Given the vast number of home users MS has, this would seem to make sense.
I don't think so; Vista will have 2 versions for business use and 2 for home users. Doing this only for the business versions would make sense, but for home users more tightly configured firewall makes sense.
Having a popup appear when a program attempts to go out and asking if access should be allowed would seem like a fairly easy thing to do for home users.
But I would like to have confidence that if my kids go to the store they won't be able to purchase or rent something that I deem inappropriate for them.
Perhaps you should go to the store with them, instead of telling stores to do your parenting for you?
Too true. And I've got a completely mangled right shoulder blade as Exhibit A from exactly this thing happening to me (bicycle rather than a motorbike). To this day, I'd swear that not only did he see me, but that we'd made eye-contact and acknowledged each other's existence.
Maybe he assumed you'd follow the rules. Can you share more of the details (seriously)?
I know up here we have alot of bicycle riders that seem to think they can do whatever they want. They'll be in the traffic lane with you and pass on the right (which is bad if you're starting a right turn). When they are on sidewalks, they use the traffic signal instead of the pedestrian signals to see if they can go (or, more accurately, they just keep going no matter what, much like pedestrians).
Personally I think bikes should be confined to the sidewalk and obey pedestrian signals.. having them in the middle of 4 lane roads is just stupid.
Go and re-read what you wrote. It was intentionally vague. Turning around and being insulting doesn't suddenly make it clear.
Its not vague within the context of the discussion. You seem to have a problem keeping to the discussion at hand. Oh, may want to take your own advice by the way.
Things go wrong when people think their lives are in jeapoardy and the powers that be have decided that a shoot first and ask questions later approach to terrorism is for the greater good. That's on record. Go look it up.
Instead of telling me to look it up, how about you site your source? The article seems to suggest that shoot first ISN'T the policy. Or are you claiming that the security guards didn't follow thier instructions?
That's exactly what the orders were for the London plain clothes police that shot man in the London underground. Six or seven bullets to the head. It's not impossible. It's not unheard of. It has happened.
What happened in London isn't relevent here. They have different procedures, different culture, etc. Just because it can happen in London doesn't prove that it will happen here.
Now it hasn't happened in a US airport and baggage handlers haven't been involved. But add enough situations where it's got the potential to occur and it eventually will. In this case I didn't mean baggage handlers do, but rather that airport security and the authorities are inclined to do so. If you're suspected of having a bomb, the baggage inspectors don't have to be the ones to shoot you. Try airport security or the FBI or an air marshall - you're just as dead.
Thank you, you finally are admitting that your fear is baseless.
Well you certainly didn't read about my pilot analogy because you attacked me with a clarification I'd already made elsewhere. Maybe not directly up this particular line but definitely in response to my own grandparent post.
Sorry, didn't go down that line. Your analogy sucks, and the fact that you had to clarify proves it.
I didn't say it's JUST as dangerous. I just said it's dangerous and presented another situation where you don't want to make the drills part of real operations. I was making a point. You're the one that's blown it out of proportion and decided to be literal about it.
Then why did you pick that analogy? Why didn't you pick one that was more appropriate? You said something was dangerous and to prove it you point out another situation which actually has more risk? Which is actually my point; YOUR ANALOGY SUCKED.
That's very funny - _I_ just bashed _you_. You didn't even take the time to read what I wrote and just decided my point of view was invalid and had to be ridiculued. You never bothered to try to understand what I was saying and there are other ways to interpret (sorry interperate) what you said.
Calling out your bad analogy is a far cry from accusing you of being a stupid troll wouldn't you say? You're still trying to bash me too; big fucking deal, i was typing fast and didn't get interpret correct. At least I'm not trying to argue in favor of a baseless fear using poor analogies.
Just admit that you don't really have a point and move on with your life. Since we've been responding you still have never presented on shread of evidence relevent to this topic that gives your fear any ground in reality.
Name one incident where someone was wrongfully shot in the US? You're joking right?
Notice I said one such incident, which anyone with any reading comprehension at all would understand to mean 'name one incident where someone was shot by US TSA personal because of a false positive for explosives detection.'
Or are you saying that since no US screener ever shot anyone, this is irrelevant. Nice technique: define a group or situation small enough and then put the onus on me to go dig up information for you on anything similar because you know it's not worth that much of my time, and because it's not an exact match the argument is artificially weakened.
Its completely relevent. You do remember this line from your previous post, right? "In this case no one was hurt but they do shoot suspected suicide bombers if you haven't heard." Which was an attempt to say that your analogy of mock emergencies on a plane being equivelent to a false test positive given to screeners was valid. You're wrongly assuming they would just shoot someone for suspeicion that they were a bomber in the airport, but that assumtion has no basis in reality.
My analogy was made in the context of another post where I detailed exactly how pilots are drilled using a simulator. If you could be bothered to read the rest of what I'd written you'd have understood that and the analogy would have made more sense. Instead you didn't even read my other posts to understand the concepts. Remarkable for someone who repeatedly accuses me of not understanding their own posts. What's next "I know I am but what are you"? How old are you? 3?
From the post I responded to: To use your own example you don't simulate in flight emergencies on real flights. You do it in a controlled environment usually in a simulator. If you don't have access to that or want to do more realistic simulations you're very careful about recovery conditions (eg. you simulate an engine failure by throttling back to idle, but you don't actually cut your engine).
Sounds very much to me like you think there shouldn't be any tests in the 'real' screening, given that statement and the ones you made preceeding it. Since I'm apparently stupid, can you please explain the relevence of the above statement, if its intent is NOT to say that they shouldn't be doing testing of screeners in a live system? Because the only purpose of that statement that I can think of would seem to an attempt to back up your belief that screeners shouldn't have fake bomb images to keep them on their toes.
How do I argue this with you when you refuse to accept a risk that's obvious? Security at airports isn't equiped with firearms just for show.
Why do you assume the first response of all screens would be to shoot the suspected bomber? Do cops always shot first? Or do they attempt other methods of stopping a suspect first?
If they think you've got a bomb and you may be in a position to set it off your life isn't worth a thing.
Ah, so you do think that they would just shoot first without attempting to get the suspect to stand down. What evidence do you have that this is how they would proceed? I provide the article as a counterpoint to prove my statement; that they would attempt other methods to control the situtation before attempting to shoot anyone.
Now you're telling me why I chose something as if you could presume to read my mind you arrogant troll.
Take a look how you're coming off. You seem to think there's so much danger in the situation in the article that they'd just shoot first all the time. Yet you present NO facts whatsoever to support that fear. You keep mentioning how dangerous it is to put in fake bomb images, yet provide nothing to back up that it is dangerous. You instead say that they don't fake emgergencies on an actual flight to backup your argument. Its pretty clear you're trying to say its just as dangerous to have the test imagines during screening as it would be
Irrelevent. I didn't have any control over what my parents did or didn't do.
and the kids that you wish 'not to put up with' will be the ones that keep the country going once you're old and decrepit?
Again irrelevent. I'm sure they will want to take their significate other to an R rated movie too and not have a kid screaming in the front row; or to a nice bar / restraunt and not have a kid climbing over their seat and staring at them.
Stop pretending its ok for kids to distrupt what other people do or ruin a night out; its not. Its just lazy parenting, period.
I'm saying that they should probably keep the kid at home to care for it... espeically given the kids condition. He threw in that his kid has downs for a sympothy ploy.
Reading some of these comments is just depressing.
I was friends with someone that had MS for a few years. We stopped being friends when he died. Its a pretty horrific disease to live through, and while he did have some happy times, most of the time he was pretty upset. He was aware of what was going on you know.
Whats depressing is bringing a person into the world who's life will be mostly suffering, misery and not getting to do all the things that they see everyone else doing. It isn't always better to be alive you know.
FInally, child care is not always available at all points in time, so parents do have to bring their children places sometimes. We can't all afford a full time nanny, and certainly not one that has the skills to deal with my 1 year old daughter with Downs syndrome.
So one of you stay home. They have tests to screen for Downs before birth you know?
In this case no one was hurt but they do shoot suspected suicide bombers if you haven't heard.
Name one such incident that occured here in the US (since this bug only applies to US screeners).
As for analogies being awful and always being avoided that's a very extreme point of view.
Agreed, and thats not what I said, is it? I never said they were always awful, nor did I say they should always be avoided.
There are literally millions of learned men throughout the ages that would disagree with you, but since they don't count I'm not so arrogant I think my point of view will sway you.
Your argument won't say me because you didn't even comprehend what I had said. Stop trying to rewrite what I wrote; it just makes you look like an ass, because my actual statements are there for everyone else to read.
However I will point out I didn't start with the analogies and that you only attacked the analogies that didn't support your point of view.
You did however continue you with them. I don't respond to every single post everyone makes on this site; I picked your analogy because it was an exceptionally poor one.
First, your the hypothetical situtation you propose is fundamentally different than the one the article discusses. The difference is the risk involved with having a false bomb image come up in a screening vs. simulating an emergency on a real flight. had you picked an analogy with similar risks, it would have been more valid.
Second, you purposefully chose 'emergency on a plane in flight' to provoke emotions of fear and panic. You want those same emotions to apply to what really happened in the article. What you are really trying to do is sway people by emotion rather than a logical argument, hoping that people won't notice that the danger of similating an emergency on a real flight is actually much greater than doing so in the events the article describes.
People think they have a right to buy a house and have the property value rise forever. They should instead view it for what it is; a risky investment.
Personally I much prefered the Red Alert series. I have to admit though, I never got much chance to play the original c&c. RA2 was the best for me. Generals was fun, but it was defaintly more complex.
Some are not. I think the civil rights protests in the 60s were fairly disruptive. Strikes (a form of protest) can also be very disruptive as well.
Yelling at the president of an oppresive regime is perfectly called for I would think. And pretty peaceful. It kinda wrecks the speeches they had, but oh well, we do have freedom of speech here, after all (unlike China).
To use your own example you don't simulate in flight emergencies on real flights.
Because failure to handle the situation a flight would probably lead to loss of life.
In this case however, a fake image was put up without the test message. The result is that the terminal was closed, but that didn't cause any loss of life. There are only two reasons an image of a bomb would appear; either its a real bomb, or its a test. In either event, you need to follow the same procedures.
That the terminal was closed because the test message didn't appear is perfectly acceptable; indeed, it shows that the security personnal do indeed have it together should the real event ever come to pass.
Analogies are almost always awful, and should be avoided whenever possible.
I'm disappointed as well that they have any involvement with Clear Channel. However, while they will start playing commercials on 5 channels, they added 10 other music free channels. Also, the commerical music channels are in their own seperate category so that you can pretty easily avoid them. XM also STILL has more commercial free music channels than Sirius.
So that, plus the fact that Sirius is blowing lots of money on a hasbeen (Stern) and technologically is way behind, I still would prefer XM over Sirius. It was only recently that Sirius stock was upgraded to neutral.
If you know the policy of every place where you live, you either don't live in a city like you said, or you are a fucking liar. Considering your previous untruths, I'll assume the second.
Its not a very big city; just over half a million people, and very compact (due to anti-spraw laws). My wife and I eat out alot (or we did) and pretty much all of the restraunts / bars worth eating at allowed smoking. This was backed up by a study done when the smoking ban was presented. I haven't said anything untrue, you're the one making things up.
Will? WILL Talk about lies. If I smoke near someone and they get a whiff of my smoke, THEY WILL NOT GET HEALTH PROBLEMS BECAUSE OF IT. Yours is complete bullshit, a totally alarmist statement, and just begging to be correctly called a troll.
Well then, I guess its ok if a little radation leaks out of a nuclear plant. Smoke has an immediate effect. I've actually become nausous after only being in a bar which allowed smoking for only 30 mins. By your argument I should be allowed to slap you, because it doesn't cause any permenate harm. Oh, go read some studies by the way; second hand smoke is almost always worse then sucking on the cigerrete itself.
Stupid, eh? I'm not the one that thinks he has the right to remain unoffended.
Yes stupid, we aren't talking about being offended, we are talking about you putting poision the air i'm breathing. Claiming that smoking is simply offensive is exteremly stupid. Add some rat poision to your friends drink, not enough to cause problems though. Then tell him, see how he reacts.
I'm not the one that thinks the United States has government-sponsored healthcare (hint: you don't pay for ANYONE'S cancer treatment).
Wrong. I pay healthcare premiums. There are smokers in every healthcare plan. Cancer treatment is expensive, thus causing premiums to be higher. At some point your health plan will drop you, and you'll be unable to get coverage elsewhere. The state then begins to foot the bill. This is exactly what's going on with my best friend's parents. His mom will be dead in a few years. Care to guess what right they exersised?
Fucking trolls... If you don't know anything about law or government, don't argue it. It just shows your own ignorance
Sorry, I'm not a troll, and you'd see that if you looked at my posting history. I do know about law and government; I know my city voted for a LAW banning smoking in public places, because we (the city) decided we didn't want to be poisioned by someone else's choices. Where in the constitution or any law does it say you have the right to HARM another person? It doesn't. and you still can smoke. Just not around me.
Then I would do well to avoid you as much as possible.
So lets get rid of rape and murder laws. After all, we can just avoid the kind of people that do those things too, can't we?
Which is what YOU should do, but you feel you should be able to walk anywhere on this Earth and smell nothing but flowers and puppies.
Yes, I feel I have the right to walk around and not be attacked, have my property stolen, or have someone poisioning the air I breath. Everyone has that right. But of course in your mind its always the victums fault isn't it? She had it coming to her, look how she dressed! He deserved to be mugged, he should have known not to take that turn!
If you continued to chase me and punch me, I'd get a restraining order.
Which is stupid, because if I chase and punch you, I should be arrested. I violated your rights and the law. FWIW, restraining orders don't mean shit, and they can't be applied because you don't like what someone does; you can only get one against a person putting you in some kind of danger. Ask any battered wife that left her husband, she'll tell you how effective those orders are. Off the record, the cop usually advises the woman to buy a gun.
It is actually. I noticed Vermont was alot nicer, but I couldn't put my finger on what made it different and scenic, even on the highways. My wife then told me they have a law banning billboards and limiting sign sizes.
Coming from near Philly, it was defaintly nice. The poconos should take note..
How has it become so accepted by people that we should be bombarded by advertising anywhere we go? So far, there are ways to kind of get around the stuff put into media (websites, TV, etc), but outside we're constantly hit by billboards, painted buses, etc. Where's the outrage? Come on people, let's get some giant protests going!
Apparently there was some outrage here in Vermont; they banned billboards and large signs. Its nice actually.
Slashdot Mirror
Given the vast number of home users MS has, this would seem to make sense.
I don't think so; Vista will have 2 versions for business use and 2 for home users. Doing this only for the business versions would make sense, but for home users more tightly configured firewall makes sense.
Having a popup appear when a program attempts to go out and asking if access should be allowed would seem like a fairly easy thing to do for home users.
But I would like to have confidence that if my kids go to the store they won't be able to purchase or rent something that I deem inappropriate for them.
Perhaps you should go to the store with them, instead of telling stores to do your parenting for you?
Too true. And I've got a completely mangled right shoulder blade as Exhibit A from exactly this thing happening to me (bicycle rather than a motorbike). To this day, I'd swear that not only did he see me, but that we'd made eye-contact and acknowledged each other's existence.
Maybe he assumed you'd follow the rules. Can you share more of the details (seriously)?
I know up here we have alot of bicycle riders that seem to think they can do whatever they want. They'll be in the traffic lane with you and pass on the right (which is bad if you're starting a right turn). When they are on sidewalks, they use the traffic signal instead of the pedestrian signals to see if they can go (or, more accurately, they just keep going no matter what, much like pedestrians).
Personally I think bikes should be confined to the sidewalk and obey pedestrian signals.. having them in the middle of 4 lane roads is just stupid.
Go and re-read what you wrote. It was intentionally vague. Turning around and being insulting doesn't suddenly make it clear.
Its not vague within the context of the discussion. You seem to have a problem keeping to the discussion at hand. Oh, may want to take your own advice by the way.
Things go wrong when people think their lives are in jeapoardy and the powers that be have decided that a shoot first and ask questions later approach to terrorism is for the greater good. That's on record. Go look it up.
Instead of telling me to look it up, how about you site your source? The article seems to suggest that shoot first ISN'T the policy. Or are you claiming that the security guards didn't follow thier instructions?
That's exactly what the orders were for the London plain clothes police that shot man in the London underground. Six or seven bullets to the head. It's not impossible. It's not unheard of. It has happened.
What happened in London isn't relevent here. They have different procedures, different culture, etc. Just because it can happen in London doesn't prove that it will happen here.
Now it hasn't happened in a US airport and baggage handlers haven't been involved. But add enough situations where it's got the potential to occur and it eventually will.
In this case I didn't mean baggage handlers do, but rather that airport security and the authorities are inclined to do so. If you're suspected of having a bomb, the baggage inspectors don't have to be the ones to shoot you. Try airport security or the FBI or an air marshall - you're just as dead.
Thank you, you finally are admitting that your fear is baseless.
Well you certainly didn't read about my pilot analogy because you attacked me with a clarification I'd already made elsewhere. Maybe not directly up this particular line but definitely in response to my own grandparent post.
Sorry, didn't go down that line. Your analogy sucks, and the fact that you had to clarify proves it.
I didn't say it's JUST as dangerous. I just said it's dangerous and presented another situation where you don't want to make the drills part of real operations. I was making a point. You're the one that's blown it out of proportion and decided to be literal about it.
Then why did you pick that analogy? Why didn't you pick one that was more appropriate? You said something was dangerous and to prove it you point out another situation which actually has more risk? Which is actually my point; YOUR ANALOGY SUCKED.
That's very funny - _I_ just bashed _you_. You didn't even take the time to read what I wrote and just decided my point of view was invalid and had to be ridiculued. You never bothered to try to understand what I was saying and there are other ways to interpret (sorry interperate) what you said.
Calling out your bad analogy is a far cry from accusing you of being a stupid troll wouldn't you say? You're still trying to bash me too; big fucking deal, i was typing fast and didn't get interpret correct. At least I'm not trying to argue in favor of a baseless fear using poor analogies.
Just admit that you don't really have a point and move on with your life. Since we've been responding you still have never presented on shread of evidence relevent to this topic that gives your fear any ground in reality.
Ahh, so Dell would never do things they aren't supposed to. Just like Geek Squad wouldn't use unlicensed software.. oh wait.
Name one incident where someone was wrongfully shot in the US? You're joking right?
Notice I said one such incident, which anyone with any reading comprehension at all would understand to mean 'name one incident where someone was shot by US TSA personal because of a false positive for explosives detection.'
Or are you saying that since no US screener ever shot anyone, this is irrelevant. Nice technique: define a group or situation small enough and then put the onus on me to go dig up information for you on anything similar because you know it's not worth that much of my time, and because it's not an exact match the argument is artificially weakened.
Its completely relevent. You do remember this line from your previous post, right? "In this case no one was hurt but they do shoot suspected suicide bombers if you haven't heard." Which was an attempt to say that your analogy of mock emergencies on a plane being equivelent to a false test positive given to screeners was valid. You're wrongly assuming they would just shoot someone for suspeicion that they were a bomber in the airport, but that assumtion has no basis in reality.
My analogy was made in the context of another post where I detailed exactly how pilots are drilled using a simulator. If you could be bothered to read the rest of what I'd written you'd have understood that and the analogy would have made more sense. Instead you didn't even read my other posts to understand the concepts. Remarkable for someone who repeatedly accuses me of not understanding their own posts. What's next "I know I am but what are you"? How old are you? 3?
From the post I responded to: To use your own example you don't simulate in flight emergencies on real flights. You do it in a controlled environment usually in a simulator. If you don't have access to that or want to do more realistic simulations you're very careful about recovery conditions (eg. you simulate an engine failure by throttling back to idle, but you don't actually cut your engine).
Sounds very much to me like you think there shouldn't be any tests in the 'real' screening, given that statement and the ones you made preceeding it. Since I'm apparently stupid, can you please explain the relevence of the above statement, if its intent is NOT to say that they shouldn't be doing testing of screeners in a live system? Because the only purpose of that statement that I can think of would seem to an attempt to back up your belief that screeners shouldn't have fake bomb images to keep them on their toes.
How do I argue this with you when you refuse to accept a risk that's obvious? Security at airports isn't equiped with firearms just for show.
Why do you assume the first response of all screens would be to shoot the suspected bomber? Do cops always shot first? Or do they attempt other methods of stopping a suspect first?
If they think you've got a bomb and you may be in a position to set it off your life isn't worth a thing.
Ah, so you do think that they would just shoot first without attempting to get the suspect to stand down. What evidence do you have that this is how they would proceed? I provide the article as a counterpoint to prove my statement; that they would attempt other methods to control the situtation before attempting to shoot anyone.
Now you're telling me why I chose something as if you could presume to read my mind you arrogant troll.
Take a look how you're coming off. You seem to think there's so much danger in the situation in the article that they'd just shoot first all the time. Yet you present NO facts whatsoever to support that fear. You keep mentioning how dangerous it is to put in fake bomb images, yet provide nothing to back up that it is dangerous. You instead say that they don't fake emgergencies on an actual flight to backup your argument. Its pretty clear you're trying to say its just as dangerous to have the test imagines during screening as it would be
Maybe because you too were a kid once
Irrelevent. I didn't have any control over what my parents did or didn't do.
and the kids that you wish 'not to put up with' will be the ones that keep the country going once you're old and decrepit?
Again irrelevent. I'm sure they will want to take their significate other to an R rated movie too and not have a kid screaming in the front row; or to a nice bar / restraunt and not have a kid climbing over their seat and staring at them.
Stop pretending its ok for kids to distrupt what other people do or ruin a night out; its not. Its just lazy parenting, period.
No,
I'm saying that they should probably keep the kid at home to care for it... espeically given the kids condition. He threw in that his kid has downs for a sympothy ploy.
Reading some of these comments is just depressing.
I was friends with someone that had MS for a few years. We stopped being friends when he died. Its a pretty horrific disease to live through, and while he did have some happy times, most of the time he was pretty upset. He was aware of what was going on you know.
Whats depressing is bringing a person into the world who's life will be mostly suffering, misery and not getting to do all the things that they see everyone else doing. It isn't always better to be alive you know.
I chose not to be. Why do people with kids feel like everyone has put up with something they chose not to have anything to do with?
FInally, child care is not always available at all points in time, so parents do have to bring their children places sometimes. We can't all afford a full time nanny, and certainly not one that has the skills to deal with my 1 year old daughter with Downs syndrome.
So one of you stay home. They have tests to screen for Downs before birth you know?
Odd, because the resale agreement with MS I believe dictates that they MUST give a copy of the disc.
That's not the President's job nor is he supposed to be allowed to do so.
He can draft a bill, just like anyone else can, and submit it to Congress. Voting into law, that's what he's not allowed to do.
In this case no one was hurt but they do shoot suspected suicide bombers if you haven't heard.
Name one such incident that occured here in the US (since this bug only applies to US screeners).
As for analogies being awful and always being avoided that's a very extreme point of view.
Agreed, and thats not what I said, is it? I never said they were always awful, nor did I say they should always be avoided.
There are literally millions of learned men throughout the ages that would disagree with you, but since they don't count I'm not so arrogant I think my point of view will sway you.
Your argument won't say me because you didn't even comprehend what I had said. Stop trying to rewrite what I wrote; it just makes you look like an ass, because my actual statements are there for everyone else to read.
However I will point out I didn't start with the analogies and that you only attacked the analogies that didn't support your point of view.
You did however continue you with them. I don't respond to every single post everyone makes on this site; I picked your analogy because it was an exceptionally poor one.
First, your the hypothetical situtation you propose is fundamentally different than the one the article discusses. The difference is the risk involved with having a false bomb image come up in a screening vs. simulating an emergency on a real flight. had you picked an analogy with similar risks, it would have been more valid.
Second, you purposefully chose 'emergency on a plane in flight' to provoke emotions of fear and panic. You want those same emotions to apply to what really happened in the article. What you are really trying to do is sway people by emotion rather than a logical argument, hoping that people won't notice that the danger of similating an emergency on a real flight is actually much greater than doing so in the events the article describes.
People think they have a right to buy a house and have the property value rise forever. They should instead view it for what it is; a risky investment.
Personally I much prefered the Red Alert series. I have to admit though, I never got much chance to play the original c&c. RA2 was the best for me. Generals was fun, but it was defaintly more complex.
Some are not. I think the civil rights protests in the 60s were fairly disruptive. Strikes (a form of protest) can also be very disruptive as well.
Yelling at the president of an oppresive regime is perfectly called for I would think. And pretty peaceful. It kinda wrecks the speeches they had, but oh well, we do have freedom of speech here, after all (unlike China).
To use your own example you don't simulate in flight emergencies on real flights.
Because failure to handle the situation a flight would probably lead to loss of life.
In this case however, a fake image was put up without the test message. The result is that the terminal was closed, but that didn't cause any loss of life. There are only two reasons an image of a bomb would appear; either its a real bomb, or its a test. In either event, you need to follow the same procedures.
That the terminal was closed because the test message didn't appear is perfectly acceptable; indeed, it shows that the security personnal do indeed have it together should the real event ever come to pass.
Analogies are almost always awful, and should be avoided whenever possible.
She's charged with disorderly conduct.
You do realize that any protest inherently involves disorderly conduct, right?
they added 10 other music free channels.
Doh, that should be 10 other commerical free music channels...
I'm disappointed as well that they have any involvement with Clear Channel. However, while they will start playing commercials on 5 channels, they added 10 other music free channels. Also, the commerical music channels are in their own seperate category so that you can pretty easily avoid them. XM also STILL has more commercial free music channels than Sirius.
So that, plus the fact that Sirius is blowing lots of money on a hasbeen (Stern) and technologically is way behind, I still would prefer XM over Sirius. It was only recently that Sirius stock was upgraded to neutral.
If you know the policy of every place where you live, you either don't live in a city like you said, or you are a fucking liar. Considering your previous untruths, I'll assume the second.
Its not a very big city; just over half a million people, and very compact (due to anti-spraw laws). My wife and I eat out alot (or we did) and pretty much all of the restraunts / bars worth eating at allowed smoking. This was backed up by a study done when the smoking ban was presented. I haven't said anything untrue, you're the one making things up.
Will? WILL Talk about lies. If I smoke near someone and they get a whiff of my smoke, THEY WILL NOT GET HEALTH PROBLEMS BECAUSE OF IT. Yours is complete bullshit, a totally alarmist statement, and just begging to be correctly called a troll.
Well then, I guess its ok if a little radation leaks out of a nuclear plant. Smoke has an immediate effect. I've actually become nausous after only being in a bar which allowed smoking for only 30 mins. By your argument I should be allowed to slap you, because it doesn't cause any permenate harm. Oh, go read some studies by the way; second hand smoke is almost always worse then sucking on the cigerrete itself.
Stupid, eh? I'm not the one that thinks he has the right to remain unoffended.
Yes stupid, we aren't talking about being offended, we are talking about you putting poision the air i'm breathing. Claiming that smoking is simply offensive is exteremly stupid. Add some rat poision to your friends drink, not enough to cause problems though. Then tell him, see how he reacts.
I'm not the one that thinks the United States has government-sponsored healthcare (hint: you don't pay for ANYONE'S cancer treatment).
Wrong. I pay healthcare premiums. There are smokers in every healthcare plan. Cancer treatment is expensive, thus causing premiums to be higher. At some point your health plan will drop you, and you'll be unable to get coverage elsewhere. The state then begins to foot the bill. This is exactly what's going on with my best friend's parents. His mom will be dead in a few years. Care to guess what right they exersised?
Fucking trolls... If you don't know anything about law or government, don't argue it. It just shows your own ignorance
Sorry, I'm not a troll, and you'd see that if you looked at my posting history. I do know about law and government; I know my city voted for a LAW banning smoking in public places, because we (the city) decided we didn't want to be poisioned by someone else's choices. Where in the constitution or any law does it say you have the right to HARM another person? It doesn't. and you still can smoke. Just not around me.
Then I would do well to avoid you as much as possible.
So lets get rid of rape and murder laws. After all, we can just avoid the kind of people that do those things too, can't we?
Which is what YOU should do, but you feel you should be able to walk anywhere on this Earth and smell nothing but flowers and puppies.
Yes, I feel I have the right to walk around and not be attacked, have my property stolen, or have someone poisioning the air I breath. Everyone has that right. But of course in your mind its always the victums fault isn't it? She had it coming to her, look how she dressed! He deserved to be mugged, he should have known not to take that turn!
If you continued to chase me and punch me, I'd get a restraining order.
Which is stupid, because if I chase and punch you, I should be arrested. I violated your rights and the law. FWIW, restraining orders don't mean shit, and they can't be applied because you don't like what someone does; you can only get one against a person putting you in some kind of danger. Ask any battered wife that left her husband, she'll tell you how effective those orders are. Off the record, the cop usually advises the woman to buy a gun.
I am not about to follow you around blowing smoke
It is actually. I noticed Vermont was alot nicer, but I couldn't put my finger on what made it different and scenic, even on the highways. My wife then told me they have a law banning billboards and limiting sign sizes.
Coming from near Philly, it was defaintly nice. The poconos should take note..
XM satellite radio has lots of music!
How has it become so accepted by people that we should be bombarded by advertising anywhere we go? So far, there are ways to kind of get around the stuff put into media (websites, TV, etc), but outside we're constantly hit by billboards, painted buses, etc. Where's the outrage? Come on people, let's get some giant protests going!
Apparently there was some outrage here in Vermont; they banned billboards and large signs. Its nice actually.
I'm sure such TVs will fly off the shelves too.
Seriously, why would they waste time developing technology that no one will buy?