The people needed to hear "all we have to fear is fear itself", not be told that "there are many nasty bogeymen out there but don't worry, the government will protect you".
I agree, but at the same time, I'm not going to build my house at the edge of the ravine because kids with a magic rock continue to ride their bikes off it and land where the house would be. However, if the government put up a guardrail and a fence to stop the kids with magic rocks, I wouldn't have much of a problem going home and living at the edge of the ravine.
The problem is that government has a role in this, not a large one, but a role nonetheless. Whether they are being effective in that rule, or over burdensome, or whatever, is up to debate. I'm not trying to justify their actions, just point out that there is reasoning beyond the owners of the plane and the people flying on it.
It does to me but that's "government regulation". Cap and trade is a way to accommodate the free marketeers. It has worked quite well for SO2 emissions.
Well, not really. It's a way to accommodate for some of the markets but as we have notices, most of the manufacturing from nations regulated by the S02 emissions has moved away to markets not regulated.
You have to ask why making things in other countries is cheaper. Is it labor alone? Not really, labor only influences about 25% of the costs of a product and that can easily be compensated by taxes. It's emissions, labor, regulations and so on that all play into the off-shoring of manufacturing.
But my personal preference is a straight up carbon tax levied where the coal leaves the mine and at the well head for oil and gas and at the dock for imports. I would even put a tariff on imported products for the carbon released in making and delivering them.
I'm not sure I would like that system. For one, I believe that energy is more of a utility necessary for the country then a privileged consumer good and any attack on energy is an attack on the country's infrastructure. But, if there is a tax put on it before it's moved out, then what happens when supply increased and prices drop and the price to those using it remains the same? Or worse yet, if every thing jumps in price, all industry simply raises it's prices to compensate and the people impacted are the workers who's pay hasn't caught up with the massive inflation yet.
It should start very low, maybe costing me $20 for the first year then should rise every year or two so in something like 30 years it becomes too expensive to continue to use fossil fuels for most things. Wouldn't doing it that way spur innovation in ways to gain a competitive advantage by reducing your carbon footprint?
You see, it would never rise to the point that fossil fuels are too expensive to use. You have to remember, any costs put on corporations is recovered from the sale of the products. If it's applied to everyone equally right off the bat, then you are only going to see prices increase across the board as they recover that cost.
This was illustrated during the Clinton years when they put a tax on telephone service of one or two dollars per connected customer to fund access in disadvantaged and rural communities. This was a tax to the phone companies, not the people but because it hit all the phone companies at once (even in markets that have competition and several phone companies), it was just passed onto the consumer's bill as a recovery of a fee the government charges. So instead of this coming from profits as most lawmakers probably thought, it just increased costs to the consumer and the phone companies let the consumers know why.
Finally, I don't think the government should keep the money. It should be redistributed in equal amounts to all legal residents perhaps as a credit on your tax return. That would ease the burden on people who reduce their carbon use. I could see using maybe 5% of the money collect to pay for administration and to fund research.
This has some problems too. First, people who do not pay taxes or file a tax return would be impacted by a energy source tax and see nothing on the return of it. Second, all this is doing it creating the temporary use of the money by the governments then being used to pay for the increased prices caused by the use.
In other words, lets say I charge you a fee of $10 to do business with me. I then give you a credit of $10 for doing business with me. Does that raise the costs of you doing business with me at all? Would you do less business with me motivated by that cost (You might decrease your business based on the idiocy of the policy, but effectively no costs have increased unless you start with the time value of money)? Now if everyone who provided
While I do not disagree with you, I see a lot of this additional security as having purposes outside of just securing the flights. First, it reassures those flying that it's relatively safe to do so by attempting to raise the bar so high that attempts to get around the security measures actually cause so much complexity that those attempts are caught sooner or would be terrorists simply don't act in this arena. This allows commerce and the visiting of families and so on to proceed. The second is that it reassures people that they aren't going to be blind sided by an attack of the magnitude of 9/11 again.
If I go to time square, it's my responsibility to be aware of my surroundings, it's my duty to spot the maintenance person carrying a box around that he leave unattended, then weigh whether I should be alarmed or not. But when I go to work, look out the window and see a 747 flying straight at me, I didn't really put myself into that situation. I was essentially helpless and it couldn't be a fault of my own to why I missed that threat.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that victims of terrorist attacks deserved or could have avoided the attacks, I'm saying that I have an amount of control over what exposure I'm allowing myself to be exposed to. If they didn't take public steps to ensure airplanes wouldn't be used as weapons again, then there would be a lot of people too afraid or not capable of entering certain buildings again. There would be a lot of people still trying to use air planes as weapons. So the measures have a purpose that goes outside of just eliminating the threat, they are to comfort people who are flying and those who are not flying too.
While that might piss off the people who are flying, it takes a lot of the terror away from the already committed acts. People can go back to tall buildings and crowded spaces under a relatively secure assumption that a 9/11 style attack won't happen again. The fear is basically negated.
Opportunity strikes where opportunity is present. The greater the opportunity, the greater the risks people are willing to take with the opportunity. And you are right, if you only consider the bomb itself, you are not going to carry enough explosives into either venture to kill more then about the same amount of people with the bomb.
Here is what makes a plane a little more attractive then a subway or sports stadium. You already mentioned the collateral damage which is what I believe the Christmas underwear bomber was looking for. But people are generally afraid to die. Sure, you can train people not to think about it or so that required action is automatic or instinctual and not a process interfered with by the thought of dieing, but in general, they are afraid. This is even true when people claim they are not afraid to die, often in the life and death situation, they won't want to die (there might be some who still don't care, but those get weeded out pretty quickly by the fact they already died).
So what's stopping a terrorist from getting on a plane with two bombs, one relatively small and removable and the other large enough to bring the plane down? All he would have to do is go to the bathroom, drop one bomb off, move to the other end of the plane and set it off. If it kills anyone or not, it doesn't matter, but it's going to get everyone's attention including the pilot's. Now, the terrorists stand up, announces he has another bomb that will be detonated if he presses a switch of his finger is removed from it. (imagine a 3 way toggle where center is neutral and one way is one#1 and the other way is on#2). So he says they are all his hostages, he wants the plane diverted to X location where they will all be released once his demands are met and he wants access to the cockpit and communications systems to verify it's happening else he will detonate and bring the entire plane crashing down.
So now the pilot has a glimmer of hope, a planted chance of not dying. Does he A: refuse to open the door and let the terrorist kill everyone or does he B: assume he was telling the truth and his intentions are not to kill everyone and they might live if he gives them access? Well, the pilot isn't some hard core trained marine capable of doing whatever it takes to complete the mission even if it means his life will be over. It's highly likely that the pilot will want to live and he will divert the plane and give the terrorist access.
Now the locked door is negated and the possibilities of using the plane as a weapon is alive again. All the terrorist needs to do is state that they all will live if the plane lands on the ground safely and do it in a way that the concerned citizens don't think they are doomed. Then at an opportune time, cause it to crash into some building or sports event or whatever without enough time for the people/pilots to react to stop it.
I agree that the threat is over blown. But without the reactions to the threat, it would likely be more of a reality. Using a plane as a missile has become a lot harder in today's times. A big different between blowing up the security line at the airport and using a plane to crash into a building is that to some degree, those people waiting in line at the airport connected to the dangers. It's still a tragedy but it's a situation they consciously put themselves in. You going to work and noticing a plane crashing into your building when getting a cup of coffee is nothing you consented to. It's not a danger you assumed by waking up and living your boring life. The security at the airport is for the people not flying probably a little more then the people who are flying.
It doesn't matter. You were trying to say what I said wasn't true because of a specific matter within the specific situation and I was trying to say that the general concept and law doesn't require the actual taking of property. Just because I presented a scenario wrong doesn't take away from that concept. There is no need to deprive someone of physical property take in order for conversion to happen. We could agure and introduce all sorts of things to make a specific made up scenario fit that or not, it's just pointless because that specific scenario was just an illustration of the concept.
The strategic value of a missile is quite a bit more/different then that of a phone that can already be replaced by another phone already on the market.
comparing a missile's value to a phone is much like comparing the value a working car presents to you with the value of a toy matchbox car. You can justify spending a larger sum of money on one of those 1967 mustangs, but not the other.
If this is a bunch of users saying "I want an Iphone issued by the government instead of a blackberry" then the obvious answer is "no, sit down and shut up, we waste enough tax payer monies on you already".
If this is as I suspect like in the corporate world, where someone sees a commercial of a phone doing all sorts of "cool things", then without any interaction with IT or even coworkers to see if they had problems doing work related tasks with them, buys one, then complains because their 5-10 year old messaging system or their 10 year old productivity/time management sweet cannot communicate with the brand new technology properly and the apps that worked on the old stuff no longer work with the new, and that the company isn't willing to invest $25k top fix this every time they change their personal phones in some attempt to continually remain compliant on the whim of an employee, or purchase some account on someone else' server in order to relay all the information to you through a third party first, the answer is a "personal phones expected to be used for work related activities must be approved by IT before they are purchased or they will not be allowed access to company data".
The later simply makes sure the end user knows that they have to ask if it will work first. If it doesn't, there is no expectation that it ever will. I think the DOD is attempting to branch out a little and not put all their eggs in one basket, but the obvious answer to this is not ban all Android and Iphone phones (or all unapproved phones that the gov can't install it's own security software on) from government campus by employees if this doesn't happen and you will probably be able to watch Google and Apple trip over each other to give the government what they want. This is because the DOD employees not only use government phones, but also use their own phones and leaving their Iphone or Android at home (if they take public transportation) or in the car in the parking lot would likely translate into the hundreds of thousands if not millions of employees simply buying something that is allowed on campus instead. I think the government has more leverage here then google or Apple realizes.
The GP needs to determine if this is the chicken or the egg in this scenario. Is the low risk of terrorism on a plane because the bar for entry has increased to so much or is the bar for entry not an impact on entry to this form of terrorism at all.
I know we have had threats of terrorism on planes in the past and if those were fruitful, the incident count would have been a lot higher then it is today. According to wikipedia, the addition of metal detectors and a few laws being changed was enough to slow the hijackings of flights that were intertwined with the US-Cuba situations in the early 1970's.
This can be illustrated by the list of dates, The US started putting metal detectors at airports in 1973 (according to wikipedia). From 1973 until today, these US-Cuban related hijackings number about 18. That's 18 over 37 years. Compare this to the 87 or so listed between 1950 and 1972. That's 87 over 22 years and there were less flights at that time then there are today. So obviously, security measures put in place had some effect on the safety of flights in that area. It Went from an average of 3.9 hijackings per year to just about.48 per year. I could say that.48 is so insignificant it could be considered a rounding error but I couldn't say that the security measures put in place had not benefit in keeping it that way.
No, you let me barrow your lawnmower as has been a long standing arrangement in which you allowed me to use it whenever I needed. I just used it for purposes not outlines in our standing arrangement.
But lets go beyond that, lets say your property buts up to mine and there is no fence or physical marker for anyone else to casually determine where one property ends and the other starts, I just pointed to the mower and said use that as collateral, and the entity giving the loan did because they assumed it was mine and my property as I represented it that way. In this case, your mower never left the spot you put it in, but I still derived or converted your property to mine for this purpose. You have never lost control over it unless I fail to pay my loan back.
Conversion is theft, I won't argue with that. However the theft doesn't have to be a tangible good, it could simply be a value or benefit the property potentially provided. An example of this is a politician who steers bond money into his own brokerage house at a guaranteed fixed 3% interest for the purpose of using that money on risky investments and making 13% interest. This would be theft by conversion of a political officer and the government office that the investment was made in the name of wouldn't/might not, have lost anything at all.
You see, I can wait until your at work and barrow your lawn mower and other things, take a loan out using them as collateral, then give them back without you ever knowing it or me starting them or anything. That would be the same ordeal.
Another theft by conversion might be where you give me money to invest in a certain way, I in turn invest it differently making more then you expected and keep the differences. On the surface, You got what you expected and your money back so you lost nothing. However, legally, I took your property and converted it for personal use without your permission.
No you didn't. Theft by Conversion is the unlawful use of another's property for personal gain whether it deprives someone of property or decreases any value or not.
Grow up? You are the one who can' understand simple and plain English even after it was explained to you several times then go on some tyrade about other people using definitions you can't find in your broken dictionary. I mean hell, your defense of Manning was lacking so much that it didn't amount to much more then "well, these people over there did something completely different they they didn't get the death penalty".
Go seek professional help. There is something wrong with your brain.
Have you ever heard of throwing the baby out with the bath water to cut your arm off to stop a sore thumb from bothering you?
Here is the thing, doing somethings makes the situation worse then it already it. It's like a person who throws his phone out the window while driving because the number he was calling is busy. You can do something stupid, dangerous, or destructive that wouldn't help but only hurt the situation more then it already is. Just doing something does not mean it making anything better. Sometimes doing nothing is better then something. You have to look at what the "doing something" will achieve to figure that out though.
NO.. What I am complaining about is the specific language that requires some to clean up their mess while allowing others to create the same mess and encourages the some to actually solve their problems by giving it to others.
If it was about cutting carbon emissions and not some political redistribution of wealth, then there would be steps that accounted for England moving a lot of it's manufacturing to India and China (which the EU more then tripled their imports from those two alone in the first 5 years of trying to get compliant under Kyoto). Instead, it rewards England for moving this production and actually causing more pollution then what was already being produced locally. The only difference is where the pollution is being produced politically and it's perfectly fine for England or any other country, under Kyoto, to move a factory to India and produce 10 times the carbon emissions while counting it as a reduction and India not being limited whatsoever at all.
Now is the problem carbon emissions in the atmosphere or Carbon emissions only in developed countries. I can support lowering carbon emissions all the way around (hopefully by advances in technology that allow more use or more clean use from energy and even alternative energy coming on line). I can't support raising them in other places to lower them in developed nations. If you cannot see where this is a political reality by design, you simply are not looking at it. Sure, they hide it in the cover story but the details show the reality of it. Kyoto is a fraud on a mass scale. All the money and effort spent on compliance with Kyoto would have been millions of times more useful if it was collected and spent on developing alternative energy and making existing energy more efficient then given to the world to adopt into use by regulation or the fact it's more competitive. Simply raising the costs of coal or oil in one area does nothing to reduce pollution when what depended on that can simply move everything to another area with cheap energy.
What are you trying to do? Set him up with Bubba in the back of D-wing of cell block 6 when he goes to jail for stalking her? Getting him another girlfriend this way might not be the best situation.
There probably isn't but there should be. That's really how these trolls get their abilities.
I think I would like to see some sort of compulsory licensing scheme to avoid patent litigation in which after X many years, any patent holder would have to license their patent out for some standard fee that would change depending on if they produced anything the patent covered or not.
The Kyoto treaty was more about the distribution of wealth then a reduction of fossil fuel use or even the capturing of carbon output from the use. It contained specific provisions that would allow a country under restriction relocate it's industrial mechanisms into a country not under restriction and you could actually increase emissions in this process and still have it counted as a reduction.
Like I said, it was hijacked for political puroses. Of all the countries that signed onto Kyoto, only about 35 or so of them (less then one third) had to do anything about carbon emissions. The rest stood to benefit from offering either a shelter in those emissions or by being able to compete in those markets once the local or home market got disadvantaged from internal regulation attempting to deal with compliance.
The problem is that the efforts to price fossil fuels "better" purposely had an exception for over 2 thirds of the earth's countries and when examined closely resemble efforts to retard the western or first world countries and prop up third world countries by a mechanism in the retarding.
Then you should stop doing it. I made a statement, if you are not capable of understanding the statement, that's you problem not mine. Out of all the hundreds of thousands of people on slashdot, you are the only one who interpreted it wrong.
Facing the death penalty is not saying I want him killed at all. It's saying I want the maximum punishment available given to him if he is convicted of the crime. Hence the terms penalty and facings (the penalty) which should have been enough for normal intelligent people with no mental problems to understand completely. If I wanted him killed, I would have said something to the effect of just take him outback and shoot him or something. They are two entirely distinctly different statements.
You can't be for locking a man up without first being absolutely sure which laws he has broken.
Yes I can. That's what prosecutors and investigating LEOs are for. To lock people suspected of committing crimes up while awaiting trial. Society has been on board with this idea for quite some time too.
No, I mean the specific laws. You can't just point in the vague direction of a foreign document and say it might have something in it about the case.
I haven't read all the documents released, I don't care to. But from reports, I can reasonably see a couple specific statutes that a violation occurred on. There are probably more depending on the contents of the information in possession or the effects of the releases. It was not my intention to specifically accuse wikileaks of anything nor was it my intention to argue the merits of it. It was my intention to state that there are limits to what can be published in the name of journalism and there can be serious repercussions if you cross those limits.
Here is the problem with Cap and trade. Suppose we lived in a world with 2 countries and between these two countries there are 10 needs that 10 businesses each offer. If one country installs cap and trade and the other doesn't, then moving all industry to the other defeats any purpose. But lets suppose that doesn't happen. We will also ignore the entire inter-situational advantages between geographical locations within the same country where energy is cheaper by default when it's primarily produced by hydro or something else that escapes the taxes.
Now lets say the making of clothing and selling it has 10 companies doing it. 5 of them are taxed heavily on their energy use for tax and trade the others are taxed on their imports to make up the disadvantage. Now, businesses do not wish and have money appear out of thin air, they have people who invest money expecting a return in addition to the money invested, they then take this money and hire employees, make a product and sell it to the people. In the end, selling it to the people has to generate enough money to cover making the product and repaying the investors. This means that if we jack up the costs to make the product through taxes or whatever, they simply have to sell the product for more money to cover that expense. Now, when they do that, we the consumers end up paying the tax- not the companies using the energy.
Now you might say well, company X is going to find a way to use less energy so their costs won't be as high. Well, that's all good and well for them, but it doesn't neccesarily translate into lower costs to the consumer. You see, now company X is at an advantage in the market with the other companies. There is no reason for him to reduce his prices to the consumer because they were already happily paying the previous costs and you are guaranteed an artificially inflated cost as long as the tax is in place.
So the effect on the consumer is one of two ways, It's either the company taking the reduced costs in producing the product as pure profit and not discounting anything to the consumer at all (now we are paying absurd profits to a company because of artificial costs injected into the market) or they lower costs in an attempt to attract more customers.
so lets explore this a little, If energy costs rose 35% because of taxes and imports had a comparable tariff on them to compensate for differences, and this translated to a 10% increase in costs to the consumer to recoup the costs, then we have to look at which makes more profit. So if the product costs $100 normally and $110 after the tax, and in both cases, they made a $5 profit and they sold 1000 pieces a year, they would be going from 100k per year in sales to 110K per year in sales for the same 5k profit. So if they found an energy source that negated the tax, they could keep the prices the same and increase profits by 10K a year. That's triple the original profit. But if they dropped prices back to the original price of $100 and doubled their customers, they would only be making double the profit of 5k which is 10K per year profit.
So when looking, an extra 5K per year is not as attractive as an extra 10k per year, so the logical path would be to keep the costs the same and take the larger profit. In the end, all you have done is increase the costs to the consumer and in effect placed a hidden tax on the people (if we don't force jobs to different locations and make people unemployed in the process).
Wouldn't if make much more sense to skip that idiocy and simply require power plants to be X much more efficient and pollute less (even if you consider Co2 to be a pollutant) and instead focus out time and efforts on science that can make that an actual reality? Then as technology progresses, we up the requirements for energy creation and again share this information so it can be used to make that same reality?
Slashdot Mirror
I agree, but at the same time, I'm not going to build my house at the edge of the ravine because kids with a magic rock continue to ride their bikes off it and land where the house would be. However, if the government put up a guardrail and a fence to stop the kids with magic rocks, I wouldn't have much of a problem going home and living at the edge of the ravine.
The problem is that government has a role in this, not a large one, but a role nonetheless. Whether they are being effective in that rule, or over burdensome, or whatever, is up to debate. I'm not trying to justify their actions, just point out that there is reasoning beyond the owners of the plane and the people flying on it.
Venezuela is installing an Iranian missile battery that can strike the US homeland. Assuming that Iran goes nuclear, these will be too.
There is an arms race happening. It's just not a huge front page story right now.
Well, not really. It's a way to accommodate for some of the markets but as we have notices, most of the manufacturing from nations regulated by the S02 emissions has moved away to markets not regulated.
You have to ask why making things in other countries is cheaper. Is it labor alone? Not really, labor only influences about 25% of the costs of a product and that can easily be compensated by taxes. It's emissions, labor, regulations and so on that all play into the off-shoring of manufacturing.
I'm not sure I would like that system. For one, I believe that energy is more of a utility necessary for the country then a privileged consumer good and any attack on energy is an attack on the country's infrastructure. But, if there is a tax put on it before it's moved out, then what happens when supply increased and prices drop and the price to those using it remains the same? Or worse yet, if every thing jumps in price, all industry simply raises it's prices to compensate and the people impacted are the workers who's pay hasn't caught up with the massive inflation yet.
You see, it would never rise to the point that fossil fuels are too expensive to use. You have to remember, any costs put on corporations is recovered from the sale of the products. If it's applied to everyone equally right off the bat, then you are only going to see prices increase across the board as they recover that cost.
This was illustrated during the Clinton years when they put a tax on telephone service of one or two dollars per connected customer to fund access in disadvantaged and rural communities. This was a tax to the phone companies, not the people but because it hit all the phone companies at once (even in markets that have competition and several phone companies), it was just passed onto the consumer's bill as a recovery of a fee the government charges. So instead of this coming from profits as most lawmakers probably thought, it just increased costs to the consumer and the phone companies let the consumers know why.
This has some problems too. First, people who do not pay taxes or file a tax return would be impacted by a energy source tax and see nothing on the return of it. Second, all this is doing it creating the temporary use of the money by the governments then being used to pay for the increased prices caused by the use.
In other words, lets say I charge you a fee of $10 to do business with me. I then give you a credit of $10 for doing business with me. Does that raise the costs of you doing business with me at all? Would you do less business with me motivated by that cost (You might decrease your business based on the idiocy of the policy, but effectively no costs have increased unless you start with the time value of money)? Now if everyone who provided
While I do not disagree with you, I see a lot of this additional security as having purposes outside of just securing the flights. First, it reassures those flying that it's relatively safe to do so by attempting to raise the bar so high that attempts to get around the security measures actually cause so much complexity that those attempts are caught sooner or would be terrorists simply don't act in this arena. This allows commerce and the visiting of families and so on to proceed. The second is that it reassures people that they aren't going to be blind sided by an attack of the magnitude of 9/11 again.
If I go to time square, it's my responsibility to be aware of my surroundings, it's my duty to spot the maintenance person carrying a box around that he leave unattended, then weigh whether I should be alarmed or not. But when I go to work, look out the window and see a 747 flying straight at me, I didn't really put myself into that situation. I was essentially helpless and it couldn't be a fault of my own to why I missed that threat.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that victims of terrorist attacks deserved or could have avoided the attacks, I'm saying that I have an amount of control over what exposure I'm allowing myself to be exposed to. If they didn't take public steps to ensure airplanes wouldn't be used as weapons again, then there would be a lot of people too afraid or not capable of entering certain buildings again. There would be a lot of people still trying to use air planes as weapons. So the measures have a purpose that goes outside of just eliminating the threat, they are to comfort people who are flying and those who are not flying too.
While that might piss off the people who are flying, it takes a lot of the terror away from the already committed acts. People can go back to tall buildings and crowded spaces under a relatively secure assumption that a 9/11 style attack won't happen again. The fear is basically negated.
Opportunity strikes where opportunity is present. The greater the opportunity, the greater the risks people are willing to take with the opportunity. And you are right, if you only consider the bomb itself, you are not going to carry enough explosives into either venture to kill more then about the same amount of people with the bomb.
Here is what makes a plane a little more attractive then a subway or sports stadium. You already mentioned the collateral damage which is what I believe the Christmas underwear bomber was looking for. But people are generally afraid to die. Sure, you can train people not to think about it or so that required action is automatic or instinctual and not a process interfered with by the thought of dieing, but in general, they are afraid. This is even true when people claim they are not afraid to die, often in the life and death situation, they won't want to die (there might be some who still don't care, but those get weeded out pretty quickly by the fact they already died).
So what's stopping a terrorist from getting on a plane with two bombs, one relatively small and removable and the other large enough to bring the plane down? All he would have to do is go to the bathroom, drop one bomb off, move to the other end of the plane and set it off. If it kills anyone or not, it doesn't matter, but it's going to get everyone's attention including the pilot's. Now, the terrorists stand up, announces he has another bomb that will be detonated if he presses a switch of his finger is removed from it. (imagine a 3 way toggle where center is neutral and one way is one#1 and the other way is on#2). So he says they are all his hostages, he wants the plane diverted to X location where they will all be released once his demands are met and he wants access to the cockpit and communications systems to verify it's happening else he will detonate and bring the entire plane crashing down.
So now the pilot has a glimmer of hope, a planted chance of not dying. Does he A: refuse to open the door and let the terrorist kill everyone or does he B: assume he was telling the truth and his intentions are not to kill everyone and they might live if he gives them access? Well, the pilot isn't some hard core trained marine capable of doing whatever it takes to complete the mission even if it means his life will be over. It's highly likely that the pilot will want to live and he will divert the plane and give the terrorist access.
Now the locked door is negated and the possibilities of using the plane as a weapon is alive again. All the terrorist needs to do is state that they all will live if the plane lands on the ground safely and do it in a way that the concerned citizens don't think they are doomed. Then at an opportune time, cause it to crash into some building or sports event or whatever without enough time for the people/pilots to react to stop it.
I agree that the threat is over blown. But without the reactions to the threat, it would likely be more of a reality. Using a plane as a missile has become a lot harder in today's times. A big different between blowing up the security line at the airport and using a plane to crash into a building is that to some degree, those people waiting in line at the airport connected to the dangers. It's still a tragedy but it's a situation they consciously put themselves in. You going to work and noticing a plane crashing into your building when getting a cup of coffee is nothing you consented to. It's not a danger you assumed by waking up and living your boring life. The security at the airport is for the people not flying probably a little more then the people who are flying.
It doesn't matter. You were trying to say what I said wasn't true because of a specific matter within the specific situation and I was trying to say that the general concept and law doesn't require the actual taking of property. Just because I presented a scenario wrong doesn't take away from that concept. There is no need to deprive someone of physical property take in order for conversion to happen. We could agure and introduce all sorts of things to make a specific made up scenario fit that or not, it's just pointless because that specific scenario was just an illustration of the concept.
The strategic value of a missile is quite a bit more/different then that of a phone that can already be replaced by another phone already on the market.
comparing a missile's value to a phone is much like comparing the value a working car presents to you with the value of a toy matchbox car. You can justify spending a larger sum of money on one of those 1967 mustangs, but not the other.
If this is a bunch of users saying "I want an Iphone issued by the government instead of a blackberry" then the obvious answer is "no, sit down and shut up, we waste enough tax payer monies on you already".
If this is as I suspect like in the corporate world, where someone sees a commercial of a phone doing all sorts of "cool things", then without any interaction with IT or even coworkers to see if they had problems doing work related tasks with them, buys one, then complains because their 5-10 year old messaging system or their 10 year old productivity/time management sweet cannot communicate with the brand new technology properly and the apps that worked on the old stuff no longer work with the new, and that the company isn't willing to invest $25k top fix this every time they change their personal phones in some attempt to continually remain compliant on the whim of an employee, or purchase some account on someone else' server in order to relay all the information to you through a third party first, the answer is a "personal phones expected to be used for work related activities must be approved by IT before they are purchased or they will not be allowed access to company data".
The later simply makes sure the end user knows that they have to ask if it will work first. If it doesn't, there is no expectation that it ever will. I think the DOD is attempting to branch out a little and not put all their eggs in one basket, but the obvious answer to this is not ban all Android and Iphone phones (or all unapproved phones that the gov can't install it's own security software on) from government campus by employees if this doesn't happen and you will probably be able to watch Google and Apple trip over each other to give the government what they want. This is because the DOD employees not only use government phones, but also use their own phones and leaving their Iphone or Android at home (if they take public transportation) or in the car in the parking lot would likely translate into the hundreds of thousands if not millions of employees simply buying something that is allowed on campus instead. I think the government has more leverage here then google or Apple realizes.
Exactly.
The GP needs to determine if this is the chicken or the egg in this scenario. Is the low risk of terrorism on a plane because the bar for entry has increased to so much or is the bar for entry not an impact on entry to this form of terrorism at all.
I know we have had threats of terrorism on planes in the past and if those were fruitful, the incident count would have been a lot higher then it is today. According to wikipedia, the addition of metal detectors and a few laws being changed was enough to slow the hijackings of flights that were intertwined with the US-Cuba situations in the early 1970's.
This can be illustrated by the list of dates, The US started putting metal detectors at airports in 1973 (according to wikipedia). From 1973 until today, these US-Cuban related hijackings number about 18. That's 18 over 37 years. Compare this to the 87 or so listed between 1950 and 1972. That's 87 over 22 years and there were less flights at that time then there are today. So obviously, security measures put in place had some effect on the safety of flights in that area. It Went from an average of 3.9 hijackings per year to just about .48 per year. I could say that .48 is so insignificant it could be considered a rounding error but I couldn't say that the security measures put in place had not benefit in keeping it that way.
No, you let me barrow your lawnmower as has been a long standing arrangement in which you allowed me to use it whenever I needed. I just used it for purposes not outlines in our standing arrangement.
But lets go beyond that, lets say your property buts up to mine and there is no fence or physical marker for anyone else to casually determine where one property ends and the other starts, I just pointed to the mower and said use that as collateral, and the entity giving the loan did because they assumed it was mine and my property as I represented it that way. In this case, your mower never left the spot you put it in, but I still derived or converted your property to mine for this purpose. You have never lost control over it unless I fail to pay my loan back.
Conversion is theft, I won't argue with that. However the theft doesn't have to be a tangible good, it could simply be a value or benefit the property potentially provided. An example of this is a politician who steers bond money into his own brokerage house at a guaranteed fixed 3% interest for the purpose of using that money on risky investments and making 13% interest. This would be theft by conversion of a political officer and the government office that the investment was made in the name of wouldn't/might not, have lost anything at all.
Using a word like USian, I can see why you think they are dumb. Must be a lot of mirrors around.
Yep, but they are not used correctly.
Did you know, the US has never lost a war in which they used asses?
Change "does" to "can" and I'm with you.
You see, I can wait until your at work and barrow your lawn mower and other things, take a loan out using them as collateral, then give them back without you ever knowing it or me starting them or anything. That would be the same ordeal.
Another theft by conversion might be where you give me money to invest in a certain way, I in turn invest it differently making more then you expected and keep the differences. On the surface, You got what you expected and your money back so you lost nothing. However, legally, I took your property and converted it for personal use without your permission.
No you didn't. Theft by Conversion is the unlawful use of another's property for personal gain whether it deprives someone of property or decreases any value or not.
Look up conversion. More specifically, theft by conversion.
Once you think you understand it, read about it again, then come back and talk to us.
Grow up? You are the one who can' understand simple and plain English even after it was explained to you several times then go on some tyrade about other people using definitions you can't find in your broken dictionary. I mean hell, your defense of Manning was lacking so much that it didn't amount to much more then "well, these people over there did something completely different they they didn't get the death penalty".
Go seek professional help. There is something wrong with your brain.
Have you ever heard of throwing the baby out with the bath water to cut your arm off to stop a sore thumb from bothering you?
Here is the thing, doing somethings makes the situation worse then it already it. It's like a person who throws his phone out the window while driving because the number he was calling is busy. You can do something stupid, dangerous, or destructive that wouldn't help but only hurt the situation more then it already is. Just doing something does not mean it making anything better. Sometimes doing nothing is better then something. You have to look at what the "doing something" will achieve to figure that out though.
NO.. What I am complaining about is the specific language that requires some to clean up their mess while allowing others to create the same mess and encourages the some to actually solve their problems by giving it to others.
If it was about cutting carbon emissions and not some political redistribution of wealth, then there would be steps that accounted for England moving a lot of it's manufacturing to India and China (which the EU more then tripled their imports from those two alone in the first 5 years of trying to get compliant under Kyoto). Instead, it rewards England for moving this production and actually causing more pollution then what was already being produced locally. The only difference is where the pollution is being produced politically and it's perfectly fine for England or any other country, under Kyoto, to move a factory to India and produce 10 times the carbon emissions while counting it as a reduction and India not being limited whatsoever at all.
Now is the problem carbon emissions in the atmosphere or Carbon emissions only in developed countries. I can support lowering carbon emissions all the way around (hopefully by advances in technology that allow more use or more clean use from energy and even alternative energy coming on line). I can't support raising them in other places to lower them in developed nations. If you cannot see where this is a political reality by design, you simply are not looking at it. Sure, they hide it in the cover story but the details show the reality of it. Kyoto is a fraud on a mass scale. All the money and effort spent on compliance with Kyoto would have been millions of times more useful if it was collected and spent on developing alternative energy and making existing energy more efficient then given to the world to adopt into use by regulation or the fact it's more competitive. Simply raising the costs of coal or oil in one area does nothing to reduce pollution when what depended on that can simply move everything to another area with cheap energy.
What are you trying to do? Set him up with Bubba in the back of D-wing of cell block 6 when he goes to jail for stalking her? Getting him another girlfriend this way might not be the best situation.
There probably isn't but there should be. That's really how these trolls get their abilities.
I think I would like to see some sort of compulsory licensing scheme to avoid patent litigation in which after X many years, any patent holder would have to license their patent out for some standard fee that would change depending on if they produced anything the patent covered or not.
The Kyoto treaty was more about the distribution of wealth then a reduction of fossil fuel use or even the capturing of carbon output from the use. It contained specific provisions that would allow a country under restriction relocate it's industrial mechanisms into a country not under restriction and you could actually increase emissions in this process and still have it counted as a reduction.
Like I said, it was hijacked for political puroses. Of all the countries that signed onto Kyoto, only about 35 or so of them (less then one third) had to do anything about carbon emissions. The rest stood to benefit from offering either a shelter in those emissions or by being able to compete in those markets once the local or home market got disadvantaged from internal regulation attempting to deal with compliance.
The problem is that the efforts to price fossil fuels "better" purposely had an exception for over 2 thirds of the earth's countries and when examined closely resemble efforts to retard the western or first world countries and prop up third world countries by a mechanism in the retarding.
Then you should stop doing it. I made a statement, if you are not capable of understanding the statement, that's you problem not mine. Out of all the hundreds of thousands of people on slashdot, you are the only one who interpreted it wrong.
Facing the death penalty is not saying I want him killed at all. It's saying I want the maximum punishment available given to him if he is convicted of the crime. Hence the terms penalty and facings (the penalty) which should have been enough for normal intelligent people with no mental problems to understand completely. If I wanted him killed, I would have said something to the effect of just take him outback and shoot him or something. They are two entirely distinctly different statements.
Yes I can. That's what prosecutors and investigating LEOs are for. To lock people suspected of committing crimes up while awaiting trial. Society has been on board with this idea for quite some time too.
This leaked document provided by wikileaks violates the Espionage act carrying a severe penalty. All of the documents that are marked secrete continue to violate the espionage act and simply possessing them can carry 10 years in prison.
I haven't read all the documents released, I don't care to. But from reports, I can reasonably see a couple specific statutes that a violation occurred on. There are probably more depending on the contents of the information in possession or the effects of the releases. It was not my intention to specifically accuse wikileaks of anything nor was it my intention to argue the merits of it. It was my intention to state that there are limits to what can be published in the name of journalism and there can be serious repercussions if you cross those limits.
Here is the problem with Cap and trade. Suppose we lived in a world with 2 countries and between these two countries there are 10 needs that 10 businesses each offer. If one country installs cap and trade and the other doesn't, then moving all industry to the other defeats any purpose. But lets suppose that doesn't happen. We will also ignore the entire inter-situational advantages between geographical locations within the same country where energy is cheaper by default when it's primarily produced by hydro or something else that escapes the taxes.
Now lets say the making of clothing and selling it has 10 companies doing it. 5 of them are taxed heavily on their energy use for tax and trade the others are taxed on their imports to make up the disadvantage. Now, businesses do not wish and have money appear out of thin air, they have people who invest money expecting a return in addition to the money invested, they then take this money and hire employees, make a product and sell it to the people. In the end, selling it to the people has to generate enough money to cover making the product and repaying the investors. This means that if we jack up the costs to make the product through taxes or whatever, they simply have to sell the product for more money to cover that expense. Now, when they do that, we the consumers end up paying the tax- not the companies using the energy.
Now you might say well, company X is going to find a way to use less energy so their costs won't be as high. Well, that's all good and well for them, but it doesn't neccesarily translate into lower costs to the consumer. You see, now company X is at an advantage in the market with the other companies. There is no reason for him to reduce his prices to the consumer because they were already happily paying the previous costs and you are guaranteed an artificially inflated cost as long as the tax is in place.
So the effect on the consumer is one of two ways, It's either the company taking the reduced costs in producing the product as pure profit and not discounting anything to the consumer at all (now we are paying absurd profits to a company because of artificial costs injected into the market) or they lower costs in an attempt to attract more customers.
so lets explore this a little, If energy costs rose 35% because of taxes and imports had a comparable tariff on them to compensate for differences, and this translated to a 10% increase in costs to the consumer to recoup the costs, then we have to look at which makes more profit. So if the product costs $100 normally and $110 after the tax, and in both cases, they made a $5 profit and they sold 1000 pieces a year, they would be going from 100k per year in sales to 110K per year in sales for the same 5k profit. So if they found an energy source that negated the tax, they could keep the prices the same and increase profits by 10K a year. That's triple the original profit. But if they dropped prices back to the original price of $100 and doubled their customers, they would only be making double the profit of 5k which is 10K per year profit.
So when looking, an extra 5K per year is not as attractive as an extra 10k per year, so the logical path would be to keep the costs the same and take the larger profit. In the end, all you have done is increase the costs to the consumer and in effect placed a hidden tax on the people (if we don't force jobs to different locations and make people unemployed in the process).
Wouldn't if make much more sense to skip that idiocy and simply require power plants to be X much more efficient and pollute less (even if you consider Co2 to be a pollutant) and instead focus out time and efforts on science that can make that an actual reality? Then as technology progresses, we up the requirements for energy creation and again share this information so it can be used to make that same reality?