When you drive, you have everything you need in your trunk.... and really, driving is not that much longer than flying.
That's true up to a point but not really practical for going across the country (too time consuming) or to Europe/Asia (for obvious reasons). Those of us that need to get from coast to coast or whom want to see other parts of the World usually don't have a choice about flying.
That said, I did avail myself of this option last year when traveling down to the Outer Banks from Upstate NY. Took 14 hours with stops and the traffic on I-95. And it was still worth it to avoid having to bend over for the TSA goons and crappy airline customer service.
I don't think I'm being naive. I think you are giving way too much credit to the "spooks". Even if you are just talking about Windows (the GP also mentioned Linux) you'd need to assume that everybody with access to the relevant parts of the Windows source would keep it a secret. You'd also need to assume that all of the other Governments on Earth (some whom get access to the Windows source code under various agreements) are either too incompetent to find it or could also be trusted it to keep it secret. Ditto for the business partners of Microsoft that also get access to it. Seems a bit far-fetched to me.
No need, though I wouldn't put it past the US spooks to make packets with an approved flag bit invisible to wireshark binaries et. al. Just like it's illegal to listen to certain radio bands.
And just how are they going to get access to every single mirror that offers Wireshark binaries? How are they going to get the developers to go along with leaving those pwn'ed versions online for download or are they also going to root-kit every single mirror site? You are talking about the United States Government here -- the same Government that couldn't even connect the dots when a bunch of jihadists were learning to fly jumbo jets but not how to land them.
The same issues (access to the major mirror sites and either root-kitting them or getting the people behind them to go along with it) would also seem to apply to Linux distros -- which the GP seemed to think are also vulnerable.
One thing I've wondered about is why all the major OS' are so aggressive about indexing hard disks
One thing I've often wondered is why Windows is so aggressive about swapping out programs in the background to make room for the file cache... I love having a PC with 2 gigs of ram and having to wait for Word to swap back into RAM after switching over to Firefox for 10 minutes..... Point being, never attribute to malice what can be attributed to incompetence.
The people who make these laws travel with escort and arrangements in private planes and cars. It is more like economic feudalism than oppression.
Instead of "economic feudalism" (whatever the hell that means) might it just be possible that has more to do with the fact that 9.3% of all US Presidents (4 out of 43) have been assassinated while in office? Or the fact that every President since FDR has had at least one serious attempt made on his life?
Unless you were talking about Congresscritters? But that doesn't make any sense -- most of them don't have "escort" (not counting the obvious examples like Hillary Clinton or those in the Presidential line of succession) and they usually fly commercial. Granted, I'm sure they get preferential treatment if recognized but I seem to recall quite a few Congressman that have had their own problems with TSA and the no-fly lists.
The US government almost certainly has a back door to every network connected Windows PC on earth. And may be the major US based Linux binary distributions. That's what Windows (and Linux) update is for.
Yes, because nobody would have noticed the unaccounted for network traffic by now and made any effort to discover what it was.......
Unless you think they also have backdoors in Wireshark and tcpdump. That'd be a neat trick with peer reviewed open source software.
given their actions so far it's not that far of a stretch to say they may have held back from preventing it in an effort to give themselves more power
Yeah and FDR knew that Pearl Harbor was coming too and didn't try and stop it. Ya know if you are going to make a claim like this you should probably have more to back it up than idle speculation.
Bush came into office on a domestic agenda if you recall. I don't see how allowing 9/11 to happen furthered that agenda.
To be fair.. red light cameras are not unreasonable
Unless they also take a picture of the driver (which most of them don't) I consider them to be very unreasonable. The owner of the car gets a ticket with no proof that he was actually operating the vehicle. The burden should be on the state to prove who committed the infraction and not on the owner of the vehicle to prove that he didn't.
But I wouldn't have to, since the current Democratic plan is to shift taxes off of the middle class and back on to the wealthy who have benefited from years of rule by the investment class that owns the GOP
Random thought but I've always wondered why capital gains are treated separately and taxed at a flat (currently 15%, IIRC) rate instead of just being lumped into your normal income?
Republicans throw a hissy fit anytime anyone starts to flirt with the idea of raising the capital gains tax.... "you'll take away the incentive to invest and destroy the economy!" Why not make this a moot point and just tax it as regular income in the same manner as interest from savings accounts/CDs is taxed?
Right... that'll help. Social Security, Welfare, Medicare and Medicaid exceed the entire military AND discretional budget (not just the Iraq war) and all are horribly broken.
I really wish people would stop repeating these talking points, at least with regards to Social Security. Social Security is not "horribly broken". Based on current projections it will start to pay out more than it takes in around 2017 and will exhaust it's reserves around 2041. Note that those are projections and they assume no change in the tax policy or benefit amounts/retirement age.
You could fix it tomorrow by removing the cap on the social security tax. As it stands now people are only taxed on the first $90,000 of their income. It's always interesting to hear a Conservative talk about how great a flat income tax would be (as opposed to the current policy of having higher rates for higher income earners) yet turn red and start yelling at you if you suggest getting rid of the cap on social security taxes.
he is right about the Constitution not applying until you get past customs, though. for anyone, even americans
It would be more correct to say that parts of the Constitution don't apply until you get past customs. You lose a good deal of your protections against unreasonable search and seizure but I'm pretty sure that you don't lose your right against self-incrimination. If you get caught smuggling drugs (or anything) into the country they can't beat a confession out of you because you got nabbed at the border.
More to the point, even if you are a Muslim and don't wish to partake in the Islamic "court" does it even apply to you? If it works like the Jewish rabbinical courts then you'd need the consent of both parties to proceed.
Even if you're not convicted of anything it still shows up on background checks done by employers as an arrest.
As someone who was once charged with a crime he didn't commit I can tell you from experience that my state (NYS) seals all records of the arrest upon your acquittal or the dropping/dismissal of the charges against you.
In my case it was a felony charge that went to Grand Jury. The Grand Jury refused to indict (thank god for the jury system...) so the DA had to drop the charges. Awhile later I received a court order directing the appropriate law enforcement agencies to seal all records of the arrest and destroy any copies of my fingerprints and/or photograph that they obtained from said arrest. The order also directed any agencies that may have received a copy of said items from the original police agency (i.e: the Feds) to do the same.
As I recall the only exception allowed for in the dismissal order to unseal the arrest record related to the requirement that you disclose any arrests when applying for a NYS pistol permit. It made no exceptions for any agency to retain a copy of the fingerprints/photograph. They had to be destroyed.
Why it doesn't work like this in other states is beyond me. A simple arrest should not show up in a background check without a subsequent conviction or at least an ongoing trial.
You'll be thrown in jail as soon as they see encrypted files
Do you have an example of anyone who has ever been "thrown into jail" in the United States merely for having possession of encrypted files or are you just fear-mongering?
I think the main difference is that mainstream Christianity has, mostly, shown disapproval of these techniques. Mainstream Islam, until recently, kept quiet which allowed the extremists to thrive and hijack Islam.
I would agree with this observation. The problem is that most of the Muslim world has huge underlying problems that have nothing to do with religion and until you solve those problems you'll never be able marginalize the extremists. Take your pick: political corruption, economic misfortune, rulers more interested in retaining power than the general welfare, etc, etc, etc.
I've talked to people from the Middle East and almost all of them say that they would rather have jobs than democracy. That's your starting point in the Middle East.
And yet, there's an organization called CAIR whose thinly-veiled purpose is specifically to subvert our American culture in favor of Islam.
OMG they have an "organization"!?!? Next they'll have a committee! Quick, get the guns and the women.... we are screwed.
Seriously though, who cares? I'm pretty sure that we have the right of free assembly in this country and if these jackasses can speak their minds then why can't the Muslims? As long as they aren't physically harming anyone I really don't care what they advocate for. That's the beauty of the United States.
but I don't think they're going to blow my wife and children up if they don't get their way
If there is a group in the United States that starts blowing people up because they don't get their way in politics then we will prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law and punish them for their crimes. It's not like this would be unique to Islam. This guy comes to mind.
So, yeah, excuse me while I'm alarmed that Muslim extremists are starting to flex their political muscle in the US.
I'm alarmed whenever extremists of any religion or political viewpoint start to flex their political muscle. I'll be watching them closely and advocating for my own political positions but beyond that what else can you do? We have freedom of speech and assembly in this country for a reason.
Why yes, it is. People do that all the time. Frankly, it's a far superior alternative to air travel, with an infant or without.
Hey I've driven across the country before (without an infant) and it's actually a pretty good time. I just take exception to this idea that people shouldn't travel by air with their infants.
I don't relish the sound of a screaming baby any more than the next guy but it's not realistic to expect that they never travel by air. In the grand scheme of all that sucks with air travel (TSA screeners with a chip on their shoulder, horrible take-it-or-leave-it customer service, lost luggage, fees for your first piece of luggage, fees for water which you aren't allowed to bring yourself, etc, etc, etc) I place crying infants towards the bottom of the list.
Perhaps I'm just more tolerant of children than most people but it seems to me that this problem could be solved with a pair of headphones and an mp3 player.
Just like the other commenters on this part of the discussion of this article, my argument is not that "people should never travel with their infants", it's that infants shouldn't travel, pay attention now, on a plane.
Yeah because driving from New York to California is such a viable alternative.....
Have you not heard about the UK, where a judge has upheld the notion that a Muslim family dispute ought to be covered by Sharia, in addition to the normal UK legal system?
How is that any different from the Jewish Beth din courts that have operated in New York City (and other parts of the US?) for decades and done much the same thing? I really don't see a problem with this as long as these "courts" don't have the rule of law and as long as nobody can be compelled against their will to resolve a dispute in them.
Whether they do it by force or by subterfuge, "invading" is their goal, and they're already doing it
You sound like someone warning of the yellow peril in the early 20th century. Somehow I doubt that most Muslims have the goal of "invading" the Western World. Europe has their own problems with Muslim immigration that they will need to contend with but I seriously question the notion that it's anything more sinister than people looking for work.
See also the publicly funded Muslim-based elementary schools in Detroit
Citation? I don't have an issue with Muslim-based schools (how many Catholic-based schools exist in this country?) but I would take issue with public funds going to them.
Or how about the special exceptions made at an American university for school-funded foot baths for the Muslim facility?
How is that any different from an employer that gives Jewish employees a day off for Yum Kippur or arranges for alternative meals for Hindu staff when the cafeteria is serving beef?
I'm sorry but I just don't buy this alarmist argument. We've heard the exact same things said about every single culture that has ever immigrated into this country -- even "white" ones like the Irish or Polish. Somehow none of them have ever managed to subvert the United States. I'm not real worried about the Muslims doing so either. To listen to your post one would think that there is some sort of master plan that all Muslims are aware of to sneak into the West and subvert us from the inside out.
Should there be more to it? Infants cry. Parents sometimes have to travel with their infants. I don't enjoy the sound of a streaming baby all that much but I'm not going to throw a hissy fit about it.
no wonder you were dumb enough to have a child, not to mention take it on a plane.
A) I don't have kids yet, B) "It"?
It's pretty obvious that I win this argument by default. GG
Yes, the anonymous coward whose argument boils down to "people should never travel with their infants" wins the argument by default. I bow down to your infinite wisdom and realize the folly of my own position -- clearly we need to outlaw traveling with infants.
So, explain to me, knowing full well that an infant is totally immune to any discipline (except shaking), and will screech like a dying weasel for the entire flight....why the hell would you take an infant on a airplane?
Because if you try to put them in a box and Fedex them across the country you usually attract unwanted attention from CPS? Just deal with it.... some people have to travel with their infant for whatever reason. Infants cry.
Slashdot Mirror
When you drive, you have everything you need in your trunk.... and really, driving is not that much longer than flying.
That's true up to a point but not really practical for going across the country (too time consuming) or to Europe/Asia (for obvious reasons). Those of us that need to get from coast to coast or whom want to see other parts of the World usually don't have a choice about flying.
That said, I did avail myself of this option last year when traveling down to the Outer Banks from Upstate NY. Took 14 hours with stops and the traffic on I-95. And it was still worth it to avoid having to bend over for the TSA goons and crappy airline customer service.
I don't think I'm being naive. I think you are giving way too much credit to the "spooks". Even if you are just talking about Windows (the GP also mentioned Linux) you'd need to assume that everybody with access to the relevant parts of the Windows source would keep it a secret. You'd also need to assume that all of the other Governments on Earth (some whom get access to the Windows source code under various agreements) are either too incompetent to find it or could also be trusted it to keep it secret. Ditto for the business partners of Microsoft that also get access to it. Seems a bit far-fetched to me.
No need, though I wouldn't put it past the US spooks to make packets with an approved flag bit invisible to wireshark binaries et. al. Just like it's illegal to listen to certain radio bands.
And just how are they going to get access to every single mirror that offers Wireshark binaries? How are they going to get the developers to go along with leaving those pwn'ed versions online for download or are they also going to root-kit every single mirror site? You are talking about the United States Government here -- the same Government that couldn't even connect the dots when a bunch of jihadists were learning to fly jumbo jets but not how to land them.
The same issues (access to the major mirror sites and either root-kitting them or getting the people behind them to go along with it) would also seem to apply to Linux distros -- which the GP seemed to think are also vulnerable.
One thing I've wondered about is why all the major OS' are so aggressive about indexing hard disks
One thing I've often wondered is why Windows is so aggressive about swapping out programs in the background to make room for the file cache... I love having a PC with 2 gigs of ram and having to wait for Word to swap back into RAM after switching over to Firefox for 10 minutes..... Point being, never attribute to malice what can be attributed to incompetence.
The people who make these laws travel with escort and arrangements in private planes and cars. It is more like economic feudalism than oppression.
Instead of "economic feudalism" (whatever the hell that means) might it just be possible that has more to do with the fact that 9.3% of all US Presidents (4 out of 43) have been assassinated while in office? Or the fact that every President since FDR has had at least one serious attempt made on his life?
Unless you were talking about Congresscritters? But that doesn't make any sense -- most of them don't have "escort" (not counting the obvious examples like Hillary Clinton or those in the Presidential line of succession) and they usually fly commercial. Granted, I'm sure they get preferential treatment if recognized but I seem to recall quite a few Congressman that have had their own problems with TSA and the no-fly lists.
The US government almost certainly has a back door to every network connected Windows PC on earth. And may be the major US based Linux binary distributions. That's what Windows (and Linux) update is for.
Yes, because nobody would have noticed the unaccounted for network traffic by now and made any effort to discover what it was.......
Unless you think they also have backdoors in Wireshark and tcpdump. That'd be a neat trick with peer reviewed open source software.
given their actions so far it's not that far of a stretch to say they may have held back from preventing it in an effort to give themselves more power
Yeah and FDR knew that Pearl Harbor was coming too and didn't try and stop it. Ya know if you are going to make a claim like this you should probably have more to back it up than idle speculation.
Bush came into office on a domestic agenda if you recall. I don't see how allowing 9/11 to happen furthered that agenda.
To be fair.. red light cameras are not unreasonable
Unless they also take a picture of the driver (which most of them don't) I consider them to be very unreasonable. The owner of the car gets a ticket with no proof that he was actually operating the vehicle. The burden should be on the state to prove who committed the infraction and not on the owner of the vehicle to prove that he didn't.
God, being the ultimate omnipotent Big Brother, already knows what's on it.
Fuck..... then I'm really going to hell ;)
But I wouldn't have to, since the current Democratic plan is to shift taxes off of the middle class and back on to the wealthy who have benefited from years of rule by the investment class that owns the GOP
Random thought but I've always wondered why capital gains are treated separately and taxed at a flat (currently 15%, IIRC) rate instead of just being lumped into your normal income?
Republicans throw a hissy fit anytime anyone starts to flirt with the idea of raising the capital gains tax.... "you'll take away the incentive to invest and destroy the economy!" Why not make this a moot point and just tax it as regular income in the same manner as interest from savings accounts/CDs is taxed?
Right... that'll help. Social Security, Welfare, Medicare and Medicaid exceed the entire military AND discretional budget (not just the Iraq war) and all are horribly broken.
I really wish people would stop repeating these talking points, at least with regards to Social Security. Social Security is not "horribly broken". Based on current projections it will start to pay out more than it takes in around 2017 and will exhaust it's reserves around 2041. Note that those are projections and they assume no change in the tax policy or benefit amounts/retirement age.
You could fix it tomorrow by removing the cap on the social security tax. As it stands now people are only taxed on the first $90,000 of their income. It's always interesting to hear a Conservative talk about how great a flat income tax would be (as opposed to the current policy of having higher rates for higher income earners) yet turn red and start yelling at you if you suggest getting rid of the cap on social security taxes.
In a true democracy
I thought the United States as a Republic?
he is right about the Constitution not applying until you get past customs, though. for anyone, even americans
It would be more correct to say that parts of the Constitution don't apply until you get past customs. You lose a good deal of your protections against unreasonable search and seizure but I'm pretty sure that you don't lose your right against self-incrimination. If you get caught smuggling drugs (or anything) into the country they can't beat a confession out of you because you got nabbed at the border.
More to the point, even if you are a Muslim and don't wish to partake in the Islamic "court" does it even apply to you? If it works like the Jewish rabbinical courts then you'd need the consent of both parties to proceed.
That's just one more reason not to take the UN seriously any longer, IMHO.
Even if you're not convicted of anything it still shows up on background checks done by employers as an arrest.
As someone who was once charged with a crime he didn't commit I can tell you from experience that my state (NYS) seals all records of the arrest upon your acquittal or the dropping/dismissal of the charges against you.
In my case it was a felony charge that went to Grand Jury. The Grand Jury refused to indict (thank god for the jury system...) so the DA had to drop the charges. Awhile later I received a court order directing the appropriate law enforcement agencies to seal all records of the arrest and destroy any copies of my fingerprints and/or photograph that they obtained from said arrest. The order also directed any agencies that may have received a copy of said items from the original police agency (i.e: the Feds) to do the same.
As I recall the only exception allowed for in the dismissal order to unseal the arrest record related to the requirement that you disclose any arrests when applying for a NYS pistol permit. It made no exceptions for any agency to retain a copy of the fingerprints/photograph. They had to be destroyed.
Why it doesn't work like this in other states is beyond me. A simple arrest should not show up in a background check without a subsequent conviction or at least an ongoing trial.
You'll be thrown in jail as soon as they see encrypted files
Do you have an example of anyone who has ever been "thrown into jail" in the United States merely for having possession of encrypted files or are you just fear-mongering?
I think the main difference is that mainstream Christianity has, mostly, shown disapproval of these techniques. Mainstream Islam, until recently, kept quiet which allowed the extremists to thrive and hijack Islam.
I would agree with this observation. The problem is that most of the Muslim world has huge underlying problems that have nothing to do with religion and until you solve those problems you'll never be able marginalize the extremists. Take your pick: political corruption, economic misfortune, rulers more interested in retaining power than the general welfare, etc, etc, etc.
I've talked to people from the Middle East and almost all of them say that they would rather have jobs than democracy. That's your starting point in the Middle East.
Only if you are using Comcast and Bittorrent to smuggle in your nuclear weapons blueprints ;)
What's that country again that has assassination as an actual acceptable policy?
All of them that think they can get away with it?
Has a blue and white flag with a little star on it?
There's no little star on Russia's flag is there?
(Why are you specifically calling out Israel for something that virtually every country has done or is currently doing?)
And yet, there's an organization called CAIR whose thinly-veiled purpose is specifically to subvert our American culture in favor of Islam.
OMG they have an "organization"!?!? Next they'll have a committee! Quick, get the guns and the women.... we are screwed.
Seriously though, who cares? I'm pretty sure that we have the right of free assembly in this country and if these jackasses can speak their minds then why can't the Muslims? As long as they aren't physically harming anyone I really don't care what they advocate for. That's the beauty of the United States.
but I don't think they're going to blow my wife and children up if they don't get their way
If there is a group in the United States that starts blowing people up because they don't get their way in politics then we will prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law and punish them for their crimes. It's not like this would be unique to Islam. This guy comes to mind.
So, yeah, excuse me while I'm alarmed that Muslim extremists are starting to flex their political muscle in the US.
I'm alarmed whenever extremists of any religion or political viewpoint start to flex their political muscle. I'll be watching them closely and advocating for my own political positions but beyond that what else can you do? We have freedom of speech and assembly in this country for a reason.
Why yes, it is. People do that all the time. Frankly, it's a far superior alternative to air travel, with an infant or without.
Hey I've driven across the country before (without an infant) and it's actually a pretty good time. I just take exception to this idea that people shouldn't travel by air with their infants.
I don't relish the sound of a screaming baby any more than the next guy but it's not realistic to expect that they never travel by air. In the grand scheme of all that sucks with air travel (TSA screeners with a chip on their shoulder, horrible take-it-or-leave-it customer service, lost luggage, fees for your first piece of luggage, fees for water which you aren't allowed to bring yourself, etc, etc, etc) I place crying infants towards the bottom of the list.
Perhaps I'm just more tolerant of children than most people but it seems to me that this problem could be solved with a pair of headphones and an mp3 player.
Just like the other commenters on this part of the discussion of this article, my argument is not that "people should never travel with their infants", it's that infants shouldn't travel, pay attention now, on a plane .
Yeah because driving from New York to California is such a viable alternative.....
So now I can assume any laptop that has gone through US customs is dirty?
Not if it wasn't out of your sight.
Have you not heard about the UK, where a judge has upheld the notion that a Muslim family dispute ought to be covered by Sharia, in addition to the normal UK legal system?
How is that any different from the Jewish Beth din courts that have operated in New York City (and other parts of the US?) for decades and done much the same thing? I really don't see a problem with this as long as these "courts" don't have the rule of law and as long as nobody can be compelled against their will to resolve a dispute in them.
Whether they do it by force or by subterfuge, "invading" is their goal, and they're already doing it
You sound like someone warning of the yellow peril in the early 20th century. Somehow I doubt that most Muslims have the goal of "invading" the Western World. Europe has their own problems with Muslim immigration that they will need to contend with but I seriously question the notion that it's anything more sinister than people looking for work.
See also the publicly funded Muslim-based elementary schools in Detroit
Citation? I don't have an issue with Muslim-based schools (how many Catholic-based schools exist in this country?) but I would take issue with public funds going to them.
Or how about the special exceptions made at an American university for school-funded foot baths for the Muslim facility?
How is that any different from an employer that gives Jewish employees a day off for Yum Kippur or arranges for alternative meals for Hindu staff when the cafeteria is serving beef?
I'm sorry but I just don't buy this alarmist argument. We've heard the exact same things said about every single culture that has ever immigrated into this country -- even "white" ones like the Irish or Polish. Somehow none of them have ever managed to subvert the United States. I'm not real worried about the Muslims doing so either. To listen to your post one would think that there is some sort of master plan that all Muslims are aware of to sneak into the West and subvert us from the inside out.
If that is your entire argument
Should there be more to it? Infants cry. Parents sometimes have to travel with their infants. I don't enjoy the sound of a streaming baby all that much but I'm not going to throw a hissy fit about it.
no wonder you were dumb enough to have a child, not to mention take it on a plane.
A) I don't have kids yet, B) "It"?
It's pretty obvious that I win this argument by default. GG
Yes, the anonymous coward whose argument boils down to "people should never travel with their infants" wins the argument by default. I bow down to your infinite wisdom and realize the folly of my own position -- clearly we need to outlaw traveling with infants.
So, explain to me, knowing full well that an infant is totally immune to any discipline (except shaking), and will screech like a dying weasel for the entire flight....why the hell would you take an infant on a airplane?
Because if you try to put them in a box and Fedex them across the country you usually attract unwanted attention from CPS? Just deal with it.... some people have to travel with their infant for whatever reason. Infants cry.