If homosexually is genetic then by that same merit its also a biological imperfection and should be fixed (just as pedophilia and bestiality).
No. Doesn't follow. Homosexuals alter the balance of the sexes for reproductive purposes; they often provide a different and useful set of sensibilities to the community (Alan Turing, Isaac Newton, Plato, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Alan Turing, Francis Bacon, Henry David Thoreau...) If your thesis is that the only value proposition in the human race is that of reproduction, then you're just being silly. We're intelligent; we have our own uses for our fellows that go far beyond if they choose to breed or not.
If it's a choice then you shouldn't tell people what to choose so long as their freedom to make that choice doesn't infringe on other peoples well-being or freedom.
And if their "biological imperfection" doesn't infringe on other people's well being or freedom, and the "imperfect" person is well satisfied? Einstein could be viewed, using your simplistic "not the same as the rest of us" criteria as being afflicted with a "biological imperfection"... would you have "fixed" him? Or Alan Turing? I mean, really. You need to think this over a little more comprehensively.
The whole gay marriage debate is completely moronic on both sides.
Marriage, at present, is a state that alters access to health care, access to one's SO in the hospital, taxes and other issues. This is entirely aside from the warm and fuzzy feeling one might enjoy if "married" is a state one admires. Consequently, there are very practical reasons to seek (and not to seek) marriage. The obvious spit here is over the contractual and ritual components. Myself, I see no reason that marriage should provide any contractual elements at all. If you want the ritual and then choose to proclaim that the ritual means something to you, then by all means, have at it. If you want to enter into a contract with someone, you should do so. The mixing of the two is what makes marriage such a mess.
No, actually, our civilization depends upon our being able to meet challenges. This one (AGW) isn't going to be much of one at the level of civilization, and (a) we'll probably be emitting far less GHG because of a transition to electric vehicles and other-sourced electric replacements of petroleum burning (heat, generators, etc.) and so any contribution here will taper off; and (b) if the seas come up a bit, we'll move around a bit, in the course of which we'll build new stuff, probably a bit better and smarter.
But it's against human nature to let reason take over when you can execute a magnificent fuckarow instead. Hence, the climate change hysterics.
Oh, lookie... Moderators that disagree. Isn't that cute? I love me some abusive moderators. This is slashdot's strength, ladieez and gentlemen; hiding posts the mods disagree with. C'mon, mod me down some more. No, no, a little to the left. There you go. Ah!
Could it be that iPad apps provide services or user experiences that web pages (with or without HTML5 or Flash) don't?
Such as what? Sound? Browser. Movies? Browser. Movies with sound? Browser. Board games? Browser. Stills? Browser. Live Chat (probably with someone's grandmother, but..)? Browser. Escorts? Browser. Live sex shows? Browser. Purchase and/or contemplation of Realdolls? Browser. Buying sex toys? Browser.
Also, WRT stills, the iPhoto app can load up your iPad with enormous amounts of locally stored "whatever", and that also comes with every iPad. So to speak. Ahem.
Seriously, what do you imagine you're being, uh, "deprived" of here?
No, you just have to open Safari, which comes with every iPad -- it's the perfect porn delivery system, and Apple provides it for free. In, fact, I'd go so far as to say that if you can't find porn using Safari, you're too stupid to reliably remember to draw your next breath.
As to Apple's unwillingness to put porn in the app store itself, that's simply distasteful -- Jobs imposing his limited, socially crippled idea of what an app store should be... on his (Apple's) app store. He's not preventing any content from reaching you -- any content you imagine can be put on a web site, and Safari will deliver it (and very well, too.) He's just pretending to be socially acceptable to the mentally challenged, that's all.
All Ekstra Bladet has to do to get those "racy" chicks to you is pop them on a web site; google will find them in about five minutes, and you can find them a second later. So in no way are you stymied, nor is Ekstra Bladet.
By your reasoning the UK should have attacked the US a long time ago (well appart from we would have lost:D
I'm not saying we should do this. My point is more that we should NOT be doing what are *are* doing, because it's not addressing the problem. I'm trying to point out that we have not addressed the actual problem.
If a military solution is desired, then it needs to be directed at Saudi interests in order to accomplish anything along the lines of reducing terrorism. Personally, I think the *correct* solution is harden commercial aircraft cockpits, do a "Manhattan Project" on electric vehicles, close our borders to middle easterners altogether, bring home all military from all countries, including bases, and close middle eastern trade of petroleum products as soon as possible, all the while not screwing with our own citizen's liberties. But, I have to say, very few people agree with me.
I am really not sure what you are proposing the US does about Saudi Arabia
As above. I'm just pointing out that what we *are* doing is nonsensical.
I have have no idea what you want to try to do in Saudi Arabia
I want to stop trading with them. Because in the end, we are funding the terrorists, not to mention their Islamic superstitions and goat-age legal and social leanings.
If, however, a military solution is desired, then the answer is bomb them thoroughly from the air, then fly away and let them sift through the rubble to see if they can still find their rich investors, their clerics, and their mosques. If it turns out they can, then bomb them again. It's inexpensive and quite effective.
The solution is not to put soldiers on the ground. That's just a way to screw up our economy. Same thing applies(ied) to Iraq and Afghanistan: as soon as boots hit the ground, we had screwed ourselves. The only thing that should hit the ground in these types of military actions is explosives. Again, though, I don't think that's a good choice. Just a better one than they have made thus far.
See, there are four distinct problems here.
First, we're doing the wrong thing militarily WRT terrorism. It simply isn't going to accomplish anything useful. Strategically (and tactically), it's a complete failure. All it does is steer taxpayer money to militarily-associated corporate interests; that's not a viable long term financial strategy, because it only funds a fraction of our economy.
Second, we're deceiving our own citizens, who are unfortunately quite easily deceived. This is a failure of the governing system to do the right thing at home.
Third, we're destroying our economy by channeling such large amounts of money into pointless, fruitless military action with no financial return now or ever.
Fourth, we're destroying (have destroyed) the foundations of liberty that gave our country's actions at least a veneer of legitimacy; torture? We don't do that. Well, yeah, actually, we do. Imprisonment without due process? We don't do that. Well... yeah, now we do. PAPERS PLEASE! We don't do that! Well, yeah, now we do. Monitoring your communications, banking, spending, email... we don't do that! Yeah, actually, we do. Fixed elections! We don't... yes in fact we do. Class system... we would never... well, yeah, in fact its pretty much a given. Etc., for quite a disappointingly long list of sad facts. The republic is dead, existing only in memory, and a rather distasteful plutocracy has arisen.
Most of what I write is to point out the problems in the current course of action, often seasoned with a pointed description of how it should have gone if said course of action was actually aimed at achieving the publicly announced goal.
I'm just venting, of course. Nothing I say here will change anything; the government isn't accessible to citizens, the citizens themselves aren't well educated as to the issues of liberty, and even if they were, the political system is now completely rigged.
Honestly, it's been years since I've come face to face with a (foreign) tourist. I think that ship has sailed. No, sunk.
Also, I think airlines are already down to a combination of "must fly" and "derp"; it's not going to get much worse for them. Heck, I quit flying long ago, and I don't see any hint of changes designed to lure me back.
They'll do ok, business-wise. Just as the government will be fine no matter how much they trample the constitution. People just aren't up for the hardships implicit in restoring the US to a constituional republic. The plutocracy is well established. We're just a few voices lost in the noise.
What I said is fact, and nothing in your reply did anything to contradict any of it. The attacks are the result of fundamentalist (or extremist, if you like) Islamist thought; the funding and the manpower came from Saudi.
WRT Bin Ladin, it matters not one whit where he is -- kill him, another will rise. The Bin Ladin hunt is just theater for the gullible. Say we caught him; It'd be like them capturing and/or killing Obama or Petraeus: all that would do is further annoy us. Either side would have a replacement in zip time. But if a leader has no funding, and has no stream of ready recruits, then he has nothing.
So you either take care of this at the source, which is definitely radical Islam within Saudi Arabia, or you haven't taken care of it at all.
Afghanistan and Iraq are meaningless here. The strictly represent a sink for military effort, which in turn is a huge financial boon to the corporate entities that control congress. In order to accomplish anything significant militarily, Islamic interests and power bases within Saudi Arabia have to be the objective.
If you can actually maintain the illusion that Afghanistan is the source of this problem, I'm sure there's nothing I can say or point to that will dissuade you - but that doesn't change the facts, which are plain and simple. The problem is Islam, it is centered in Saudi Arabia in both the financial (most important) and manpower senses. Either that gets addressed, or no solution is possible. Which shows up the Afghanistan and Iraq wars as no more than money-channeling theater. Not to mention a complete waste of American soldier's lives, not that such a thing matters to politicians other than as media opportunities.
You don't understand. First, this saves the airlines from losing money they've already invested. Second, the government spends YOUR money (taxes) on scanners, thus bolstering the security sector. Third, it nails down a precedent that degrades the liberties of the citizens.
No. The definition of reasonable is constitutionally explicit:...and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Were you presented with a warrant? Did they show probable cause to believe you were carrying something illicit? Someone swore or stood witness to that? There was a description of what they thought you were carrying?
That's what "reasonable" means. It isn't some vague, variable hand-waving thing the government gets to define one way on Tuesday and another in Hoboken.
Wait, what? Of the 19 hijackers, 15 were Saudi, 2 from UAE, 1 was Egyptian, and one was Lebanese. The funding came from Saudi Arabia, and continues to ome from Saudi Arabia from this day, as current US diplomatic cables explicitly lay out (the money quote: "Saudi donors remain the chief financiers of Sunni militant groups like Al Qaeda.") Afghanistan (and Iraq) had absolutely nothing to do with anything about 9/11 other than being places we could bomb the hell out of without compromising our petroleum supplies.
And before you start spouting any of that "but Al Qaeda was in Afghanistan" silliness, they're in a score of other countries too, most notably Saudi Arabia, where the attacks actually came from.
The plain fact is you can determine how needed this security is by dividing the cost by the lives it saves.
I don't think so. I think what you're looking at here is an attempt to save airline companies from loss of multi-million dollar chunks of hardware. Not an attempt to save people's lives. If the government is so hot to save lives, there are so many areas they could have been working to do so, but aren't; and there are many areas where they waste US lives profligately (Iraq, Afghaqnistan are good examples... spending money, lives, accomplishing absolutely nothing except corporate profit-making.) There's no evidence by actions that points to an attempt to save lives by the USG. On the other hand, attempts to resolve corporate concerns... constant, varied and extensive.
blow up a train and... there's no security to speak of.
Direct quote from Janet Napolitano: "I think the tighter we get on aviation, we have to also be thinking now about going on to mass transit or to trains or maritime. So, what do we need to be doing to strengthen our protections there?"
Stoping(sic) a terrorist with a bomb at a crowded TSA security checkpoint is too late.
Well, it would be if the goal was actually to save the people. But if the goal is to save the aircraft, it's not. Now, consider all the things the government has not spent money on to save people: Highway deaths, smoking, fast food, avoiding foreign wars... now, what do you think it is they are most likely trying to protect here: You? Or the airline?
about 7 percent of the adult male population is in prisons
Those people are the reason the legal industry here is so huge, the police, lawyers, courtroom elves, etc. Prisoners are not workers (and they never will be again, except at McDonalds, etc.) They are locked to the lowest class and will go back to prison because they are now unemployable in any serious capacity and cannot advance and so are locked into a life of crime (which they're generally not very good at... that's why they get caught in the first place.) They're resources for the legal industry, not employable people. Without our large prison population, our legal system would be a fraction of the size it is, and so would our economy. That's why it's so important to arrest as many people as possible for things that aren't really criminal under any sane definition of liberty. That way, there's sure to be enough "crime" to go around and keep the wheels turning.
Actually, the industry is rapidly realizing that offshoring only works in certain very limited situations
That has all the earmarks of wishful thinking. If it were true, the US job market for programmers and software engineers would look very different than it does. Right now, there are vast numbers of highly skilled unemployed programmers with lots of experience; the corporate tendency is almost universally to hire young and discard/ignore old, and consequently they get programmers that have very little depth... and who can reasonably be replaced by offshore programmers who also aren't very good. And make no mistake, this is about money: older programmers cost more, load the insurance programs more, and require a little more costly environment and certain perks to thrive -- they're not willing to live in an apartment with four buddies, they tend to have kids, houses, a spouse, medical bills, and so forth..
Yet, corporations posted record profits in 2010, and the sad fact is, they did it with the majority of good programmers sidelined. They gave consumers "applications" that are megabytes in size with kilobytes of functionality; "Applications" that consume enormous amounts of system resources to do jobs that literally needn't have strained a 1990's-era computer with four megs of memory; "Applications" that are "pretty", but really not very functional -- it's a rare consumer who actually wants/uses a high powered software tool, they typically use a fraction of what it can do and what we're typically seeing are terribly implemented crap-storms with those few features becoming the norm.
I'm sorry, but although my personal opinion of skilled programmers is very high, the actual reasonably-compensated marketplace for them is mostly limited to inside their own heads. Which in fact can work out; do your own thing, as Bruce said above, spend a few hundred bucks on a domain, and try; no, it usually won't work, but it's not a lot of money and you can learn from the experience. And...
Keep seriously trying, and eventually, something -- or several somethings -- will work. I speak from experience. It is unlikely that anyone would even consider paying me what I think my time is worth. And yes, I'm a really good programmer. A rockstar of sorts. Awards, board positions, mentions in engineering journals, lots of successful devices and software in the field both on my own and on behalf of my Former Corporate Masters, very wide range of experience... all that stuff. But I no longer need people to employ me. I went from wage slave to a condition most people only dream of precisely by trying one idea after another, and nurturing only those that made me money. Little enterprises, big ones, doesn't really matter. Positive cash flow is what matters, that and maintainance-free designs; you can't build up an "empire" that you spend all your time administering, you need to create things that will make money without your attention.
Under those conditions, ideas that only make a little money remain valuable; otherwise they smother you. Just as you have to be willing to try something, you have to be willing to kill it if it isn't holding up its own end of the deal by providing earnings. No matter how much you like the idea. The market will tell you if your idea is worth anything - that's a whole different kettle of fish from the idea being cool or neat. The more of these low or medium earners you can create, the better. Another benefit of this approach is that if one idea goes under after working for a while, it's not your entire enterprise, and your bottom line isn't crushed. And sometimes, you're lucky (or perhaps understand your markets) enough to come up with a high earner.
My advice to those who seek serious financial success is not to seek it under the umbrella of a corporation, but to build your success yourself, one inexpensive, careful brick at a time. Because unlike the previous poster, I see absolutely no signs of a resurgence in
In many cases, they are visible to drivers behind the car that is immediately behind you; this works against the tendency for pile-ups (of course, if these idiots would use an appropriate following distance, they'd be even better off, but city driving appears to make people really, really stupid.)
My point is that this comparison is irrelevant. Money should be spent on both, they're completely independent of one another.
Your point, taken to the limit, would have to be read as: The only thing worth spending money on is the one thing that saves the most lives, and all lesser life-saving efforts should be abandoned so that all effort could be concentrated on that maximally efficient effort to save lives.
But it isn't about efficiency; it's about trying to fix things in general. A society that only tried to fix one wrong thing, even if it is the largest wrong thing, would be pitiful. Likewise, a society that abandons the wrongly convicted would be pitiful.
I didn't say anything of the kind. What I said was:
"Personally, I wouldn't consider anyone who had been drinking at a party as someone you could make a legitimate sexual advance to, because they're clouding their ability to make decisions and they may not see things the same come the morrow -- and to me, "consensual" is half of what makes sex entertaining"
WRT Polanski, I told you why I don't think the case is sufficient. If he actually did what was reported, then I agree -- he deserves the hit. However, I don't see that an actually reasonable standard of proof was met (and no, I don't count plea bargains as admissions of guilt... they're just state-sponsored blackmail of the worst kind.)
But you go right on making hysterical accusations if it makes you feel better.
Slashdot Mirror
No. Doesn't follow. Homosexuals alter the balance of the sexes for reproductive purposes; they often provide a different and useful set of sensibilities to the community (Alan Turing, Isaac Newton, Plato, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Alan Turing, Francis Bacon, Henry David Thoreau...) If your thesis is that the only value proposition in the human race is that of reproduction, then you're just being silly. We're intelligent; we have our own uses for our fellows that go far beyond if they choose to breed or not.
And if their "biological imperfection" doesn't infringe on other people's well being or freedom, and the "imperfect" person is well satisfied? Einstein could be viewed, using your simplistic "not the same as the rest of us" criteria as being afflicted with a "biological imperfection"... would you have "fixed" him? Or Alan Turing? I mean, really. You need to think this over a little more comprehensively.
Marriage, at present, is a state that alters access to health care, access to one's SO in the hospital, taxes and other issues. This is entirely aside from the warm and fuzzy feeling one might enjoy if "married" is a state one admires. Consequently, there are very practical reasons to seek (and not to seek) marriage. The obvious spit here is over the contractual and ritual components. Myself, I see no reason that marriage should provide any contractual elements at all. If you want the ritual and then choose to proclaim that the ritual means something to you, then by all means, have at it. If you want to enter into a contract with someone, you should do so. The mixing of the two is what makes marriage such a mess.
No, actually, our civilization depends upon our being able to meet challenges. This one (AGW) isn't going to be much of one at the level of civilization, and (a) we'll probably be emitting far less GHG because of a transition to electric vehicles and other-sourced electric replacements of petroleum burning (heat, generators, etc.) and so any contribution here will taper off; and (b) if the seas come up a bit, we'll move around a bit, in the course of which we'll build new stuff, probably a bit better and smarter.
But it's against human nature to let reason take over when you can execute a magnificent fuckarow instead. Hence, the climate change hysterics.
You've been looking under their kilts again, I see...
Oh, lookie... Moderators that disagree. Isn't that cute? I love me some abusive moderators. This is slashdot's strength, ladieez and gentlemen; hiding posts the mods disagree with. C'mon, mod me down some more. No, no, a little to the left. There you go. Ah!
Such as what? Sound? Browser. Movies? Browser. Movies with sound? Browser. Board games? Browser. Stills? Browser. Live Chat (probably with someone's grandmother, but..)? Browser. Escorts? Browser. Live sex shows? Browser. Purchase and/or contemplation of Realdolls? Browser. Buying sex toys? Browser.
Also, WRT stills, the iPhoto app can load up your iPad with enormous amounts of locally stored "whatever", and that also comes with every iPad. So to speak. Ahem.
Seriously, what do you imagine you're being, uh, "deprived" of here?
I'll get that lazy bastard now... always slipping out of the office, taking breaks, calling in "sick"... yeah, I'll see to it that he... what? Eh? Oh.
Never mind, I've just been informed that I'm self-employed.
But they cause really pretty side effects, which I'm kind of addicted to photographing.
No, you just have to open Safari, which comes with every iPad -- it's the perfect porn delivery system, and Apple provides it for free. In, fact, I'd go so far as to say that if you can't find porn using Safari, you're too stupid to reliably remember to draw your next breath.
As to Apple's unwillingness to put porn in the app store itself, that's simply distasteful -- Jobs imposing his limited, socially crippled idea of what an app store should be... on his (Apple's) app store. He's not preventing any content from reaching you -- any content you imagine can be put on a web site, and Safari will deliver it (and very well, too.) He's just pretending to be socially acceptable to the mentally challenged, that's all.
All Ekstra Bladet has to do to get those "racy" chicks to you is pop them on a web site; google will find them in about five minutes, and you can find them a second later. So in no way are you stymied, nor is Ekstra Bladet.
I'm not saying we should do this. My point is more that we should NOT be doing what are *are* doing, because it's not addressing the problem. I'm trying to point out that we have not addressed the actual problem.
If a military solution is desired, then it needs to be directed at Saudi interests in order to accomplish anything along the lines of reducing terrorism. Personally, I think the *correct* solution is harden commercial aircraft cockpits, do a "Manhattan Project" on electric vehicles, close our borders to middle easterners altogether, bring home all military from all countries, including bases, and close middle eastern trade of petroleum products as soon as possible, all the while not screwing with our own citizen's liberties. But, I have to say, very few people agree with me.
As above. I'm just pointing out that what we *are* doing is nonsensical.
I want to stop trading with them. Because in the end, we are funding the terrorists, not to mention their Islamic superstitions and goat-age legal and social leanings.
If, however, a military solution is desired, then the answer is bomb them thoroughly from the air, then fly away and let them sift through the rubble to see if they can still find their rich investors, their clerics, and their mosques. If it turns out they can, then bomb them again. It's inexpensive and quite effective.
The solution is not to put soldiers on the ground. That's just a way to screw up our economy. Same thing applies(ied) to Iraq and Afghanistan: as soon as boots hit the ground, we had screwed ourselves. The only thing that should hit the ground in these types of military actions is explosives. Again, though, I don't think that's a good choice. Just a better one than they have made thus far.
See, there are four distinct problems here.
First, we're doing the wrong thing militarily WRT terrorism. It simply isn't going to accomplish anything useful. Strategically (and tactically), it's a complete failure. All it does is steer taxpayer money to militarily-associated corporate interests; that's not a viable long term financial strategy, because it only funds a fraction of our economy.
Second, we're deceiving our own citizens, who are unfortunately quite easily deceived. This is a failure of the governing system to do the right thing at home.
Third, we're destroying our economy by channeling such large amounts of money into pointless, fruitless military action with no financial return now or ever.
Fourth, we're destroying (have destroyed) the foundations of liberty that gave our country's actions at least a veneer of legitimacy; torture? We don't do that. Well, yeah, actually, we do. Imprisonment without due process? We don't do that. Well... yeah, now we do. PAPERS PLEASE! We don't do that! Well, yeah, now we do. Monitoring your communications, banking, spending, email... we don't do that! Yeah, actually, we do. Fixed elections! We don't... yes in fact we do. Class system... we would never... well, yeah, in fact its pretty much a given. Etc., for quite a disappointingly long list of sad facts. The republic is dead, existing only in memory, and a rather distasteful plutocracy has arisen.
Most of what I write is to point out the problems in the current course of action, often seasoned with a pointed description of how it should have gone if said course of action was actually aimed at achieving the publicly announced goal.
I'm just venting, of course. Nothing I say here will change anything; the government isn't accessible to citizens, the citizens themselves aren't well educated as to the issues of liberty, and even if they were, the political system is now completely rigged.
...later
Honestly, it's been years since I've come face to face with a (foreign) tourist. I think that ship has sailed. No, sunk.
Also, I think airlines are already down to a combination of "must fly" and "derp"; it's not going to get much worse for them. Heck, I quit flying long ago, and I don't see any hint of changes designed to lure me back.
They'll do ok, business-wise. Just as the government will be fine no matter how much they trample the constitution. People just aren't up for the hardships implicit in restoring the US to a constituional republic. The plutocracy is well established. We're just a few voices lost in the noise.
What I said is fact, and nothing in your reply did anything to contradict any of it. The attacks are the result of fundamentalist (or extremist, if you like) Islamist thought; the funding and the manpower came from Saudi.
WRT Bin Ladin, it matters not one whit where he is -- kill him, another will rise. The Bin Ladin hunt is just theater for the gullible. Say we caught him; It'd be like them capturing and/or killing Obama or Petraeus: all that would do is further annoy us. Either side would have a replacement in zip time. But if a leader has no funding, and has no stream of ready recruits, then he has nothing.
So you either take care of this at the source, which is definitely radical Islam within Saudi Arabia, or you haven't taken care of it at all.
Afghanistan and Iraq are meaningless here. The strictly represent a sink for military effort, which in turn is a huge financial boon to the corporate entities that control congress. In order to accomplish anything significant militarily, Islamic interests and power bases within Saudi Arabia have to be the objective.
Look:
Where the money comes from (UK intelligence)
Saudi funds Taliban
Ramadan is key source of funding
Saudis greatest fund source for terror (US diplomatic cables)
If you can actually maintain the illusion that Afghanistan is the source of this problem, I'm sure there's nothing I can say or point to that will dissuade you - but that doesn't change the facts, which are plain and simple. The problem is Islam, it is centered in Saudi Arabia in both the financial (most important) and manpower senses. Either that gets addressed, or no solution is possible. Which shows up the Afghanistan and Iraq wars as no more than money-channeling theater. Not to mention a complete waste of American soldier's lives, not that such a thing matters to politicians other than as media opportunities.
You don't understand. First, this saves the airlines from losing money they've already invested. Second, the government spends YOUR money (taxes) on scanners, thus bolstering the security sector. Third, it nails down a precedent that degrades the liberties of the citizens.
What's not to like?
No. The definition of reasonable is constitutionally explicit: ...and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Were you presented with a warrant? Did they show probable cause to believe you were carrying something illicit? Someone swore or stood witness to that? There was a description of what they thought you were carrying?
That's what "reasonable" means. It isn't some vague, variable hand-waving thing the government gets to define one way on Tuesday and another in Hoboken.
Wait, what? Of the 19 hijackers, 15 were Saudi, 2 from UAE, 1 was Egyptian, and one was Lebanese. The funding came from Saudi Arabia, and continues to ome from Saudi Arabia from this day, as current US diplomatic cables explicitly lay out (the money quote: "Saudi donors remain the chief financiers of Sunni militant groups like Al Qaeda.") Afghanistan (and Iraq) had absolutely nothing to do with anything about 9/11 other than being places we could bomb the hell out of without compromising our petroleum supplies.
And before you start spouting any of that "but Al Qaeda was in Afghanistan" silliness, they're in a score of other countries too, most notably Saudi Arabia, where the attacks actually came from.
I don't think so. I think what you're looking at here is an attempt to save airline companies from loss of multi-million dollar chunks of hardware. Not an attempt to save people's lives. If the government is so hot to save lives, there are so many areas they could have been working to do so, but aren't; and there are many areas where they waste US lives profligately (Iraq, Afghaqnistan are good examples... spending money, lives, accomplishing absolutely nothing except corporate profit-making.) There's no evidence by actions that points to an attempt to save lives by the USG. On the other hand, attempts to resolve corporate concerns... constant, varied and extensive.
Direct quote from Janet Napolitano: "I think the tighter we get on aviation, we have to also be thinking now about going on to mass transit or to trains or maritime. So, what do we need to be doing to strengthen our protections there?"
The times, they are a-changin
Well, it would be if the goal was actually to save the people. But if the goal is to save the aircraft, it's not. Now, consider all the things the government has not spent money on to save people: Highway deaths, smoking, fast food, avoiding foreign wars... now, what do you think it is they are most likely trying to protect here: You? Or the airline?
Those people are the reason the legal industry here is so huge, the police, lawyers, courtroom elves, etc. Prisoners are not workers (and they never will be again, except at McDonalds, etc.) They are locked to the lowest class and will go back to prison because they are now unemployable in any serious capacity and cannot advance and so are locked into a life of crime (which they're generally not very good at... that's why they get caught in the first place.) They're resources for the legal industry, not employable people. Without our large prison population, our legal system would be a fraction of the size it is, and so would our economy. That's why it's so important to arrest as many people as possible for things that aren't really criminal under any sane definition of liberty. That way, there's sure to be enough "crime" to go around and keep the wheels turning.
That has all the earmarks of wishful thinking. If it were true, the US job market for programmers and software engineers would look very different than it does. Right now, there are vast numbers of highly skilled unemployed programmers with lots of experience; the corporate tendency is almost universally to hire young and discard/ignore old, and consequently they get programmers that have very little depth... and who can reasonably be replaced by offshore programmers who also aren't very good. And make no mistake, this is about money: older programmers cost more, load the insurance programs more, and require a little more costly environment and certain perks to thrive -- they're not willing to live in an apartment with four buddies, they tend to have kids, houses, a spouse, medical bills, and so forth..
Yet, corporations posted record profits in 2010, and the sad fact is, they did it with the majority of good programmers sidelined. They gave consumers "applications" that are megabytes in size with kilobytes of functionality; "Applications" that consume enormous amounts of system resources to do jobs that literally needn't have strained a 1990's-era computer with four megs of memory; "Applications" that are "pretty", but really not very functional -- it's a rare consumer who actually wants/uses a high powered software tool, they typically use a fraction of what it can do and what we're typically seeing are terribly implemented crap-storms with those few features becoming the norm.
I'm sorry, but although my personal opinion of skilled programmers is very high, the actual reasonably-compensated marketplace for them is mostly limited to inside their own heads. Which in fact can work out; do your own thing, as Bruce said above, spend a few hundred bucks on a domain, and try; no, it usually won't work, but it's not a lot of money and you can learn from the experience. And...
Keep seriously trying, and eventually, something -- or several somethings -- will work. I speak from experience. It is unlikely that anyone would even consider paying me what I think my time is worth. And yes, I'm a really good programmer. A rockstar of sorts. Awards, board positions, mentions in engineering journals, lots of successful devices and software in the field both on my own and on behalf of my Former Corporate Masters, very wide range of experience... all that stuff. But I no longer need people to employ me. I went from wage slave to a condition most people only dream of precisely by trying one idea after another, and nurturing only those that made me money. Little enterprises, big ones, doesn't really matter. Positive cash flow is what matters, that and maintainance-free designs; you can't build up an "empire" that you spend all your time administering, you need to create things that will make money without your attention.
Under those conditions, ideas that only make a little money remain valuable; otherwise they smother you. Just as you have to be willing to try something, you have to be willing to kill it if it isn't holding up its own end of the deal by providing earnings. No matter how much you like the idea. The market will tell you if your idea is worth anything - that's a whole different kettle of fish from the idea being cool or neat. The more of these low or medium earners you can create, the better. Another benefit of this approach is that if one idea goes under after working for a while, it's not your entire enterprise, and your bottom line isn't crushed. And sometimes, you're lucky (or perhaps understand your markets) enough to come up with a high earner.
My advice to those who seek serious financial success is not to seek it under the umbrella of a corporation, but to build your success yourself, one inexpensive, careful brick at a time. Because unlike the previous poster, I see absolutely no signs of a resurgence in
Will the madness never end?
Oh, wait... maybe we all need each other?
In many cases, they are visible to drivers behind the car that is immediately behind you; this works against the tendency for pile-ups (of course, if these idiots would use an appropriate following distance, they'd be even better off, but city driving appears to make people really, really stupid.)
My point is that this comparison is irrelevant. Money should be spent on both, they're completely independent of one another.
Your point, taken to the limit, would have to be read as: The only thing worth spending money on is the one thing that saves the most lives, and all lesser life-saving efforts should be abandoned so that all effort could be concentrated on that maximally efficient effort to save lives.
But it isn't about efficiency; it's about trying to fix things in general. A society that only tried to fix one wrong thing, even if it is the largest wrong thing, would be pitiful. Likewise, a society that abandons the wrongly convicted would be pitiful.
I didn't say anything of the kind. What I said was:
"Personally, I wouldn't consider anyone who had been drinking at a party as someone you could make a legitimate sexual advance to, because they're clouding their ability to make decisions and they may not see things the same come the morrow -- and to me, "consensual" is half of what makes sex entertaining"
WRT Polanski, I told you why I don't think the case is sufficient. If he actually did what was reported, then I agree -- he deserves the hit. However, I don't see that an actually reasonable standard of proof was met (and no, I don't count plea bargains as admissions of guilt... they're just state-sponsored blackmail of the worst kind.)
But you go right on making hysterical accusations if it makes you feel better.
also informative