I should probobly go over those "travel tips" before people start following them...
1. Plan a trip to China the same way you would plan an extended backpacking trip into the wilderness. Start with a backpacking checklist. Leave off the obvious items of tent, sleeping bag and sleeping pad. Pretty much everything else on your list is useful.
Oh, they'll *love* your shotgun and bear spray, I'm sure. On a serious note, you don't need camping supplies, you need what every backpacker would carry in a third-world country. China is basically a series of first-world cities attached to a thrid-world continent, how rough your stay is can depend on where you stay.
(some good advice on travel snipped)
9. In restaurants, use the tea they pour you to sanitize your eating utensils and dinnerware. Only eat food that has been thoroughly cooked.
Tea is not a disinfectant, and should never be used as such. If you're paranoid about the utensils, use a hand sanitizer gel or wipes to disinfect them. Vodka will work too, if they have any. For that matter, if you're paranoid about the utensils, why are you willing to eat off of that plate?
11. Always remember that you are a guest in China. Be respectful of Chinese customs and people, especially the elderly. Chinese view their country with pride and reverence. Past interactions with foreigners have left them somewhat wary. The opium wars are a particular sore point. From their perspective, it is the same as if Columbia invaded the United States, annexed San Diego and forced the US government to allow the importation of cocaine and heroin.
What?! I thought being a good guest meant bringing enough for everyone to smoke?! Those elderly especially, they need their 'medication', too, you know...
12. China is an atheist country. Expressions of religion are illegal. Avoid religious symbolism and any discussions of religion.
Only some expressions are illegal, and they're mostly paranoid about foreign religious organizations, not matters of personal belief. They likely won't get you in trouble for personal expressions of faith, as long as you don't prosletize. Yes, it should be free-er, but it's not as absolute as this guy makes it sound.
13. Do not enter China illegally. Make sure you have a proper visa and do not overstay the limit of your visa, which is typically only 30 days. This is just common courtesy.
Uhhh... it's common sense (and The Law) that you don't enter a country illegally. Especially not a communist one. Especially not to get erotic massages. Trust me, it's not worth it.
Me: "Hello, Samsung? There is a miscreant on Slashdot inpinging upon your good reputation. I have good karma, what do you want me to do?" Mr. S: "Mod him down." Me: "Mod down?" Mr. S: "With extreme prejudice."
With all the talk about "If you haven't done anything wrong, you have nothing to hide from the government", it's only natural that people will start to snoop on each other. After all, if you haven't done anything wrong, you have no reason to hide it, right?
It seems like the Transparent Society is coming closer all the time. I'm not sure it's a good thing, though.
On the other hand, I'm suprised social conservative types haven't pulled more of this kind of crap before. Outing a few dozen gay men would make them hesitant to associate, and it's not like fundamentalist churches don't have lots of money and members with free time... Maybe they're afraid some of their own would be caught or something.
pay to place a video on YouTube's popular front page."
Oh the vanity! People really do that??
Think guerilla marketing... Now, instead of stupid people doing dangerous stunts, you'll get to see stuntmen acting as stupid people doing dangerous stuff, then quenching their thirst with Gatorade(TM). If they ever fully enforce copyright laws on YouTube, the only things left will be home videos and product placement ad videos.
WTF is wrong with wrong with using an old computer?! I'm typing this on an old 386 right now, in fact.
In the basement, I have an Altair that I kidnapped from the local uni 25 years ago, that I've been teaching to read Perl and play with Lego Mindstorms. I've named her "nappy", because she likes the nappies and ice cream. I feed it to her on punch cards. We are such a happy computer family together, I don't have to hit her much anymore. I love you, you love me, lalalalaOH SHIT THE COPS ARE HERE@!^&@!!
Actually, the first time I saw a Segway was for a Navy EOD (Explosive Ordinace Disposal) team that was in town for the Rose Festival. They had big knobbly 'offroad' tires on it, and the big saddle bags for tools and such. I think it was the X2. They also had one of the remote-control robots but had the Segway mounted on the back of their truck too. I guess it helps you to move when you're covered in kevlar.
Actually, the Segway would probobly make a great base for robotics experiments. It's certainly easier and more stable than bipedal robots.
What I've wondered is if they can't set up a system to prioritize calls through the cell phone system during an emergency, to allow first responders to communicate. It seems that during every regional-level disaster, the cell system gets jammed, basically DDoS'ed, by lots of anxious people calling relatives. While that's understandabele, I think it would be more useful to allow people involved in disaster relief or law enforcement "first priority" status for calls.
It might be feasable to do it with either a registry of first responder cell phone numbers, or special SIM chips that could be used during emergencies to give higher priority to traffic. Of course, it might just be impossible given the current cell infrastructure.
Another thing is that the people trying to contact relatives to check on them is random and disorganized. I remember multiple privately-run lists of people who had fled hurricane Katrina on the web, which led to a bunch of redunduncy and confusion at the time. I'm suprised the federal government hasn't created a "find people that have been evacuated" site yet. Having a central source people could turn to would make things easier and probobly lessen the amount of traffic over the regular phone system.
Feminists are some of the most intolerant people I've come across. Yes, jihadists and Nazis are far worse, but next to Christian fundamentalists, they're one of the more common hate groups in this country. The two groups are the biggest threats to free speech and free expression in this county.
The term feminism has long ago been hijacked by people like Dworkin who view the gender war as a literal one and see 'moderate' men and women as collaborators to a oppressive regime. It's like how "christian" has been taken by the religious right to such an extent that it's easy to forget there is a religious left.
I think it happened in the 90s. It coincided with many of the ideals of feminists (not all, obviously) from the 60s and 70s entering the mainstream to an extent that it was no longer worth treating as 'feminism' and apart from mainstream politics. You will notice that even the social conservative politicos nowadays will talk about "strengthening family values" but not about "getting women out of the workplace", even if they want to. The mainstream has shifted too far to the (old)feminist positions to make that viable. Meanwhile the radical feminists are defining feminism as the ideology of opposing anything that men like, that women don't care for.
Look, you or I can look at Goatse man(Warning: explicit content) and think, "Eeeewww!!", but I am not going to stop some gay man (or woman) who enjoys seeing that from doing so. I am not so insecure that I want to stop others from enjoying buttplug porn. I can clearly tell the difference between that and terrorism. There are however many people who cannot, and they call themselves "feminists".
I made a comment about this earlier, but you seem to be more interested in game theory, so...
Remember that after one passes the security checkpoint, everyone goes to the departures lounge. There, people on different flights co-mingle, and there is nothing to stop a person from exchanging bags or passing weapons to a person on a different flight. This means that you can use an accomplice who is not willing to die for the cause to pass weapons through the checkpoint, then pass it to the actual hijacker who has been throughly searched and found to not have a weapon. The accomplice then gets on a different flight from the hijacker, ensuring he does not die in the attack and even helping him escape the country if he needs to.
Basically, because all passengers who pass the security check are allowed to mix, the weapons check is only as good as the least through search given.
A mother with young children is very unlikely to become a suicide bomber, however it's not impossible to have one willing to help the cause of the terrorist - such as the one that was caught with the UK bombers recently. You could hide the weapons in the child's clothes, if it comes to that.
Everyone is getting worked up about the race or religion comments, so no one seems to be noticing the basic truth: the selective weapons screening is useles, period.
First, let's remember that they don't really screen 'terrorists', they screen for weapons and explosives. They also assume that the terrorist is the one who will bring the weapon through security. This is wrong.
Think about it: after passing the screening process, everyone goes to the departures lounge, where there are no attempts to prevent people on different flights from co-mingling.
That means that hijackers from a group likely to be singled out (like young, Arab males) can have an accomplice who is unlikely to be singled out (such as an elderly Swedish female) smuggle the weapons through the checkpoint, give the weapons to the hijackers, and get on a totally different flight from the hijackers. That last part removes the need for the accomplice to be willing to give his/her life for the cause, which increases the pool of potential accomplices.
Once you realize that the accomplice (your "single Swedish woman", perhaps a devoted communist wishing to hurt the capitalist system) doesn't even have to be a Muslim jihadist, let alone be willing to die, then you realize that there is no point in basing the screening over whether you fit a suspicious profile or not.
This is a fundamental problem with the design of airports and airport security. Because the departures area is designed to allow access to all the departure gates, it's like a computer system with no access controls. While they might check a person's ID at the gate, any item that passes through the security screen can get on any of the flights.
When you factor in the connecting flights that originate from overseas, it's like having a computer system that mounts drives over the network and gives full permissions to outside executables. I've never heard of an airport that checks the carry-on baggage of people passing through on connecting flights, so your security is only as good as the least effective security screen in the chain of connecting flights. In your example, the "young Swedish woman" could be going on a world tour to go through a third-world airport where you can get weapons or bombs through security, then keep it in carry-on through to the airport where you meet the terrorists. It might sound complicated, but for guys who are willing to go to flight school or build an explosives lab, such an action would be rather cheap and effective.
The selective screening is worthless. If you're going to screen for weapons you have to screen everyone, otherwise you're just wasting scarce resources, not utilizing them.
Besides, what if you find out your holy leader was wrong, and you get your 72 virgins in-flight? Hells yeah, I'm bringin' them back to my Jihad Crib, if you know what I mean.
I'd be pissed if I only had a one-way ticket then...
With the help of my able assistant John Edwards and a Ouiji board, we at the Church of Christ, Scintificologist, have recovered Carl Sagan's last, lost book, "The One True Faith: Scientologism". In it, Saint Sagan through his chosen medium Mr. Edwards, describes how he met the late L. Ron Hubbard in Heaven and converted to his world-changing gospel, Scientificalism.
As St. Sagan describes it, "I realized I had been wrong all this time. It was not Science that was going to save man from the scourge of Space Aliens In LearJets, but rather Scientificationalism. How wrong I'd been in life to question the greatness of such a man as L. Ron Hubbard, who was unselfishly trying to save us from our own greed and money! Give him your money! Your faith shall be rewarded by 72 Cray supercomputers in Heaven!"
Carl Sagan's last book: Coming soon to a bookstore near you! Buy it or you'll burn in hell!
That reminds me of the time when I was her age, when my babysitter locked herself out of her car and I was able to open the trunk just by jiggling my fingernail in the lock. I'm trying to remember what kind of car it was, some kind of Japanese hatchback in the 80's...
Cheap house interior locks could also be picked by me in that manner. I don't think they're meant to keep out more than a curious ten-year old, but they didn't do that, even:)
But that still doesn't change the wrongness of the original post, which was an assertion that "Australia and NZ are completely western and the only way we can be considered part of Asia is by some vague geographical classification."
The attempt to make Australia and NZ out to be "not Asian" based on cultural measures and ignore geography is odd, at the very least. He implies that one can be geographically be part of Asia but not Asian based on culture alone.
It's like Americans claiming they're not Americans because they're western, not native American. There seems to be an Au/Nz tendency to pretend they are a European country. Perhaps because they didn't have a war with the British? But then, Canada didn't, either, and they don't seem so self-concously "not North American" (though they like to point out they are not the U.S.).
Maybe Au/Nz are just afraid of Asia?
If you don't consider Pacific islanders or native Australians Asian, I'd like to hear what your definition of Asian is. Do you include Israel? India? Russia?
I've never understood why they don't just build different sites for people of different languages - duh, people who don't speak a common language aren't going to be talking to each other anyways. I'm biligual, but it wouldn't bother me to have two sets of friends lists or whatever orkut uses.
That reminds me, I wonder what he would think of the "presentation" the U.S. gave to the U.N. before the war in Iraq. I remember a lot of slides or pictures, but I don't remember being impressed by them. It just smelled like a bad power point presentation given by a guy who desperately wants to sell you a bad product...
Hmm, what you describe is not the result of being "advanced", but of being complex to the point that people cannot tell what is causing a specific state or failure or success.
'Magic' is when a device does something well, which one did not expect technology to be able to do, and in a way that does not make it obvious how the technology is implemented.
The story is about when devices do not do what they are expected to do.
Will the real Jack Thompson please stand up? I repeat, will the real Jack Thompson please stand up?...
We're gonna have a problem here.
You all look like you've never seen a censor before, jaws all on the floor, like that time John Romero burst through your door and started making you his bitch worse than before he made Quake, putting his Daikatana in you,
it's the return of the, oh wait, no way, he didn't just say what I think he did, did he?
And Dr. Suess said, nothing you idiot! Dr. Suess is dead, locked in my basement!
Gamer boys love Jack Thompson (chigga chigga chigga), "Jack Thompson, I'm sick of him look at him, grabbing the media's you-know-what, sucking the press's you-know-who", "Yeah, but he's so cute, though!"
Yeah, I probobly got a couple of screws in my head loose, but no worse, than what's going on in your parent's GameCubes. Sometimes, I just wanna get on TV and ban everything, but can't, but it's cool for Joe Lieberman to put stickers on your music "My warning's on your album, My warning's on your album, and if I'm lucky, I can ban evil music"
And that's the message we deliver to lazy teens, and expect them not to know what a prostitute's business is. Of course they gonna know what whoring is, by the time they hit tenth grade, they get C-Span don't they?
"We ain't nothing but columnists" well, some of us communists, who cut away other people's (snip) content But if we can cut shots of cleavage and gore, then there's no reason why we can't stop a man and another man from marrying (ewww!) If you hate the constitution, I got the antidote, women put your burkhas on, sing the chorus and it goes,
I'm Jack Thompson, I'm the real Thompson, All the other Jack Thompsons are just imitating, so will the real Jack Thompson please stand up, please stand up, please stand up. (repeat 3x)
Will Smith don't gotta cuss in his rap to sell his records. Well, neither do you. So sit down and shut up. You think I give a damn about your rights? Half of you gamers can't stomach me, let alone stand me "But Jack! What if you win, wouldn't it be fascist?" So? You think the fatherland needs your internet-tubes? So you can, download your Britney Spears? Shit, Christina Aguilera better put some clothes on, so I can watch my NFL with Michael Powell and Tipper Gore, and hear them argue about who censored Janet Jackson first, You little bitch, put half-time to shame, "Oops, my wardrobe popped, tee hee", I should make it legal to download her audio on MP3, and show the world you can't make money without your PR machine.
I'm sick of you little boy and girl gamers, all you do is annoy me, so I have been sent to destroy you And there's a million of us just like me, Who preach like me, who don't give a fuck about your rights like me, Who dress like me, walk, talk and censor like me, And just might be the next best thing but aren't quite me!
I'm Jack Thompson, I'm the real Thompson, All the other Jack Thompsons are just imitating, so will the real Jack Thompson please stand up, please stand up, please stand up. (repeat 3x)
What I don't understand is how you can be such a huge, rich country, claim to be the greatest country on Earth, and yet you can't do what the Dutch have done with a quarter of their country to one city on your coast? Heck, even the Italians managed to do it for over a millenia - Venice was founded some time between 400 and 800 AD.
It is kind of different in East Asia, though. There is more of an expectation that you will not seek attention to yourself.
The Japanese hostages in Iraq were treated much more harshly by public opinion than American or European hostages were in those countries. Keep in mind that they were aid workers who had gone to help the Iraqi people but the Japanese public were quite hostile to them after their rescue, and they had to apologise to the public for the trouble and embarrasment they'd caused the government. (News story here)(blog post here)
This despite the fact that the deployment to Iraq was itself unpopular, and most people opposed it. I think the hostages were seen as embarrasing the country with the attention they were getting, and seeking fame for themselves.
What you describe is just people leaping to judgement of who commited a murder, which happens in every society.
The multi-touch interface demo on Youtube was interesting, I saw it a while ago.
The thing that makes it different is how casual the interaction is compared to file & image programs today. You see the guy just touch the screen and rotate, zoom, and move images around and organize it, instead of opening up dialog boxes, secondary windows, or menus to access the functionality. It's very basic stuff, but you see how powerful it is, kind of like how Google Maps is compared to the old static kind of online maps.
It's like today's image programs are concerned with precicely doing something like zoom to exact levels(%100/%50/%33/etc), but this programs let you do it to "whatever zoom feels right", without worrying you with the details.
Hey speaking of which, I wish cameraphones had a much more fluid interface for picture organization, so I can add keywords, associate it with people on my contacts, etc... but what do they care, as long as they make money off the ringtones:(
I'm actually looking for a good mobile device right now, which doesn't have to have these security tools, but be a general-purpose geek tool. Unfortunately, I've yet to find a good one. It seems most companies are trying to woo consumers with flashyness and power instead of mobile usefulness.
What I want is a portable device the size of the old Libretto or Picturebook, with all the modern memory card type slots, wi-fi, ethernet, phone, USB, Firewire, PC-card, and anything else needed to interface with common devices and perhipherals. I don't want to have to carry a bunch of dongles and USB cables to use common hardware I might run into. I don't want a fast processor and memory, I just want the hardware interfaces and the longest possible battery life in a very small package.
All the mini-notebook makers out there seem intent on trying to cram as much processor power and memory into a small package, which incidentally results in them running so hot they could burn you, and shortens battery life to lunch-break length. What are you going to do with a Athlon 64, play WoW on a 8-inch screen?
*sigh* maybe this device will be different, but seeing as how it says "Currently it supports 802.11 (Wi-Fi) and Bluetooth wireless connections or optionally Ethernet via USB", it doesn't sound like it.
I wonder if you've ever heard of the Transparent Society. It's David Brin's concept of what privacy should be like in the 21st century. Basically, he sees privacy as a tool of the elite because they will always be able to afford privacy, while the masses will always be monitored. He thinks that cameras and other monitoring will be ubiquitous in the near future anyway, so we should have it open for anyone to view, in order to check those in power. Otherwise, according to him, we will end up with a surveilance state where the few watch over the many, instead of everyone watching everyone else.
Now, the concept is ineresting, but I think this search data leak shows what would happen if we really let the masses monitor everyone else. Instead of people learning to accept each other's quirks and differences, I think most people will be horrified when they find out the kinds of "deviant" interests their neightbors are into. We would see mass witch-hunts for perverts and terrorists, ending in a totalitarian society where people actually try to act as puritan as society dictates and those who step out of line are ostracized. Heck, we're halfway there now.
Just imagine if *all* the consumer databases were released for public perusal - purchases, reading habits, political leanings, travels. It would make the Soviet Union look like a a amateur attempt at social control. I, for one, do not welcome our web-searching overlords.
Slashdot Mirror
I should probobly go over those "travel tips" before people start following them...
1. Plan a trip to China the same way you would plan an extended backpacking trip into the wilderness. Start with a backpacking checklist. Leave off the obvious items of tent, sleeping bag and sleeping pad. Pretty much everything else on your list is useful.
Oh, they'll *love* your shotgun and bear spray, I'm sure. On a serious note, you don't need camping supplies, you need what every backpacker would carry in a third-world country. China is basically a series of first-world cities attached to a thrid-world continent, how rough your stay is can depend on where you stay.
(some good advice on travel snipped)
9. In restaurants, use the tea they pour you to sanitize your eating utensils and dinnerware. Only eat food that has been thoroughly cooked.
Tea is not a disinfectant, and should never be used as such. If you're paranoid about the utensils, use a hand sanitizer gel or wipes to disinfect them. Vodka will work too, if they have any. For that matter, if you're paranoid about the utensils, why are you willing to eat off of that plate?
11. Always remember that you are a guest in China. Be respectful of Chinese customs and people, especially the elderly. Chinese view their country with pride and reverence. Past interactions with foreigners have left them somewhat wary. The opium wars are a particular sore point. From their perspective, it is the same as if Columbia invaded the United States, annexed San Diego and forced the US government to allow the importation of cocaine and heroin.
What?! I thought being a good guest meant bringing enough for everyone to smoke?! Those elderly especially, they need their 'medication', too, you know...
12. China is an atheist country. Expressions of religion are illegal. Avoid religious symbolism and any discussions of religion.
Only some expressions are illegal, and they're mostly paranoid about foreign religious organizations, not matters of personal belief. They likely won't get you in trouble for personal expressions of faith, as long as you don't prosletize. Yes, it should be free-er, but it's not as absolute as this guy makes it sound.
13. Do not enter China illegally. Make sure you have a proper visa and do not overstay the limit of your visa, which is typically only 30 days. This is just common courtesy.
Uhhh... it's common sense (and The Law) that you don't enter a country illegally. Especially not a communist one. Especially not to get erotic massages. Trust me, it's not worth it.
Me: "Hello, Samsung? There is a miscreant on Slashdot inpinging upon your good reputation. I have good karma, what do you want me to do?"
Mr. S: "Mod him down."
Me: "Mod down?"
Mr. S: "With extreme prejudice."
With all the talk about "If you haven't done anything wrong, you have nothing to hide from the government", it's only natural that people will start to snoop on each other. After all, if you haven't done anything wrong, you have no reason to hide it, right?
It seems like the Transparent Society is coming closer all the time. I'm not sure it's a good thing, though.
On the other hand, I'm suprised social conservative types haven't pulled more of this kind of crap before. Outing a few dozen gay men would make them hesitant to associate, and it's not like fundamentalist churches don't have lots of money and members with free time... Maybe they're afraid some of their own would be caught or something.
pay to place a video on YouTube's popular front page."
Oh the vanity! People really do that??
Think guerilla marketing... Now, instead of stupid people doing dangerous stunts, you'll get to see stuntmen acting as stupid people doing dangerous stuff, then quenching their thirst with Gatorade(TM). If they ever fully enforce copyright laws on YouTube, the only things left will be home videos and product placement ad videos.
WTF is wrong with wrong with using an old computer?! I'm typing this on an old 386 right now, in fact.
In the basement, I have an Altair that I kidnapped from the local uni 25 years ago, that I've been teaching to read Perl and play with Lego Mindstorms. I've named her "nappy", because she likes the nappies and ice cream. I feed it to her on punch cards. We are such a happy computer family together, I don't have to hit her much anymore. I love you, you love me, lalalalaOH SHIT THE COPS ARE HERE@!^&@!!
+++ATH
NO CARRIER
Actually, the first time I saw a Segway was for a Navy EOD (Explosive Ordinace Disposal) team that was in town for the Rose Festival. They had big knobbly 'offroad' tires on it, and the big saddle bags for tools and such. I think it was the X2. They also had one of the remote-control robots but had the Segway mounted on the back of their truck too. I guess it helps you to move when you're covered in kevlar.
Actually, the Segway would probobly make a great base for robotics experiments. It's certainly easier and more stable than bipedal robots.
What I've wondered is if they can't set up a system to prioritize calls through the cell phone system during an emergency, to allow first responders to communicate. It seems that during every regional-level disaster, the cell system gets jammed, basically DDoS'ed, by lots of anxious people calling relatives. While that's understandabele, I think it would be more useful to allow people involved in disaster relief or law enforcement "first priority" status for calls.
It might be feasable to do it with either a registry of first responder cell phone numbers, or special SIM chips that could be used during emergencies to give higher priority to traffic. Of course, it might just be impossible given the current cell infrastructure.
Another thing is that the people trying to contact relatives to check on them is random and disorganized. I remember multiple privately-run lists of people who had fled hurricane Katrina on the web, which led to a bunch of redunduncy and confusion at the time. I'm suprised the federal government hasn't created a "find people that have been evacuated" site yet. Having a central source people could turn to would make things easier and probobly lessen the amount of traffic over the regular phone system.
Feminists are some of the most intolerant people I've come across. Yes, jihadists and Nazis are far worse, but next to Christian fundamentalists, they're one of the more common hate groups in this country. The two groups are the biggest threats to free speech and free expression in this county.
Andrea Dworkin - porn is terrorism
I Want a Twenty-Four-Hour Truce During Which There Is No Rape
The term feminism has long ago been hijacked by people like Dworkin who view the gender war as a literal one and see 'moderate' men and women as collaborators to a oppressive regime. It's like how "christian" has been taken by the religious right to such an extent that it's easy to forget there is a religious left.
I think it happened in the 90s. It coincided with many of the ideals of feminists (not all, obviously) from the 60s and 70s entering the mainstream to an extent that it was no longer worth treating as 'feminism' and apart from mainstream politics. You will notice that even the social conservative politicos nowadays will talk about "strengthening family values" but not about "getting women out of the workplace", even if they want to. The mainstream has shifted too far to the (old)feminist positions to make that viable. Meanwhile the radical feminists are defining feminism as the ideology of opposing anything that men like, that women don't care for.
Look, you or I can look at Goatse man(Warning: explicit content) and think, "Eeeewww!!", but I am not going to stop some gay man (or woman) who enjoys seeing that from doing so. I am not so insecure that I want to stop others from enjoying buttplug porn. I can clearly tell the difference between that and terrorism. There are however many people who cannot, and they call themselves "feminists".
I made a comment about this earlier, but you seem to be more interested in game theory, so...
Remember that after one passes the security checkpoint, everyone goes to the departures lounge. There, people on different flights co-mingle, and there is nothing to stop a person from exchanging bags or passing weapons to a person on a different flight. This means that you can use an accomplice who is not willing to die for the cause to pass weapons through the checkpoint, then pass it to the actual hijacker who has been throughly searched and found to not have a weapon. The accomplice then gets on a different flight from the hijacker, ensuring he does not die in the attack and even helping him escape the country if he needs to.
Basically, because all passengers who pass the security check are allowed to mix, the weapons check is only as good as the least through search given.
A mother with young children is very unlikely to become a suicide bomber, however it's not impossible to have one willing to help the cause of the terrorist - such as the one that was caught with the UK bombers recently. You could hide the weapons in the child's clothes, if it comes to that.
Everyone is getting worked up about the race or religion comments, so no one seems to be noticing the basic truth: the selective weapons screening is useles, period.
First, let's remember that they don't really screen 'terrorists', they screen for weapons and explosives. They also assume that the terrorist is the one who will bring the weapon through security. This is wrong.
Think about it: after passing the screening process, everyone goes to the departures lounge, where there are no attempts to prevent people on different flights from co-mingling.
That means that hijackers from a group likely to be singled out (like young, Arab males) can have an accomplice who is unlikely to be singled out (such as an elderly Swedish female) smuggle the weapons through the checkpoint, give the weapons to the hijackers, and get on a totally different flight from the hijackers. That last part removes the need for the accomplice to be willing to give his/her life for the cause, which increases the pool of potential accomplices.
Once you realize that the accomplice (your "single Swedish woman", perhaps a devoted communist wishing to hurt the capitalist system) doesn't even have to be a Muslim jihadist, let alone be willing to die, then you realize that there is no point in basing the screening over whether you fit a suspicious profile or not.
This is a fundamental problem with the design of airports and airport security. Because the departures area is designed to allow access to all the departure gates, it's like a computer system with no access controls. While they might check a person's ID at the gate, any item that passes through the security screen can get on any of the flights.
When you factor in the connecting flights that originate from overseas, it's like having a computer system that mounts drives over the network and gives full permissions to outside executables. I've never heard of an airport that checks the carry-on baggage of people passing through on connecting flights, so your security is only as good as the least effective security screen in the chain of connecting flights. In your example, the "young Swedish woman" could be going on a world tour to go through a third-world airport where you can get weapons or bombs through security, then keep it in carry-on through to the airport where you meet the terrorists. It might sound complicated, but for guys who are willing to go to flight school or build an explosives lab, such an action would be rather cheap and effective.
The selective screening is worthless. If you're going to screen for weapons you have to screen everyone, otherwise you're just wasting scarce resources, not utilizing them.
Besides, what if you find out your holy leader was wrong, and you get your 72 virgins in-flight? Hells yeah, I'm bringin' them back to my Jihad Crib, if you know what I mean.
I'd be pissed if I only had a one-way ticket then...
Non-fiction by Carl Sagan? *Now* you just joking.
Why, of course not, dear sir!
With the help of my able assistant John Edwards and a Ouiji board, we at the Church of Christ, Scintificologist, have recovered Carl Sagan's last, lost book, "The One True Faith: Scientologism". In it, Saint Sagan through his chosen medium Mr. Edwards, describes how he met the late L. Ron Hubbard in Heaven and converted to his world-changing gospel, Scientificalism.
As St. Sagan describes it, "I realized I had been wrong all this time. It was not Science that was going to save man from the scourge of Space Aliens In LearJets, but rather Scientificationalism. How wrong I'd been in life to question the greatness of such a man as L. Ron Hubbard, who was unselfishly trying to save us from our own greed and money! Give him your money! Your faith shall be rewarded by 72 Cray supercomputers in Heaven!"
Carl Sagan's last book: Coming soon to a bookstore near you! Buy it or you'll burn in hell!
That reminds me of the time when I was her age, when my babysitter locked herself out of her car and I was able to open the trunk just by jiggling my fingernail in the lock. I'm trying to remember what kind of car it was, some kind of Japanese hatchback in the 80's...
:)
Cheap house interior locks could also be picked by me in that manner. I don't think they're meant to keep out more than a curious ten-year old, but they didn't do that, even
But that still doesn't change the wrongness of the original post, which was an assertion that "Australia and NZ are completely western and the only way we can be considered part of Asia is by some vague geographical classification."
The attempt to make Australia and NZ out to be "not Asian" based on cultural measures and ignore geography is odd, at the very least. He implies that one can be geographically be part of Asia but not Asian based on culture alone.
It's like Americans claiming they're not Americans because they're western, not native American. There seems to be an Au/Nz tendency to pretend they are a European country. Perhaps because they didn't have a war with the British? But then, Canada didn't, either, and they don't seem so self-concously "not North American" (though they like to point out they are not the U.S.).
Maybe Au/Nz are just afraid of Asia?
If you don't consider Pacific islanders or native Australians Asian, I'd like to hear what your definition of Asian is. Do you include Israel? India? Russia?
I've never understood why they don't just build different sites for people of different languages - duh, people who don't speak a common language aren't going to be talking to each other anyways. I'm biligual, but it wouldn't bother me to have two sets of friends lists or whatever orkut uses.
That reminds me, I wonder what he would think of the "presentation" the U.S. gave to the U.N. before the war in Iraq. I remember a lot of slides or pictures, but I don't remember being impressed by them. It just smelled like a bad power point presentation given by a guy who desperately wants to sell you a bad product...
Hmm, what you describe is not the result of being "advanced", but of being complex to the point that people cannot tell what is causing a specific state or failure or success.
'Magic' is when a device does something well, which one did not expect technology to be able to do, and in a way that does not make it obvious how the technology is implemented.
The story is about when devices do not do what they are expected to do.
To the tune of... well, you figure it out:
...
Will the real Jack Thompson please stand up? I repeat, will the real Jack Thompson please stand up?
We're gonna have a problem here.
You all look like you've never seen a censor before, jaws all on the floor, like that time John Romero burst through your door and started making you his bitch worse than before he made Quake, putting his Daikatana in you,
it's the return of the, oh wait, no way, he didn't just say what I think he did, did he?
And Dr. Suess said, nothing you idiot! Dr. Suess is dead, locked in my basement!
Gamer boys love Jack Thompson (chigga chigga chigga), "Jack Thompson, I'm sick of him look at him, grabbing the media's you-know-what, sucking the press's you-know-who", "Yeah, but he's so cute, though!"
Yeah, I probobly got a couple of screws in my head loose, but no worse, than what's going on in your parent's GameCubes. Sometimes, I just wanna get on TV and ban everything, but can't, but it's cool for Joe Lieberman to put stickers on your music "My warning's on your album, My warning's on your album, and if I'm lucky, I can ban evil music"
And that's the message we deliver to lazy teens, and expect them not to know what a prostitute's business is. Of course they gonna know what whoring is, by the time they hit tenth grade, they get C-Span don't they?
"We ain't nothing but columnists" well, some of us communists, who cut away other people's (snip) content
But if we can cut shots of cleavage and gore, then there's no reason why we can't stop a man and another man from marrying (ewww!)
If you hate the constitution, I got the antidote,
women put your burkhas on, sing the chorus and it goes,
I'm Jack Thompson, I'm the real Thompson, All the other Jack Thompsons are just imitating,
so will the real Jack Thompson please stand up, please stand up, please stand up.
(repeat 3x)
Will Smith don't gotta cuss in his rap to sell his records.
Well, neither do you. So sit down and shut up.
You think I give a damn about your rights? Half of you gamers can't stomach me, let alone stand me "But Jack! What if you win, wouldn't it be fascist?"
So? You think the fatherland needs your internet-tubes?
So you can, download your Britney Spears? Shit, Christina Aguilera better put some clothes on, so I can watch my NFL with Michael Powell and Tipper Gore, and hear them argue about who censored Janet Jackson first,
You little bitch, put half-time to shame, "Oops, my wardrobe popped, tee hee", I should make it legal to download her audio on MP3, and show the world you can't make money without your PR machine.
I'm sick of you little boy and girl gamers, all you do is annoy me, so I have been sent to destroy you
And there's a million of us just like me,
Who preach like me, who don't give a fuck about your rights like me,
Who dress like me, walk, talk and censor like me,
And just might be the next best thing but aren't quite me!
I'm Jack Thompson, I'm the real Thompson, All the other Jack Thompsons are just imitating,
so will the real Jack Thompson please stand up, please stand up, please stand up.
(repeat 3x)
What I don't understand is how you can be such a huge, rich country, claim to be the greatest country on Earth, and yet you can't do what the Dutch have done with a quarter of their country to one city on your coast? Heck, even the Italians managed to do it for over a millenia - Venice was founded some time between 400 and 800 AD.
Why can't America do it right in one city?
It is kind of different in East Asia, though. There is more of an expectation that you will not seek attention to yourself.
The Japanese hostages in Iraq were treated much more harshly by public opinion than American or European hostages were in those countries. Keep in mind that they were aid workers who had gone to help the Iraqi people but the Japanese public were quite hostile to them after their rescue, and they had to apologise to the public for the trouble and embarrasment they'd caused the government. (News story here) (blog post here)
This despite the fact that the deployment to Iraq was itself unpopular, and most people opposed it. I think the hostages were seen as embarrasing the country with the attention they were getting, and seeking fame for themselves.
What you describe is just people leaping to judgement of who commited a murder, which happens in every society.
Speak for yourself - I speak to my coworkers and kids with beatings and profanity.
Come to think of it, I can do that today!
The Future Is Now!
The multi-touch interface demo on Youtube was interesting, I saw it a while ago.
:(
The thing that makes it different is how casual the interaction is compared to file & image programs today. You see the guy just touch the screen and rotate, zoom, and move images around and organize it, instead of opening up dialog boxes, secondary windows, or menus to access the functionality. It's very basic stuff, but you see how powerful it is, kind of like how Google Maps is compared to the old static kind of online maps.
It's like today's image programs are concerned with precicely doing something like zoom to exact levels(%100/%50/%33/etc), but this programs let you do it to "whatever zoom feels right", without worrying you with the details.
Hey speaking of which, I wish cameraphones had a much more fluid interface for picture organization, so I can add keywords, associate it with people on my contacts, etc... but what do they care, as long as they make money off the ringtones
I'm actually looking for a good mobile device right now, which doesn't have to have these security tools, but be a general-purpose geek tool. Unfortunately, I've yet to find a good one. It seems most companies are trying to woo consumers with flashyness and power instead of mobile usefulness.
What I want is a portable device the size of the old Libretto or Picturebook, with all the modern memory card type slots, wi-fi, ethernet, phone, USB, Firewire, PC-card, and anything else needed to interface with common devices and perhipherals. I don't want to have to carry a bunch of dongles and USB cables to use common hardware I might run into. I don't want a fast processor and memory, I just want the hardware interfaces and the longest possible battery life in a very small package.
All the mini-notebook makers out there seem intent on trying to cram as much processor power and memory into a small package, which incidentally results in them running so hot they could burn you, and shortens battery life to lunch-break length. What are you going to do with a Athlon 64, play WoW on a 8-inch screen?
*sigh* maybe this device will be different, but seeing as how it says "Currently it supports 802.11 (Wi-Fi) and Bluetooth wireless connections or optionally Ethernet via USB", it doesn't sound like it.
Oh man, you don't know how bad it got...
So I was posting on Slashdot while hitting a bong with the Dell dude, on his laptop, when it was all, like, 'beep beep be - BOOM!!'
and I was, like, "Unh?"
It DEVOURED my bong.
It was a really good bong.
And then I had to smoke it again, and it wasn't as good, because I had to do it fast.
It was....
a bummer.
My name is Ellen Feiss, and I'm a student.
I wonder if you've ever heard of the Transparent Society. It's David Brin's concept of what privacy should be like in the 21st century. Basically, he sees privacy as a tool of the elite because they will always be able to afford privacy, while the masses will always be monitored. He thinks that cameras and other monitoring will be ubiquitous in the near future anyway, so we should have it open for anyone to view, in order to check those in power. Otherwise, according to him, we will end up with a surveilance state where the few watch over the many, instead of everyone watching everyone else.
Now, the concept is ineresting, but I think this search data leak shows what would happen if we really let the masses monitor everyone else. Instead of people learning to accept each other's quirks and differences, I think most people will be horrified when they find out the kinds of "deviant" interests their neightbors are into. We would see mass witch-hunts for perverts and terrorists, ending in a totalitarian society where people actually try to act as puritan as society dictates and those who step out of line are ostracized. Heck, we're halfway there now.
Just imagine if *all* the consumer databases were released for public perusal - purchases, reading habits, political leanings, travels. It would make the Soviet Union look like a a amateur attempt at social control. I, for one, do not welcome our web-searching overlords.