Europe is about as rural as the northeastern states in the USA. There are farms and towns dotting the countryside. Never are you more than maybe 15 miles (25 km) from someplace populated.
Are you suggesting that those countries are enemies of the United States?
There are tons of stateless actors (and not an insignificant number of nation-states) whom are clearly enemies of the United States that benefit from his disclosures of our SIGINT sources and methods. You obviously cherry picked the list to whitewash them away (and made some of it up, since the US doesn't spy on Britain) as though his disclosures of NSA's activities in friendly countries (that spy on us, FYI) are excusable.
Please, if the United States wanted him dead he'd already be dead. All it would take is some old-fashioned realpolitik. A phone call from BHO to Mr. Putin, with an offer to give up a few high-valued Russian agents presently rotting in American prisons, and Mr. Snowden would die in a horrible automobile accident shortly thereafter. It could be arranged behind the scenes with no loss of face for either side. A public transfer to the United States for trial would be a tougher sell, but likely achievable if BHO put enough on the table.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Whatever obligation he felt to leak NSA's domestic activities, he crossed the line when he leaked information about their overseas intelligence operations. He has compromised methods and sources, and the damage he has done to the American intelligence community is incalculable. NSA's activities outside of the United States raise no Constitutional questions. They aren't engaged in any actions that other nation-states (including those hostile to the United States) aren't doing. His activities are arguably "aid and comfort" to the enemies of the United States, and I would be sorely disappointed if my Government opts to forgive him these offenses in the misguided belief that he can be trusted to cooperate in containing the damage he has done and continues to do.
You beat me to it. Using his own numbers, that's 11.1% of their net profit. I doubt a computer programmer making $50,000/yr would sneeze at a $5,555 fine.
ensuring any photos they post of themselves are as representative as possible
So they should use their drivers license photo?;)
At the end of the day I think we can boil this down to people letting (perceived perfection) be the enemy of good enough. Not that you'd marry "good enough", but if you met "good enough" in person you'd be more inclined to go on a date or two with them, after a few minutes of conversation, and who knows what will happen from there? When it's online though people see one flaw, real or perceived, and click "next" without another thought.
You can see this to an extent with the user generated match questions on OkCupid. I swear that half of those questions were people taking their biggest pet peeve about their ex and making it into a question. "Does [random character trait shared by half the population] PISS YOU THE FUCK OFF?"
That won't happen until the Chinese do something we haven't done before, preferably something with implications for national-defense. When that happens there will be a massive panic, followed by determined efforts to rectify the situation. What you're looking for is another Sputnik, and it will be a few decades before the Chinese are there.
For some reason this quote comes to mind: "Americans will always do the right thing, after they've exhausted all other possibilities."
I'm a civilized person, and I say "let them die in the streets" - there is no "right to health care" in the constitution, nor should there be.
Repeat after me: The Constitution does not grant us rights. One more time: The Constitution does not grant us rights.
We had all of the rights recognized by the Constitution. That's why they're called inalienable rights. The only point to listing them is to make it harder for the Government to try and trample upon them.
Selecting for attraction is just as valid as selecting for ideals and interests
My point was you can't properly judge attraction from still photos. You lose sound, smell, motion, etc. I've found very attractable women that take horrible photographs, and vice versa. Meeting someone for the first time in meat space gives a better indication of whether or not there is physical attraction between two people. Online they're just as liable to click 'next' without even bothering to find out if it's there.
One of my female friends was on OkCupid (she put me onto it, actually) and showed me her inbox once upon a time. *shudder* She averaged 20-25 messages per day, this in a small city (Ithaca, New York), not a major metropolitan area. Over half of them were cheesey one-liners that were dismissed out of hand, most of the rest were outright disgusting, and a small handful were good enough to get a reply from her. Of course, of those, she ruled out the people that she didn't see a physical connection with, which sounds harsh, but that's another of the pitfalls of online dating (there's more to attractiveness than even the best photograph can ever convey)
Bottom line, out of ~150 messages per week she might have found three or four that got a reply.
I spent almost a year of my life on OkCupid, managed to get a decent number of dates for my effort, but I doubt I will never try it again. Online dating poses two particular challenges over meat-space dating:
The people who are inclined to engage in online dating seem to be shier than average. Combine this is the fact that there are a lot of "colorful" characters on online dating, and they are hesitant to meet in person even if there seems to be a connection. Consequently, you end up talking forever before you finally meet them. The problem with this is twofold, one you find out too much about them, and lose out on a lot of the mystery that keeps the first few meatspace dates interesting. You also build a relationship of sorts, it's impossible not to with several weeks of writing letters and engaging in chats. Now when you meet them and it doesn't click you've got a much harsher let-down than you otherwise would for a first or second date.
There seems to be an above average percentage of people who misrepresent themselves. This is hardly unique to online dating, but it's easier to filter a lot of it out when you can meet in person, look someone in their eyes, watch their vocal inflictions, etc.
I think I landed eight or nine dates on OKC in the time I was there. Probably half of them were normal, just didn't click, the rest had issues ranging from "completely misrepresented herself" to "was lining up dozens of guys for dates" to "thought we were married after two dates". I tried it for all the usual reasons, not really into the bar scene, don't have a whole lot of free time, and so on. If I were to try it again I would insist on a meat-space dates after a few good conversations. I do understand the safety issue, particularly from the female perspective, but someone who isn't willing to meet in a busy public place for lunch is likely too shy/introverted for me, or is trying to play games.
Incidentally, the last woman I went out with I met while on a run. She's out walking her dog, I'm doing road work, we wind up talking and the rest is history. Thinking back on it, I had my most successful relationships with those that I met in situations where neither of us was looking for dates. It's just easier to be yourself in that kind of situation, I think, and you're more likely to sustain a relationship with someone if you were yourself from the beginning.
we shall treat them like the bad guys. I learned French history in school.
Did you cover the part where the glorious revolution elevated a dictator that that united the whole of Europe against France, got hundreds of thousands of French soldiers killed, and cost France her self-determination for two or three generations? It might be satisfying to root for revolutions where the former powers-that-be get lined up and shot (or guillotined), but they never seem to end real well for the peoples involved.
Actually the idea is readily demonstrable in the real world. Take the right to keep and bear arms, which society still hasn't figured out how to effectively take away even in the most controlled of environments, as evidenced by the plastic shank sticking out of some poor bastard in the prison shower. It is the quintessential 'natural right', one that all human beings are born with, and one that is impossible to completely deprive them of. Free speech is the same, you can punish someone after the fact if you're an oppressive regime that doesn't recognize it, but you can't actually stop them from exercising it in the first place.
It's like something out of a dystopia, not a civilized nation, which is why the whole American 'gun thing' is a puzzling head-scratcher.
*shrug*, from my perspective it's even stranger that Canada won't even permit her citizens to carry pepper spray for self-defense, a right that all human beings have, one that's recognized both in our 2nd Amendment and the Universal Declaration. Weapons of any sort are simply equalizers, that allow the physically weak to defend themselves against the physically strong, when appropriate. Some may question the wisdom of the United States, wherein law abiding citizens can carry lethal weaponry in public, but I find the total prohibition on any sort of weaponry to be equally extreme and counterproductive.
As a Canadian, our country has many, many cultural traits in common with the USA
There's also a lot of differences. Speaking broadly, Americans tend to be more individualistic than Canadians. You can see this manifest itself in all manner of issues, firearms being just one. The historical and cultural reasons for this difference are many, and would be a long discussion best conducted in person, over beer.:)
Now certainly my friends in rural parts of Canada own long guns for hunting, but thatâ(TM)s different.
You don't know a single person that owns firearms for reasons other than hunting? Target shooting is nearly as popular in Canada as the United States, and you've got some of the same practical shooting leagues (IDPA) we do. I think this speaks more to your own urban-centric viewpoint, not your Canadian citizenship, I could easily see your statement being uttered with "New York City" in place of "Vancouver".
In Canada to buy a gun you need to be licensed, the same way you do to drive a car or own a dog. To Canadians this seems perfectly reasonable and the fact that many of my American friends go bananas if you even suggest such a thing is a complete and utter head-scratcher to us.
I live in a jurisdiction (New York State) that requires licensing of handgun ownership. Most American jurisdictions require licensing to carry concealed. The going "bananas" part can be related to the previous comment about our individualism, a basic distrust of Government, something that isn't in the Canadian DNA, for better or worse. I could share my own opinions on the matter of firearms licensing, but they are rather lengthy.....
Just so you know, I hold Canadian firearms licenses. I procured them back in the day when I was traveling back and forth between Buffalo and Detroit, on a weekly basis. Going through Ontario is the fastest way to make that trip, and for various reasons I wished to have my firearm with me in Detroit. I don't make that trip anymore, but I do shoot in an IDPA league that occasionally has matches in Ontario, so the Canadian licenses still see use. There are two different licenses, a possession and acquisition license, along with an authorization to transport restricted weapons (any handgun is a "restricted" weapon under Canadian law....) Neither license was that hard to get, it was an expensive paper chase, particularly for the ATT license, but in the final analysis it was less onerous than the process of applying for a New York State Pistol License. I've gotten some strange looks from customs when I declare my firearm, in part because they rarely deal with Americans holding a PAL or ATT license (typically Americans bring hunting rifles into Canada, which aren't "restricted" firearms, and they simply pay a fee at the border to make it all legit), but they've never given me any grief about it.
As an amusing anecdote, I've crossed the border more times than I can count, and the differing priorities of Canadian and American customs have always amused the hell out of me. Crossing the border into Canada, first question from the Canadian customs officer: "Do you have any firearms, mace, explosives, pepper spray, brass knuckles, swords, daggers, or knives with you?" Returning to the United States, first question from the American customs officer: "Do you have any alcohol or tobacco with you?" I guess our priorities are different than yours.;)
Lead and nitrocellulose will be worth far more than gold if the economy ever actually gets to the point that gold is needed for day to day transactions....
Are you kidding? Airport terminals are the bomb. Where else can you go and socialize with people that you'll never have to see again if you (or they) say something stupid? On my last lengthy weather delay I met the following people at the bar, in this order: A homosexual sex therapist, an immigrant from Georgia, a hyperactive porn star who was passing around cell phone photos, a retired Secret Service agent who worked on GWB's detail, and a drunk guy who was flying to Seattle to interview with Microsoft.
Where else can you go and meet that many disparate people in the space of three hours?
That doesn't change the firearm you carry, just the ammunition.;)
Think shotshells instead of JHP.... they're actually a lot of fun to play with,.45 shotshells + wasp nests = good times for all (except those with six legs and stingers...)
It needs to be unloaded (duh) and secured in a hard sided opaque case that's kept within your checked baggage. I use the lockbox that I bought for my car, it's just a cheap little metal box that locks, and they've never complained about it. They may also want you to have lockable luggage, it's not required by the regulations, but the one time I flew without a lock they made a small stink about it and "secured" the luggage with cable ties.
Not much to it once you've met the basic requirements. You declare it to to ticket attendant, who has you sign the "unloaded firearms" declaration, which is just a thick piece of cardboard that goes inside the luggage. After this the process seems to vary based on airport, most of the time they'll call a TSA agent over, who manually inspects the luggage in your presence, declares it good, and sends it on its way. I have seen them send it through the machine and call it good, but that's been the exception in my experience, not the rule. My assumption is they do the manual inspection at airports where they lack automated technology good enough to discern the difference between GSR and actual explosives. I think I was in Salt Lake City when they sent it through the machine, and they had a lot of toys there I haven't seen in other airports. They always tell me to listen to the PA system in case they have to call me, presumably to open the lockbox, but I've never had it happen.
Ammunition needs to be carried in something that keeps it covered. They don't specifically state that you're required to use the original packaging, but that's the easiest way. You can allegedly keep loaded magazines, so long as they're in a magazine pouch or something else that covers the feed lips, but I've never tried it. I have a 1911 with single-stack magazines, and they're not that hard to reload when I reach my destination.
Regarding regular inspections, I guess YMMV. I've only had my bag opened once, and it was pretty apparent that they had gone to the trouble to take nearly everything out. Nothing was where I had left it, and they had actually repacked it better than I had originally done. I invested in one of the TSA locks, that they can open with a master key, with the green/red indicator that trips when opened that way, and it's only been tripped that one time.
I've flown four times this year, with a fifth flight next week (way above my average to date, was lucky to fly once every five years until now....) and I haven't had any problems with TSA. Part of that is probably the small cities I'm flying out of (*), or maybe they're just polite because I'm usually checking a firearm (**). The millimeter wave scanning machines are pretty neat to see in action, from a techie point of view (not going into the politics of it....), and I laughed my ass off when I discovered they had opened my checked baggage and neatly re-organized it when putting it back together. I don't know who you are anonymous TSA person, but please teach me how to fold shirts like that...;)
(*) Flying out of small cities like Binghamton or Wilkes Barre is the cat's meow. Show up 10 minutes before boarding starts, walk through security without a line, hop directly on the plane when they start boarding.
(**) Flying with a handgun is even better. You get to sit there while they inspect the checked baggage in front of you, bullshit about firearms with the guy TSA assigns this duty (usually knowledgeable about the subject matter), and know that they aren't going to reopen your luggage again for the duration of this trip.
Slashdot Mirror
Europe is about as rural as the northeastern states in the USA. There are farms and towns dotting the countryside. Never are you more than maybe 15 miles (25 km) from someplace populated.
You've never been to Finland, have you?
Hint: Europe != Germany, France, or the UK.
Are you suggesting that those countries are enemies of the United States?
There are tons of stateless actors (and not an insignificant number of nation-states) whom are clearly enemies of the United States that benefit from his disclosures of our SIGINT sources and methods. You obviously cherry picked the list to whitewash them away (and made some of it up, since the US doesn't spy on Britain) as though his disclosures of NSA's activities in friendly countries (that spy on us, FYI) are excusable.
Please, if the United States wanted him dead he'd already be dead. All it would take is some old-fashioned realpolitik. A phone call from BHO to Mr. Putin, with an offer to give up a few high-valued Russian agents presently rotting in American prisons, and Mr. Snowden would die in a horrible automobile accident shortly thereafter. It could be arranged behind the scenes with no loss of face for either side. A public transfer to the United States for trial would be a tougher sell, but likely achievable if BHO put enough on the table.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Whatever obligation he felt to leak NSA's domestic activities, he crossed the line when he leaked information about their overseas intelligence operations. He has compromised methods and sources, and the damage he has done to the American intelligence community is incalculable. NSA's activities outside of the United States raise no Constitutional questions. They aren't engaged in any actions that other nation-states (including those hostile to the United States) aren't doing. His activities are arguably "aid and comfort" to the enemies of the United States, and I would be sorely disappointed if my Government opts to forgive him these offenses in the misguided belief that he can be trusted to cooperate in containing the damage he has done and continues to do.
A $2 Billion fine is hardly trivial.
You beat me to it. Using his own numbers, that's 11.1% of their net profit. I doubt a computer programmer making $50,000/yr would sneeze at a $5,555 fine.
ensuring any photos they post of themselves are as representative as possible
So they should use their drivers license photo? ;)
At the end of the day I think we can boil this down to people letting (perceived perfection) be the enemy of good enough. Not that you'd marry "good enough", but if you met "good enough" in person you'd be more inclined to go on a date or two with them, after a few minutes of conversation, and who knows what will happen from there? When it's online though people see one flaw, real or perceived, and click "next" without another thought.
You can see this to an extent with the user generated match questions on OkCupid. I swear that half of those questions were people taking their biggest pet peeve about their ex and making it into a question. "Does [random character trait shared by half the population] PISS YOU THE FUCK OFF?"
To the West, please wake the fuck up
That won't happen until the Chinese do something we haven't done before, preferably something with implications for national-defense. When that happens there will be a massive panic, followed by determined efforts to rectify the situation. What you're looking for is another Sputnik, and it will be a few decades before the Chinese are there.
For some reason this quote comes to mind: "Americans will always do the right thing, after they've exhausted all other possibilities."
I'm a civilized person, and I say "let them die in the streets" - there is no "right to health care" in the constitution, nor should there be.
Repeat after me: The Constitution does not grant us rights. One more time: The Constitution does not grant us rights.
We had all of the rights recognized by the Constitution. That's why they're called inalienable rights. The only point to listing them is to make it harder for the Government to try and trample upon them.
What's harsh about it? It actually makes sense.
Selecting for attraction is just as valid as selecting for ideals and interests
My point was you can't properly judge attraction from still photos. You lose sound, smell, motion, etc. I've found very attractable women that take horrible photographs, and vice versa. Meeting someone for the first time in meat space gives a better indication of whether or not there is physical attraction between two people. Online they're just as liable to click 'next' without even bothering to find out if it's there.
What attracted me and Mrs. Esophagus was our shared values and interests.
I don't think we need to know about your oral sex life. ;)
Dude! That's not the right Werner Brandes quote to use in a discussion about online dating.
"Shall I phone you, or nudge you?" <--- That's the one you want to reference. ;)
Most females on dating sites get spammed
One of my female friends was on OkCupid (she put me onto it, actually) and showed me her inbox once upon a time. *shudder* She averaged 20-25 messages per day, this in a small city (Ithaca, New York), not a major metropolitan area. Over half of them were cheesey one-liners that were dismissed out of hand, most of the rest were outright disgusting, and a small handful were good enough to get a reply from her. Of course, of those, she ruled out the people that she didn't see a physical connection with, which sounds harsh, but that's another of the pitfalls of online dating (there's more to attractiveness than even the best photograph can ever convey)
Bottom line, out of ~150 messages per week she might have found three or four that got a reply.
I spent almost a year of my life on OkCupid, managed to get a decent number of dates for my effort, but I doubt I will never try it again. Online dating poses two particular challenges over meat-space dating:
I think I landed eight or nine dates on OKC in the time I was there. Probably half of them were normal, just didn't click, the rest had issues ranging from "completely misrepresented herself" to "was lining up dozens of guys for dates" to "thought we were married after two dates". I tried it for all the usual reasons, not really into the bar scene, don't have a whole lot of free time, and so on. If I were to try it again I would insist on a meat-space dates after a few good conversations. I do understand the safety issue, particularly from the female perspective, but someone who isn't willing to meet in a busy public place for lunch is likely too shy/introverted for me, or is trying to play games.
Incidentally, the last woman I went out with I met while on a run. She's out walking her dog, I'm doing road work, we wind up talking and the rest is history. Thinking back on it, I had my most successful relationships with those that I met in situations where neither of us was looking for dates. It's just easier to be yourself in that kind of situation, I think, and you're more likely to sustain a relationship with someone if you were yourself from the beginning.
we shall treat them like the bad guys. I learned French history in school.
Did you cover the part where the glorious revolution elevated a dictator that that united the whole of Europe against France, got hundreds of thousands of French soldiers killed, and cost France her self-determination for two or three generations? It might be satisfying to root for revolutions where the former powers-that-be get lined up and shot (or guillotined), but they never seem to end real well for the peoples involved.
Actually the idea is readily demonstrable in the real world. Take the right to keep and bear arms, which society still hasn't figured out how to effectively take away even in the most controlled of environments, as evidenced by the plastic shank sticking out of some poor bastard in the prison shower. It is the quintessential 'natural right', one that all human beings are born with, and one that is impossible to completely deprive them of. Free speech is the same, you can punish someone after the fact if you're an oppressive regime that doesn't recognize it, but you can't actually stop them from exercising it in the first place.
Swiftkey
Many more innocent children in the USA are shot by guns in the house than intruders ever are.
More children drown in swimming pools than die from gunshots...
It's like something out of a dystopia, not a civilized nation, which is why the whole American 'gun thing' is a puzzling head-scratcher.
*shrug*, from my perspective it's even stranger that Canada won't even permit her citizens to carry pepper spray for self-defense, a right that all human beings have, one that's recognized both in our 2nd Amendment and the Universal Declaration. Weapons of any sort are simply equalizers, that allow the physically weak to defend themselves against the physically strong, when appropriate. Some may question the wisdom of the United States, wherein law abiding citizens can carry lethal weaponry in public, but I find the total prohibition on any sort of weaponry to be equally extreme and counterproductive.
As a Canadian, our country has many, many cultural traits in common with the USA
There's also a lot of differences. Speaking broadly, Americans tend to be more individualistic than Canadians. You can see this manifest itself in all manner of issues, firearms being just one. The historical and cultural reasons for this difference are many, and would be a long discussion best conducted in person, over beer. :)
Now certainly my friends in rural parts of Canada own long guns for hunting, but thatâ(TM)s different.
You don't know a single person that owns firearms for reasons other than hunting? Target shooting is nearly as popular in Canada as the United States, and you've got some of the same practical shooting leagues (IDPA) we do. I think this speaks more to your own urban-centric viewpoint, not your Canadian citizenship, I could easily see your statement being uttered with "New York City" in place of "Vancouver".
In Canada to buy a gun you need to be licensed, the same way you do to drive a car or own a dog. To Canadians this seems perfectly reasonable and the fact that many of my American friends go bananas if you even suggest such a thing is a complete and utter head-scratcher to us.
I live in a jurisdiction (New York State) that requires licensing of handgun ownership. Most American jurisdictions require licensing to carry concealed. The going "bananas" part can be related to the previous comment about our individualism, a basic distrust of Government, something that isn't in the Canadian DNA, for better or worse. I could share my own opinions on the matter of firearms licensing, but they are rather lengthy.....
Just so you know, I hold Canadian firearms licenses. I procured them back in the day when I was traveling back and forth between Buffalo and Detroit, on a weekly basis. Going through Ontario is the fastest way to make that trip, and for various reasons I wished to have my firearm with me in Detroit. I don't make that trip anymore, but I do shoot in an IDPA league that occasionally has matches in Ontario, so the Canadian licenses still see use. There are two different licenses, a possession and acquisition license, along with an authorization to transport restricted weapons (any handgun is a "restricted" weapon under Canadian law....) Neither license was that hard to get, it was an expensive paper chase, particularly for the ATT license, but in the final analysis it was less onerous than the process of applying for a New York State Pistol License. I've gotten some strange looks from customs when I declare my firearm, in part because they rarely deal with Americans holding a PAL or ATT license (typically Americans bring hunting rifles into Canada, which aren't "restricted" firearms, and they simply pay a fee at the border to make it all legit), but they've never given me any grief about it.
As an amusing anecdote, I've crossed the border more times than I can count, and the differing priorities of Canadian and American customs have always amused the hell out of me. Crossing the border into Canada, first question from the Canadian customs officer: "Do you have any firearms, mace, explosives, pepper spray, brass knuckles, swords, daggers, or knives with you?" Returning to the United States, first question from the American customs officer: "Do you have any alcohol or tobacco with you?" I guess our priorities are different than yours. ;)
Lead and nitrocellulose will be worth far more than gold if the economy ever actually gets to the point that gold is needed for day to day transactions....
Obligatory Dilbert reference.
Are you kidding? Airport terminals are the bomb. Where else can you go and socialize with people that you'll never have to see again if you (or they) say something stupid? On my last lengthy weather delay I met the following people at the bar, in this order: A homosexual sex therapist, an immigrant from Georgia, a hyperactive porn star who was passing around cell phone photos, a retired Secret Service agent who worked on GWB's detail, and a drunk guy who was flying to Seattle to interview with Microsoft.
Where else can you go and meet that many disparate people in the space of three hours?
That doesn't change the firearm you carry, just the ammunition. ;)
Think shotshells instead of JHP.... they're actually a lot of fun to play with, .45 shotshells + wasp nests = good times for all (except those with six legs and stingers...)
It needs to be unloaded (duh) and secured in a hard sided opaque case that's kept within your checked baggage. I use the lockbox that I bought for my car, it's just a cheap little metal box that locks, and they've never complained about it. They may also want you to have lockable luggage, it's not required by the regulations, but the one time I flew without a lock they made a small stink about it and "secured" the luggage with cable ties.
Not much to it once you've met the basic requirements. You declare it to to ticket attendant, who has you sign the "unloaded firearms" declaration, which is just a thick piece of cardboard that goes inside the luggage. After this the process seems to vary based on airport, most of the time they'll call a TSA agent over, who manually inspects the luggage in your presence, declares it good, and sends it on its way. I have seen them send it through the machine and call it good, but that's been the exception in my experience, not the rule. My assumption is they do the manual inspection at airports where they lack automated technology good enough to discern the difference between GSR and actual explosives. I think I was in Salt Lake City when they sent it through the machine, and they had a lot of toys there I haven't seen in other airports. They always tell me to listen to the PA system in case they have to call me, presumably to open the lockbox, but I've never had it happen.
Ammunition needs to be carried in something that keeps it covered. They don't specifically state that you're required to use the original packaging, but that's the easiest way. You can allegedly keep loaded magazines, so long as they're in a magazine pouch or something else that covers the feed lips, but I've never tried it. I have a 1911 with single-stack magazines, and they're not that hard to reload when I reach my destination.
Regarding regular inspections, I guess YMMV. I've only had my bag opened once, and it was pretty apparent that they had gone to the trouble to take nearly everything out. Nothing was where I had left it, and they had actually repacked it better than I had originally done. I invested in one of the TSA locks, that they can open with a master key, with the green/red indicator that trips when opened that way, and it's only been tripped that one time.
there's nothing wrong with being a pilot and flying your own plane
Ah, it must be nice to have money....
Are you seriously trying to take a discussion about a mostly technical issue (airline scheduling) and turn it into a political argument?
I've flown four times this year, with a fifth flight next week (way above my average to date, was lucky to fly once every five years until now....) and I haven't had any problems with TSA. Part of that is probably the small cities I'm flying out of (*), or maybe they're just polite because I'm usually checking a firearm (**). The millimeter wave scanning machines are pretty neat to see in action, from a techie point of view (not going into the politics of it....), and I laughed my ass off when I discovered they had opened my checked baggage and neatly re-organized it when putting it back together. I don't know who you are anonymous TSA person, but please teach me how to fold shirts like that... ;)
(*) Flying out of small cities like Binghamton or Wilkes Barre is the cat's meow. Show up 10 minutes before boarding starts, walk through security without a line, hop directly on the plane when they start boarding.
(**) Flying with a handgun is even better. You get to sit there while they inspect the checked baggage in front of you, bullshit about firearms with the guy TSA assigns this duty (usually knowledgeable about the subject matter), and know that they aren't going to reopen your luggage again for the duration of this trip.