Huh. Busted not knowing my model numbers. I was unaware they had a Phenom with the L3 cache disabled. I really thought that was the point of Phenom over Athlon. Wonder why they didn't use an X4 Phenom with the usual 6MB L3 cache.
"...The FX-4170 supplants a lineup of chips known for their strong value, the Athlon II X4 series. Our legacy representative from that series actually bears the Phenom name, but under the covers, the Phenom II X4 850 employs the same silicon with slightly higher clocks."
and then:
"Only the FX-4170 outperforms the CPU it replaces, the Phenom II X4 850, whose lack of L3 cache and modest 3.3GHz clock frequency aren't doing it any favors."
How can I trust them if they are unaware of basic stuff any chip enthusiast should know? (The Phenom is the Athlon with level 3 cache. The Athlon has none.) They could have also touched on what the 2 AMD specific hotfixes were for.
I'm not shocked at the results, but I am skeptical of the degree of disparity.
Apple now gets all lists and documents on a (mobile) screen. And by God, I hope they are able to defend this patent long term.
Don't get me wrong, this might be the stupidest patent I have yet read about. (Admittedly, the bar is high for that.) But Apple doesn't license. I don't see how Android (or anybody else) can exist with this patent in place.
Which will hopefully, finally, force lawmakers to reform the patent system. I think Apple is secretly trying to break the existing patent system. If they weren't, they'd be happy to license like Microsoft. Unlike MS, Apple can compete just fine in a world without software patents. As can Samsung.
If they pull it off, I'll carry a sign to get teh Steve's face on Mt. Rushmore. I think this is one of the bigger issues our our times. Let's just hope Tim can carry Steve's torch..
Hm. They don't get much more conservative than my dad, and nobody ever bitched louder about lights left on. Also, he drove a Beetle, not a GTO. (I'm a bit older than you.) When he was young though, he rode a BSA. He drives a Yaris now.
Conservatism and conservation have the same root, do they not? If it was cheap, and not a piece of shit; dad would buy an electric car in a heartbeat.
Conservatives only pretend they want to use all the oil as fast as possible to bug the liberals. Given the choice, they'd "conserve" their own oil in the ground, and buy Arabian oil while it was cheap...
Of course they were. This is something, that costs them basically nothing, to contribute to the NATO alliance, that they were a part of.
The question was this: How many Danes survive if both Copenhagen and Reykjavik are nuked? By comparison; how many Americans survive if New York and a dozen other cities are nuked? The answer is: Lots.
They wanted in on the NATO alliance, at least as badly as we wanted them. We took advantage of their vulnerability; but that doesn't make their vulnerability any less real.
We even let their star Boy Scout spend a couple of summers there. (I wonder if they worked the shit out of him?)
"... I agree these tragic situations exist. I just question suggestions that such are the norm. Monsanto is one company,... Monsanto is not a representative company..."
Ok, stop with the political correctness: Monsanto has always been evil as shit.
The emotional sob story here is not intended to be the logical argument for patent reform. It is intended to be the motivation for the public to take up the cause, which can only be done emotionally. And a good job it does of it; I teared up when I saw the little girl. I haven't seen it mentioned here yet, but I think it's relevant; the little girl appears to have Down's Syndrome. Anybody who holds her back in any way, (especially for profit) is a freakin' monster, that I would gladly destroy with my bare hands given the chance. I say that as likely the most conservative capitalist to have ever posted on this board.
That kind of emotional argument cuts across party lines, politics, self-interest even; and gives the reformers a common cause; a good cause; to fight for. And quite the fight it will be. Software is language, and real reform means tossing software patents out the window. Software would still be copyright-able, obviously; but copyrights aren't quantifiable in dollars in the same way that patents are.
The politician(s) that sweep software patents off the table will be cutting billions of dollars of value off the top of American companies overnight. Many would be completely destroyed overnight. That would absolutely cause a recession, as yet another bubble of wealth evaporates into thin air. Not as big, I don't think, as this recession caused by the housing bubble; perhaps around the same scale as the wake of the dot com bubble. There's really no knowing in advance though. But it would be years before increased productivity and innovation offset the loss of the current values (and tax base) of software patents.
Which politician is ready to do such a thing? Gingrich mentioned it, and we see how far out in the weeds he is, with no chance of either being elected to anything; or of a more popular politician picking up the cause and the support that goes with it. It will take a populist, with overwhelming public support (and less baggage perhaps), to get the kind of reform through that will do any good. Think Teddy Roosevelt. Of course, in the end, Washington ran him out of town on a rail too..
You point me to user installed trojans? And the auto-start worm from 1998? Seriously?
That that laughable list is the best an AV industry sponsored rag could do, well it's not helping you, man.
I never heard of AppleScript.THT (like an extension means fuck-all to the mac). I guess that means nothing either. But you didn't point out any virus, or even a decent worm, on the mac since the 90s.
Ignorant disinformation. I don't know what you trialed from Avast, but the free version is the bomb.
Once a year, you have to register. They want to know it's for a home, not a business PC; they want your email name and state even. I may have given them my phone number. When you do that, they will try to upsell you a fancy firewall spyware package. It's not a bad deal as granny internet packages go; but I don't feel the need for all that on my WoW and Chrome appliance. So I click the "No Thanks" button, and re-register my free AV, for the 4th year in a row at least. It's been a long time..
Avast doesn't slow your system down at all. It's main feature is "Silent/Gaming Mode", which of course I have on. That means I hear from it exactly once a year, when it's time to re-register. the two exceptions to that have been: The one time it actually caught something, a Word file from the internet. It put it in it's little piratey treasure chest for me to geek out over. When I was done with that, I clicked the "Delete" button. Kind of anti-climatic, really. The other time, it felt the need to scan a Steam game in real time as I was playing it, causing 3 second freezes every 20 seconds. While I was in that match, I clicked the task bar thingy and selected "Disable for 1 hour" in the Avast real-time shields control. Game was instantly fixed; so after the match, I went into exceptions and exempted the Steam folder from Avast's shields. I did the same thing for Warcraft, although I never noticed any problems or difference in WoW before or after.
If I sound like a paid shill; well, I have been paid. They have bought me, thoroughly and completely; and I feel as if I am in their debt. Years of free kick-ass AV, in return for a minor amount of marketing info and a once-a -year soft upsell attempt. Companies like Avast, I can count on one hand..
"...Because two of the four Macs at my workplace have had viruses..."
Bullshit. I'd challenge you to name the Mac viruses (more than one, really?); but we all know there isn't any such thing since before there was a/. Maybe you were hosting under System 6.0.8..
.. In cases where you are aware of the punishment and do it nevertheless; deterrence was again pointless...
Logic flaw. All we know from this statement, is that the deterrent was insufficient, and the perp decided he could afford it. Pointless implies a value of zero; when in reality, the value was somewhere between zero and adequate deterrence.
Only in the cases of true lunatics, such as those that kill themselves at the end of their spree, or try for death by cop (Jared Loughner); can it be reasonably argued that no deterrent would have sufficed.
The fact that most murderers attempt to get away with it, proves that there was some deterrent that would have worked. Apparently, they feel that they do, indeed, have something to lose by getting caught.
Don't hurt yourself too much. Pure libertarianism is about as viable as pure communism. Both have the laudable goal of freeing the common man from oppression.
I wonder if it isn't the common man's lot to always be oppressed to some extent; and money and power will always be worth, well, money and power.
"... Computers that are getting much older however still function well and runs modern software..." and "... Every new version adds a bit more of a wow factor..."
You busted me. My "computer" is a Chrome and WoW appliance.
Bah. As we see from this latest primary, each candidate is destroyed in turn as the public begins to consider them. Apparently, our "choice" was Romney all along, and we'll get to "choose" between him and a guy I can't tell a difference from Bush. Well, except there were jobs in the first half of Bush at least.
I love the gp's "capitalism" remark up there. People fall for that shit; that capitalism is some real thing. "Capitalism", is simply free people, and their money. Take away either freedom or money from the people, and that by definition destroys capitalism. That doesn't destroy the rich of course. Oh, you'll get a few; widows and others who didn't earn the money; you can soak them for 50% tax rates. But most of the rich are good with money, and you're not going to trick them out of it. Not with taxes or surcharges or estate taxes... There is a way to take the rich's money. Look to the French and Bolshevik revolutions for recent examples.
TLDR, they killed them all, and their families. It was bad. Counterproductive for the working class you might say. Short of drastic shit like that, you're never going to take enough from the rich to satisfy you.
The best thing for us working stiffs, is to get them to spend it. Generates taxes all along the way, opportunity is spread, wealth is spread, stuff is made, wealth is then created out of sunshine, dirt, and time... yada. Sure, suckers like you and I have to work for a tiny piece of it, by selling our labor; but it's been that way for 10,000 years at least, and we are not going to see the end of that. I work for someone richer than me, as do you (if you work) and the others here. When the working class is deprived of the opportunity to labor for the rich in relative freedom; well North Korea is a solid example. There are other, less extreme examples.
What we finally have in this country, or are pretty close to, is a truly level playing field; where all it takes to be the rich and powerful, is the money itself. Gone are hereditary rulers, racial qualifications, whatever; all you need is the money. That's as fair as it gets. So stop with this class warfare crap.
It is true that rich recently are not spending their money. They are hoarding it. Can't imagine a different outcome, when you threaten to raise taxes (a lot) for 3 years, but then never actually fucking raise taxes. I mean, what do you expect? At least if you had actually raised them; the rich would know how much they have to hide and what they can spend, and get on with things. But they're not spending crap right now; thus getting richer. Now, if you could do the opposite; raise taxes, but don't talk about taxes, and nobody really even notices you raised them, so they go on spending about the same as they did before... Well that would be best, wouldn't it?
I loved the recent ads the Dems ran against tax cutters. They say: Reagan may have cut taxes twice; but he raised them nine times. I was there, and I felt that second tax cut in my minimum-wage paycheck. I never felt or even knew about the 9 increases. I don't remember him talking about that. Funny that, I remember: across the board tax cuts, closing loopholes for the rich, evil empire, jellybeans... Never a word about, 'I'm raising taxes nine times'...
Brilliant! Fucking genius. So let me get this straight: You promise them something good, give them some pittance of deliverance on said promise; and then go do your fucking job, and do what you need to do to run the country. Without scaring anybody. Good job, Reagan.
What is Capitalism? It's simply free people, and their money. Anything else, is not freedom.
Btw, what we have in the US (and the West), is the barely functioning remains of what once was capitalism.. Or, you could make the argument that we recently passed from barely functional to not quite functional. Without functioning capitalism (freedom), we slowly regress to a state controlled economy (serfdom).
Some of the deaths were surfers. One at least was a heart attack. Just sayin.
Re:Nothing to see here, please move along...
on
Ask Kevin Mitnick
·
· Score: 1
Boo. He was great. A real artist.
His best hack was the McDonalds drive thru speaker. He had the manager frothing around the parking lot while the speaker mocked him in real time, in front of the customers. Priceless.
These were armed men raised in a culture where bullying was far more acceptable than it now is,
Um, no; you've got that backwards. Bullying is more accepted now than it was back in the day. Which is why we've got national anti-bullying campaigns, increases in teen suicides, and stuff like the TSA. People aren't allowed to stand up for themselves anymore.
Back in the day, you picked up a board or a chair or whatever and you whacked the bully over the head and you stood up for yourself. And, it was quite common for the parents of the bully (who almost always spoiled the kid) to complain that their kid got beat up at school the one time some twerp stood up to them. But then again, back in the day, the school didn't freak out over such things; both the bully and twerp would probably get licks/detention hall and that was the end of it. Except that now that particular twerp was no fun to pick on anymore, so the bully would move along. Or sometimes, he might just quit bullying altogether because it ceased to be fun when the whole school heard about how the twerp stood up to him. That's how all the other twerps in the school could be saved by a single heroic act. But the zero tolerance rules nowadays ensure that the good kids won't risk expulsion, which includes parents possibly losing their jobs, and so do what they can to live with the bullying.
Without that "natural" bully control (there's always gonna be bullies), bullying runs unchecked (bullies always get away with it as far as adults knowing) and you've got kids so scared they feel the need to bring a gun to school, or just skip it altogether. And it's the same epiphany that causes both confrontation of bullies and suicide: "I'd rather die than continue living like this." But when kids are allowed, encouraged and empowered to stand up for themselves, the correct resolution of "I'm gonna make the bully either kill me or leave me alone." comes to mind; rather than the "I'll save everyone the trouble" thought that comes too often nowadays.
This woman was horrifically bullied, the same way millions of Americans allow themselves to be bullied by the TSA daily. Since the victim in this case is just about the most vulnerable member of society we have, we're acting all shocked and shit. Don't even pretend there is or was any possibility that she is a terrorist. A quick look at her and who she was traveling with reveals the absolute zero chance that she had a bomb with her. That's the most stupid part of this whole thing; like here, in this one case, the TSA went too far. Well, of course they did. Beyond the most outrageous fiction you could make up too far. But that's the new normal.
We don't mind being bullied now, especially in the name of safety. As long as we're bullied somewhat equally.
Slashdot Mirror
Very nice.
Huh. Busted not knowing my model numbers. I was unaware they had a Phenom with the L3 cache disabled. I really thought that was the point of Phenom over Athlon. Wonder why they didn't use an X4 Phenom with the usual 6MB L3 cache.
Hm. First there is:
"...The FX-4170 supplants a lineup of chips known for their strong value, the Athlon II X4 series. Our legacy representative from that series actually bears the Phenom name, but under the covers, the Phenom II X4 850 employs the same silicon with slightly higher clocks."
and then:
"Only the FX-4170 outperforms the CPU it replaces, the Phenom II X4 850, whose lack of L3 cache and modest 3.3GHz clock frequency aren't doing it any favors."
How can I trust them if they are unaware of basic stuff any chip enthusiast should know? (The Phenom is the Athlon with level 3 cache. The Athlon has none.) They could have also touched on what the 2 AMD specific hotfixes were for.
I'm not shocked at the results, but I am skeptical of the degree of disparity.
Apple now gets all lists and documents on a (mobile) screen. And by God, I hope they are able to defend this patent long term.
Don't get me wrong, this might be the stupidest patent I have yet read about. (Admittedly, the bar is high for that.) But Apple doesn't license. I don't see how Android (or anybody else) can exist with this patent in place.
Which will hopefully, finally, force lawmakers to reform the patent system. I think Apple is secretly trying to break the existing patent system. If they weren't, they'd be happy to license like Microsoft. Unlike MS, Apple can compete just fine in a world without software patents. As can Samsung.
If they pull it off, I'll carry a sign to get teh Steve's face on Mt. Rushmore. I think this is one of the bigger issues our our times. Let's just hope Tim can carry Steve's torch..
I am quite nearsighted, which means at about 8 inches, I have extraordinary visual acuity. It borders on being a super power.
So I could almost fill my field of vision with a movie, and still not be able to pick out pixels and such.
Of course, I can do that now, with my glasses on, on my 23", so... Still, neat.
Hm. They don't get much more conservative than my dad, and nobody ever bitched louder about lights left on. Also, he drove a Beetle, not a GTO. (I'm a bit older than you.) When he was young though, he rode a BSA. He drives a Yaris now.
Conservatism and conservation have the same root, do they not? If it was cheap, and not a piece of shit; dad would buy an electric car in a heartbeat.
Conservatives only pretend they want to use all the oil as fast as possible to bug the liberals. Given the choice, they'd "conserve" their own oil in the ground, and buy Arabian oil while it was cheap...
Of course they were. This is something, that costs them basically nothing, to contribute to the NATO alliance, that they were a part of.
The question was this: How many Danes survive if both Copenhagen and Reykjavik are nuked? By comparison; how many Americans survive if New York and a dozen other cities are nuked? The answer is: Lots.
They wanted in on the NATO alliance, at least as badly as we wanted them.
We took advantage of their vulnerability; but that doesn't make their vulnerability any less real.
We even let their star Boy Scout spend a couple of summers there. (I wonder if they worked the shit out of him?)
"... I agree these tragic situations exist. I just question suggestions that such are the norm. Monsanto is one company, ... Monsanto is not a representative company..."
Ok, stop with the political correctness: Monsanto has always been evil as shit.
Does anyone dispute that?
The emotional sob story here is not intended to be the logical argument for patent reform. It is intended to be the motivation for the public to take up the cause, which can only be done emotionally. And a good job it does of it; I teared up when I saw the little girl. I haven't seen it mentioned here yet, but I think it's relevant; the little girl appears to have Down's Syndrome. Anybody who holds her back in any way, (especially for profit) is a freakin' monster, that I would gladly destroy with my bare hands given the chance. I say that as likely the most conservative capitalist to have ever posted on this board.
That kind of emotional argument cuts across party lines, politics, self-interest even; and gives the reformers a common cause; a good cause; to fight for. And quite the fight it will be. Software is language, and real reform means tossing software patents out the window. Software would still be copyright-able, obviously; but copyrights aren't quantifiable in dollars in the same way that patents are.
The politician(s) that sweep software patents off the table will be cutting billions of dollars of value off the top of American companies overnight. Many would be completely destroyed overnight. That would absolutely cause a recession, as yet another bubble of wealth evaporates into thin air. Not as big, I don't think, as this recession caused by the housing bubble; perhaps around the same scale as the wake of the dot com bubble. There's really no knowing in advance though. But it would be years before increased productivity and innovation offset the loss of the current values (and tax base) of software patents.
Which politician is ready to do such a thing? Gingrich mentioned it, and we see how far out in the weeds he is, with no chance of either being elected to anything; or of a more popular politician picking up the cause and the support that goes with it. It will take a populist, with overwhelming public support (and less baggage perhaps), to get the kind of reform through that will do any good. Think Teddy Roosevelt. Of course, in the end, Washington ran him out of town on a rail too..
Half the images in TFA were broken links. Of course, to Microsoft's credit, the broken link icons were scaling very nicely.
You point me to user installed trojans? And the auto-start worm from 1998? Seriously?
That that laughable list is the best an AV industry sponsored rag could do, well it's not helping you, man.
I never heard of AppleScript.THT (like an extension means fuck-all to the mac). I guess that means nothing either. But you didn't point out any virus, or even a decent worm, on the mac since the 90s.
Lies. 4+ year Avast free edition user.
Ignorant disinformation. I don't know what you trialed from Avast, but the free version is the bomb.
Once a year, you have to register. They want to know it's for a home, not a business PC; they want your email name and state even. I may have given them my phone number. When you do that, they will try to upsell you a fancy firewall spyware package. It's not a bad deal as granny internet packages go; but I don't feel the need for all that on my WoW and Chrome appliance. So I click the "No Thanks" button, and re-register my free AV, for the 4th year in a row at least. It's been a long time..
Avast doesn't slow your system down at all. It's main feature is "Silent/Gaming Mode", which of course I have on. That means I hear from it exactly once a year, when it's time to re-register. the two exceptions to that have been: The one time it actually caught something, a Word file from the internet. It put it in it's little piratey treasure chest for me to geek out over. When I was done with that, I clicked the "Delete" button. Kind of anti-climatic, really. The other time, it felt the need to scan a Steam game in real time as I was playing it, causing 3 second freezes every 20 seconds. While I was in that match, I clicked the task bar thingy and selected "Disable for 1 hour" in the Avast real-time shields control. Game was instantly fixed; so after the match, I went into exceptions and exempted the Steam folder from Avast's shields. I did the same thing for Warcraft, although I never noticed any problems or difference in WoW before or after.
If I sound like a paid shill; well, I have been paid. They have bought me, thoroughly and completely; and I feel as if I am in their debt. Years of free kick-ass AV, in return for a minor amount of marketing info and a once-a -year soft upsell attempt. Companies like Avast, I can count on one hand..
"...Because two of the four Macs at my workplace have had viruses ..."
Bullshit. I'd challenge you to name the Mac viruses (more than one, really?); but we all know there isn't any such thing since before there was a /. Maybe you were hosting under System 6.0.8..
.. In cases where you are aware of the punishment and do it nevertheless; deterrence was again pointless...
Logic flaw. All we know from this statement, is that the deterrent was insufficient, and the perp decided he could afford it. Pointless implies a value of zero; when in reality, the value was somewhere between zero and adequate deterrence.
Only in the cases of true lunatics, such as those that kill themselves at the end of their spree, or try for death by cop (Jared Loughner); can it be reasonably argued that no deterrent would have sufficed.
The fact that most murderers attempt to get away with it, proves that there was some deterrent that would have worked. Apparently, they feel that they do, indeed, have something to lose by getting caught.
"..For all intensive purposes, .."
Really? And with a uid so much lower than mine..
dang..
Don't hurt yourself too much. Pure libertarianism is about as viable as pure communism. Both have the laudable goal of freeing the common man from oppression.
I wonder if it isn't the common man's lot to always be oppressed to some extent; and money and power will always be worth, well, money and power.
"... Computers that are getting much older however still function well and runs modern software..." and "... Every new version adds a bit more of a wow factor..."
You busted me. My "computer" is a Chrome and WoW appliance.
Bah. As we see from this latest primary, each candidate is destroyed in turn as the public begins to consider them. Apparently, our "choice" was Romney all along, and we'll get to "choose" between him and a guy I can't tell a difference from Bush. Well, except there were jobs in the first half of Bush at least.
I love the gp's "capitalism" remark up there. People fall for that shit; that capitalism is some real thing. "Capitalism", is simply free people, and their money. Take away either freedom or money from the people, and that by definition destroys capitalism. That doesn't destroy the rich of course. Oh, you'll get a few; widows and others who didn't earn the money; you can soak them for 50% tax rates. But most of the rich are good with money, and you're not going to trick them out of it. Not with taxes or surcharges or estate taxes... There is a way to take the rich's money. Look to the French and Bolshevik revolutions for recent examples.
TLDR, they killed them all, and their families. It was bad. Counterproductive for the working class you might say. Short of drastic shit like that, you're never going to take enough from the rich to satisfy you.
The best thing for us working stiffs, is to get them to spend it. Generates taxes all along the way, opportunity is spread, wealth is spread, stuff is made, wealth is then created out of sunshine, dirt, and time... yada. Sure, suckers like you and I have to work for a tiny piece of it, by selling our labor; but it's been that way for 10,000 years at least, and we are not going to see the end of that. I work for someone richer than me, as do you (if you work) and the others here. When the working class is deprived of the opportunity to labor for the rich in relative freedom; well North Korea is a solid example. There are other, less extreme examples.
What we finally have in this country, or are pretty close to, is a truly level playing field; where all it takes to be the rich and powerful, is the money itself. Gone are hereditary rulers, racial qualifications, whatever; all you need is the money. That's as fair as it gets. So stop with this class warfare crap.
It is true that rich recently are not spending their money. They are hoarding it. Can't imagine a different outcome, when you threaten to raise taxes (a lot) for 3 years, but then never actually fucking raise taxes. I mean, what do you expect? At least if you had actually raised them; the rich would know how much they have to hide and what they can spend, and get on with things. But they're not spending crap right now; thus getting richer. Now, if you could do the opposite; raise taxes, but don't talk about taxes, and nobody really even notices you raised them, so they go on spending about the same as they did before... Well that would be best, wouldn't it?
I loved the recent ads the Dems ran against tax cutters. They say: Reagan may have cut taxes twice; but he raised them nine times. I was there, and I felt that second tax cut in my minimum-wage paycheck. I never felt or even knew about the 9 increases. I don't remember him talking about that. Funny that, I remember: across the board tax cuts, closing loopholes for the rich, evil empire, jellybeans... Never a word about, 'I'm raising taxes nine times'...
Brilliant! Fucking genius. So let me get this straight: You promise them something good, give them some pittance of deliverance on said promise; and then go do your fucking job, and do what you need to do to run the country. Without scaring anybody. Good job, Reagan.
... and if you try you'll get creosote in your chimney.
What is Capitalism? It's simply free people, and their money. Anything else, is not freedom.
Btw, what we have in the US (and the West), is the barely functioning remains of what once was capitalism.. Or, you could make the argument that we recently passed from barely functional to not quite functional. Without functioning capitalism (freedom), we slowly regress to a state controlled economy (serfdom).
"without jobs or wildlife or American flags waving in slow motion over a happy group of shrimpers"
Heh. nice one.
Some of the deaths were surfers. One at least was a heart attack. Just sayin.
Boo. He was great. A real artist.
His best hack was the McDonalds drive thru speaker. He had the manager frothing around the parking lot while the speaker mocked him in real time, in front of the customers. Priceless.
Leo and Woz like him, so he must be OK.
These were armed men raised in a culture where bullying was far more acceptable than it now is,
Um, no; you've got that backwards. Bullying is more accepted now than it was back in the day. Which is why we've got national anti-bullying campaigns, increases in teen suicides, and stuff like the TSA. People aren't allowed to stand up for themselves anymore.
Back in the day, you picked up a board or a chair or whatever and you whacked the bully over the head and you stood up for yourself. And, it was quite common for the parents of the bully (who almost always spoiled the kid) to complain that their kid got beat up at school the one time some twerp stood up to them. But then again, back in the day, the school didn't freak out over such things; both the bully and twerp would probably get licks/detention hall and that was the end of it. Except that now that particular twerp was no fun to pick on anymore, so the bully would move along. Or sometimes, he might just quit bullying altogether because it ceased to be fun when the whole school heard about how the twerp stood up to him. That's how all the other twerps in the school could be saved by a single heroic act. But the zero tolerance rules nowadays ensure that the good kids won't risk expulsion, which includes parents possibly losing their jobs, and so do what they can to live with the bullying.
Without that "natural" bully control (there's always gonna be bullies), bullying runs unchecked (bullies always get away with it as far as adults knowing) and you've got kids so scared they feel the need to bring a gun to school, or just skip it altogether. And it's the same epiphany that causes both confrontation of bullies and suicide: "I'd rather die than continue living like this." But when kids are allowed, encouraged and empowered to stand up for themselves, the correct resolution of "I'm gonna make the bully either kill me or leave me alone." comes to mind; rather than the "I'll save everyone the trouble" thought that comes too often nowadays.
This woman was horrifically bullied, the same way millions of Americans allow themselves to be bullied by the TSA daily. Since the victim in this case is just about the most vulnerable member of society we have, we're acting all shocked and shit. Don't even pretend there is or was any possibility that she is a terrorist. A quick look at her and who she was traveling with reveals the absolute zero chance that she had a bomb with her. That's the most stupid part of this whole thing; like here, in this one case, the TSA went too far. Well, of course they did. Beyond the most outrageous fiction you could make up too far. But that's the new normal.
We don't mind being bullied now, especially in the name of safety. As long as we're bullied somewhat equally.