in the habit of "spreading democracy" throughout the world. What we have been in the habit of doing is pushing communism back and containing it, which we sometimes failed miserably at doing. We've also been in the habit of pressuring communist countries to free their citizens. With enough pressure, they eventually fall (see Russia and East Germany for two good examples).
Until recently, no war criminal was tried in a civilian court. It is what military tribunals are for. If you are captured on the battlefield, military tribunals are suppose to be used, not civilian courts. Civilian courts have a much higher burden of proof than military tribunals. All it's going to take is a little reasonable doubt and KSM will either walk free or have a hung jury. That's not justice, it's insanity.
This has set a precedent. If bin Laden is captured tomorrow, there is now a chance that he will have to be read Miranda rights and then tried in a civilian court. So while we keep telling the world that we're going to try him in court because "it's the right thing to do" we're also telling the world "he'll likely be found guilty and even if he's not, we won't let him go". What kind of justice is that? If we've already decided that he can't be set free and that he'll be convicted, that's just hypocrisy. The trial is a big show and it's a show we don't need.
Well, let's put it another way - when people use the term 'everyone', they typically mean 'a sufficiently large group of people to suit the purpose of my argument'.
It goes without saying that I wouldn't trust a kid with a gun. And I would add that there are always nutters of all ages who I most certainly wouldn't trust with a gun either. Arming those people would inevitably lead to the original 'everyone' needing weapons too. So don't arm them in the first place is the sanest, simplest solution.
Which is why instant background checks are needed. Instead if completely disarming everyone because of a few whack jobs, you disarm the whack jobs through instant background checks. We don't tell everyone they can't speak out about things just because a few people, like the Unabomber, wrote manifesto's against the government. We also don't shutdown radio or tv shows just because we don't like what they're saying. We simply change the channel.
Freedom has consequences and responsibilities. A society should be willing to deal with the responsibilities instead of being willing to take all the freedoms away in order to not have to deal with anything.
So you think bolt action rifles stand a chance against a military of 250000 that has automatic weapons, tanks, planes, and all kinds of other modern weaponry? Yeah, good luck with that.
If it came down to it, I would bet balls to bones that private citizens would start making illegal weapons very quickly. Automatic weapons against bolt action rifles is like bolt action rifles against muzzle loaders. The guys with muzzle loaders won't last long.
And don't forget that the 250000 doesn't have to take on the 21 million all at once. Taking out a small portion is enough to stop a rebellion and then ban all firearms at that point. So you won't legally be allowed to own anything.
Either put up with the bullshit, or do something about it, don't sit there and bitch like a whiney fuck.
Hey, I'm with you. Now how do you suggest we convince the vast majority of the populace that eats this shit up hook, line and sinker?
You don't. In most rebellions, only 20% of the populace supports it (the American Revolution only had the support of about 20% of the people, the rest were happy living under the crown). It is up to those 20% to take action. Once enough momentum is achieved, the rest of the populace will follow.
Unless things are really, really bad (like police standing on street corners beating people for so much as a single negative word), most of the population will not speak up and do anything. You can tell people about it every time it comes up in a conversation, but It's up to the rest of us to take action.
The difference is here you don't mention them in polite society.
Ah, I see. So it's like politics or religion. You have your beliefs, you just don't talk about them for fear of scaring everyone.
People don't need to be afraid of me because I own a gun. They need to be afraid of me if they're going to try to take something from me by force. At that point, gun or not, I will do everything in my power to stop them.
FYI, I don't talk about my guns either. But not because of "polite society". I don't talk about my firearms because the topic rarely comes up. If it does, I have no problem telling people about all the firearms I own and have fired.
Ah yes, lump all Christians in with the hysterical lunatics that really think the world will end in 2012 because a freaking movie told them it would.
There are plenty of Christians that are completely blowing off the whole 2012 thing simply because they've actually read about it and aren't just getting their information from a movie. In fact, if the end of the world is coming, it's a good thing to be a Christian because it means Christ is returning as well.
Seriously, I have talked to people like this. They are as stupid as they come and they aren't Christian. They get all their information about everything from TV and movies. It's funny because they're so stupid and it's sad to think that anyone can be that dumb.
I seriously doubt you'd have Beck screaming at the television about a game unless the government did in fact ban it. He may not like the game (and he'd probably say as much), but he most certainly wouldn't want it banned by the government. He'd tell you to simply "vote with your dollars".
In fact, Beck is the one show that more than likely wouldn't give it a lot, if any, air time. Remember Mass Effect? That got all shit on by a morning Fox show and so called "child advocate". The problem was that neither of them had played the game and admitted just that when asked by the game's creator. The host had to come up with something quickly the moment the guest said she hadn't played the game (the entire segment was based on what this so called "child advocate" had said was in the game). Hannity, O'Reilly, and Fox and Friends in the morning might jump on it, but Beck would not even bother.
I would almost bet that they cashed the check, but since the address was different, it didn't go into the system properly so it came up as unpaid. Because the only real way for the person to track what happened would be to check their bank statements each month and we all know very few people actually do that. And again, if the person has written their correct address on the ticket, why does the responsibility fall back onto them to make sure the system has corrected the error? The judge was clearly an asshole in this case.
Seriously. Audit all the systems so you have an accurate count of what software is intalled and whether or not it's legal. Then quit and call the BSA. The company will be summarily shutdown for pirating software and you'll get a nice reward that you can live on until you find a better job.
You might want to warn them what the fine is for pirating software and even give them the opportunity to purchase legal copies slowly (a few at a time), but if they continue to tell you to shut your face, just follow the above advice. Chances are, when someone else gets pissed, they'll call the BSA and then you'll still be out of a job and possibly held partly responsible.
Moderate Republican? Are you kidding? She was not a moderate, no matter what the media might try to make you believe. Go take a look at her positions for yourself. The choice was between a Democrat and Republican, but they were essentially the same. Which is why the Conservative only lost by 4 points. Maybe next time the RNC will actually endorse a Conservative candidate instead of a Democrat with an R by their name.
Nobody is saying he's a rapist and a murderer, they're just pointing out that he's never denied.it. He attacked an Arab-American senator, saying that they've never gone on record stating they aren't a terrorist, and never really presented any solid proof they aren't working for Al Quaida, so basically the website is operating under the assumption that if he can give it, he can take it.
I think you're full of shit. I've been watching Beck for nearly a year and I can't recall a single time when he accused a senator of what you're saying he did. Got a source to back that up?
Glenn Beck, to this day, repeats the lie that Obama was born in Kenya. He asks, if he was born here, why doesn't he prove it? Obama has, of course, but Beck acts as though he hasn't. So someone decided to apply Glen Beck's own tactics against him, by forcing him to deny ridiculous allegations over and over again.
You are not watching his show. I can tell because what you say is a lie. He has never said that Obama was born in Kenya. He has referenced the "birther" movement a few times. I've been watching his show since February and he rarely talks about where Obama was born.
I'm a liberal but I think it's an insult to conservatives to call him that (seriously, there are intellectual, reasonable conservatives). He's just crazy. The best way to describe him is to call him a very successful television troll. I don't think he really has a position. He just want to get people riled up and attract as much attention to himself as possible.
He's conservative to the point of being a Libertarian, which is essentially where he falls. If you don't like his positions, then you probably wouldn't agree with the Founding Fathers either (which he quotes all the time).
Slashdot Mirror
How do a taser armed sky marshall and armored doors stop the guy that successfully uses an underwear bomb? The last attack was one explosion away from a complete success. Everything leading to him getting on the plane is what failed, not anything that was on the plane itself.
And yet Obama has been the man at the top for nearly a year now. Please stop blaming Bush when things happen under a new President. DHS may have initially been setup badly, but that's no excuse for Obama to not get the blame.
Israel hasn't had a terrorist try to take a plane in 30 years. Maybe we should do what they do and interrogate each and every passenger before they board. But I guess that's to inconvenient to the lazy Americans that just want to get where they're going. Note that I am an American and would be perfectly willing to submit to a full body scan and an extra pat down if they got rid of the other stupid rules they have implemented (no getting up 1 hr before arrival, no bottles of liquid, no knives, etc).
If we had real security in place, then yes, these incidents would be non existent. You'd have to try a lot harder than simply walking through an exit to bypass security. Airport security is a complete joke and will continue to be a complete joke until Americans wake the fuck up and realize that people are trying to kill us and are very willing to kill themselves in the process.
FYI, the guy drinking whiskey on the plane isn't usually trying to kill me. If he wants to drink himself to death, fine by me.
Actually, yes. Some of us have thought ahead and put little UPSs on our cable modems and VOIP adapters. Beyond that, as the OP said, some people simply forward the calls to their cell phone in the event of a problem. Besides, I don't know anyone that doesn't have a wireless phone somewhere in their house. If the power goes out, those phones still won't work. Sure, the simple $10 radio shack phone will work, but very few people have those these days.
My mom recently had a problem with her POTS phone. She was getting some kind of cross talk right after some heavy rains. I believe Verizon got it mostly fixed, but through it all her cell phone worked fine.
Yeah, good luck with that. I'm sure the other guy, ya know, the one that's willing to use Windows, will enjoy taking your job.
Only Windows Media Player accepts executable code at the end of a video. Most other media players still do not do that so they are not susceptible to that attack. With the Outlook image thing, it's actually a VBS file with the .gif or .jpg somewhere else in the name and the actual extension spaced way off at the end, so images are actually still ok. Admittedly, turning off the display of extensions is a boneheaded move that MS still makes on their OS. It seems to be their way of trying to be more "Mac like".
Somehow I doubt that MS is going to give Notepad the ability to execute code found in a text file. Mainly because almost no one but a techie will ever use Notepad. Most people that need a "text editor" load up Word or Google Docs.
This sounds like "loser pays" which is similar to the UK. The concept being that the entity bringing the lawsuit ends up paying all court fees if they lose the battle. It has less to do with India being more Democratic and more to do with India setting up their system to keep people from bringing frivolous lawsuits. "Loser pays" keeps people from suing about every little thing since they end up having to pay if the suit is found to be without merit and hence they "lose".
Very well, then bring them before a court. You did know that war criminals get sentenced or released on those, didn't you?
Sure, bring him before a military tribunal. They're won't be a show and he'll get his deserved punishment. Instead, we're going to get a show trial and the possibility of a not guilty verdict.
Dude, KSM was arrested on the battlefield, not on US soil. He was brought to Gitmo and was being prepared for a military trial when Holder, and Obama, decided to change the rules because "we need to show the world that the US has a strong justice system". They have been repeating the line that he will likely be convicted anyway (so much for innocent until proven guilty) and Holder even mentioned that if he's not convicted, they still won't let him go (so much for justice).
So again, which is it? Do you arrest him, try him, and free him if he's not found guilty? Or do you put him in front of a military trial? This isn't about pragmatism. This is about following rules of law that have been in place for hundreds of years. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean there isn't already precedent that has been set.
FYI, depending on your State and locality, shooting a murderer who's about to kill people could land you in jail. It's pretty much illegal to own a gun in New York, so they'd send you up for that. In California, it's illegal to shoot anyone that isn't in your house and threatening you. So while it should be very simple (I agree that shooting a murderer who's about to kill people should be legal no matter what), the State's have decided to complicate things for "the poor criminals".
In all the cases you mention, most of those people would normally be citizens upon being tried. When you're captured on the battlefield (where KSM was caught), the rules are different. Normally, you're not read miranda rights, you are interrogated, and you are tried by a military tribunal. Or do you really think the Nazi's were tried in civilian courts? This is why enemy combatants have a different classification from Prisoners of War (feel free to read the Geneva convention if you really think they're just using different names for the same thing).
In this case, Holder, the man charged with enforcing the law, is the one circumventing it for a show to the world.
We may believe everybody deserves these rights, but we don't normally go around trying to enforce our rights onto every country. Our track record lately, as in the past 10 years, is actually still pretty good.
Look back at our nation's history. We have not been in the habit of "spreading democracy" throughout the world. What we have been in the habit of doing is pushing communism back and containing it, which we sometimes failed miserably at doing. We've also been in the habit of pressuring communist countries to free their citizens. With enough pressure, they eventually fall (see Russia and East Germany for two good examples).
Until recently, no war criminal was tried in a civilian court. It is what military tribunals are for. If you are captured on the battlefield, military tribunals are suppose to be used, not civilian courts. Civilian courts have a much higher burden of proof than military tribunals. All it's going to take is a little reasonable doubt and KSM will either walk free or have a hung jury. That's not justice, it's insanity.
This has set a precedent. If bin Laden is captured tomorrow, there is now a chance that he will have to be read Miranda rights and then tried in a civilian court. So while we keep telling the world that we're going to try him in court because "it's the right thing to do" we're also telling the world "he'll likely be found guilty and even if he's not, we won't let him go". What kind of justice is that? If we've already decided that he can't be set free and that he'll be convicted, that's just hypocrisy. The trial is a big show and it's a show we don't need.
Well, let's put it another way - when people use the term 'everyone', they typically mean 'a sufficiently large group of people to suit the purpose of my argument'.
It goes without saying that I wouldn't trust a kid with a gun. And I would add that there are always nutters of all ages who I most certainly wouldn't trust with a gun either. Arming those people would inevitably lead to the original 'everyone' needing weapons too. So don't arm them in the first place is the sanest, simplest solution.
Which is why instant background checks are needed. Instead if completely disarming everyone because of a few whack jobs, you disarm the whack jobs through instant background checks. We don't tell everyone they can't speak out about things just because a few people, like the Unabomber, wrote manifesto's against the government. We also don't shutdown radio or tv shows just because we don't like what they're saying. We simply change the channel.
Freedom has consequences and responsibilities. A society should be willing to deal with the responsibilities instead of being willing to take all the freedoms away in order to not have to deal with anything.
So you think bolt action rifles stand a chance against a military of 250000 that has automatic weapons, tanks, planes, and all kinds of other modern weaponry? Yeah, good luck with that.
If it came down to it, I would bet balls to bones that private citizens would start making illegal weapons very quickly. Automatic weapons against bolt action rifles is like bolt action rifles against muzzle loaders. The guys with muzzle loaders won't last long.
And don't forget that the 250000 doesn't have to take on the 21 million all at once. Taking out a small portion is enough to stop a rebellion and then ban all firearms at that point. So you won't legally be allowed to own anything.
Either put up with the bullshit, or do something about it, don't sit there and bitch like a whiney fuck.
Hey, I'm with you. Now how do you suggest we convince the vast majority of the populace that eats this shit up hook, line and sinker?
You don't. In most rebellions, only 20% of the populace supports it (the American Revolution only had the support of about 20% of the people, the rest were happy living under the crown). It is up to those 20% to take action. Once enough momentum is achieved, the rest of the populace will follow.
Unless things are really, really bad (like police standing on street corners beating people for so much as a single negative word), most of the population will not speak up and do anything. You can tell people about it every time it comes up in a conversation, but It's up to the rest of us to take action.
The difference is here you don't mention them in polite society.
Ah, I see. So it's like politics or religion. You have your beliefs, you just don't talk about them for fear of scaring everyone.
People don't need to be afraid of me because I own a gun. They need to be afraid of me if they're going to try to take something from me by force. At that point, gun or not, I will do everything in my power to stop them.
FYI, I don't talk about my guns either. But not because of "polite society". I don't talk about my firearms because the topic rarely comes up. If it does, I have no problem telling people about all the firearms I own and have fired.
That's funny, I've never had a single problem with any nVidia chipsets or graphics cards and that's pretty much all I buy.
Ah yes, lump all Christians in with the hysterical lunatics that really think the world will end in 2012 because a freaking movie told them it would.
There are plenty of Christians that are completely blowing off the whole 2012 thing simply because they've actually read about it and aren't just getting their information from a movie. In fact, if the end of the world is coming, it's a good thing to be a Christian because it means Christ is returning as well.
Seriously, I have talked to people like this. They are as stupid as they come and they aren't Christian. They get all their information about everything from TV and movies. It's funny because they're so stupid and it's sad to think that anyone can be that dumb.
I seriously doubt you'd have Beck screaming at the television about a game unless the government did in fact ban it. He may not like the game (and he'd probably say as much), but he most certainly wouldn't want it banned by the government. He'd tell you to simply "vote with your dollars".
In fact, Beck is the one show that more than likely wouldn't give it a lot, if any, air time. Remember Mass Effect? That got all shit on by a morning Fox show and so called "child advocate". The problem was that neither of them had played the game and admitted just that when asked by the game's creator. The host had to come up with something quickly the moment the guest said she hadn't played the game (the entire segment was based on what this so called "child advocate" had said was in the game). Hannity, O'Reilly, and Fox and Friends in the morning might jump on it, but Beck would not even bother.
I would almost bet that they cashed the check, but since the address was different, it didn't go into the system properly so it came up as unpaid. Because the only real way for the person to track what happened would be to check their bank statements each month and we all know very few people actually do that. And again, if the person has written their correct address on the ticket, why does the responsibility fall back onto them to make sure the system has corrected the error? The judge was clearly an asshole in this case.
Seriously. Audit all the systems so you have an accurate count of what software is intalled and whether or not it's legal. Then quit and call the BSA. The company will be summarily shutdown for pirating software and you'll get a nice reward that you can live on until you find a better job.
You might want to warn them what the fine is for pirating software and even give them the opportunity to purchase legal copies slowly (a few at a time), but if they continue to tell you to shut your face, just follow the above advice. Chances are, when someone else gets pissed, they'll call the BSA and then you'll still be out of a job and possibly held partly responsible.
Moderate Republican? Are you kidding? She was not a moderate, no matter what the media might try to make you believe. Go take a look at her positions for yourself. The choice was between a Democrat and Republican, but they were essentially the same. Which is why the Conservative only lost by 4 points. Maybe next time the RNC will actually endorse a Conservative candidate instead of a Democrat with an R by their name.
Proving that you didn't do something is awfully difficult when no evidence of not doing something can possibly exist.
On the other hand, when there's video of someone referring to their admiration for Chairman Mao, that's kind of hard to refute.
Nobody is saying he's a rapist and a murderer, they're just pointing out that he's never denied.it. He attacked an Arab-American senator, saying that they've never gone on record stating they aren't a terrorist, and never really presented any solid proof they aren't working for Al Quaida, so basically the website is operating under the assumption that if he can give it, he can take it.
I think you're full of shit. I've been watching Beck for nearly a year and I can't recall a single time when he accused a senator of what you're saying he did. Got a source to back that up?
Glenn Beck, to this day, repeats the lie that Obama was born in Kenya. He asks, if he was born here, why doesn't he prove it? Obama has, of course, but Beck acts as though he hasn't. So someone decided to apply Glen Beck's own tactics against him, by forcing him to deny ridiculous allegations over and over again.
You are not watching his show. I can tell because what you say is a lie. He has never said that Obama was born in Kenya. He has referenced the "birther" movement a few times. I've been watching his show since February and he rarely talks about where Obama was born.
"He is very conservative"
I'm a liberal but I think it's an insult to conservatives to call him that (seriously, there are intellectual, reasonable conservatives). He's just crazy. The best way to describe him is to call him a very successful television troll. I don't think he really has a position. He just want to get people riled up and attract as much attention to himself as possible.
He's conservative to the point of being a Libertarian, which is essentially where he falls. If you don't like his positions, then you probably wouldn't agree with the Founding Fathers either (which he quotes all the time).