The obvious way to prevent terrorism within airports is to have the TSA set up a check point outside the airport and create the large queue there.
You might as well just redefine "within airports" to mean "the area within the TSA checkpoint radius" -- that way the whole Security Theater apparatus continues on, and you don't even have to set up any new checkpoints.
..."there is no easy solution to the problem"... oh yes, there is.
What makes it worse to me is that since they know how many flights are scheduled, they pretty much know exactly
how many people will be passing through particular security gates (and at about what time, for that matter).
Knowing that you think they could staff the checkpoints appropriately -- even without access to actual
ticketing information, historical load factors should allow for very good guesses.
Maybe change it so the H-1B visas are awarded based on annual salary?
In other words, issue the visas for the jobs that will pay the most. My guess is
a transparent market like that would quickly get rid of wage disparities (though how
to combat the lobbying effort+money that supports the status quo is the next obvious question).
This case is about mortgage fraud, not terrorism. Different rules.
Not sure what the context of this thread is at this point, actually, but my point (if any) is
that the "rule of law" has been superseded by a hard-to-pin-down power ceded to
the President:
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/three_myths_about_the_detention_bill/singleton/
But, to take your argument, what's to stop a President from somehow deciding
that your mortgage fraud "substantially supported al-Qaeda"? Remember, there's
no judicial review, no jury review, no recourse to habeas corpus, etc, just whatever
the President wants to do, for as long as he wants to do it.
I'm really not paranoid, but to respond to that along the lines of "well, I trust that they'll never
do that (to me?)" is to admit that the "government of laws, not men" is a thing of the past.
The justice system may not be perfect, but however much people here bleat about the Western world being run by the SS, it isn't. We have the rule of law...
That "National Defense Authorization Act" establishes (to parody http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_formalism) is a "government of men, not of laws", insofar as a single person (POTUS) can now indefinitely detain any person for any length of time, without review.
There are regulations for this, something along the lines of requiring one 9-1-1 trunk per 5k lines. Seems wildly low, but (as you alluded to) the PSAPs can only handle so many calls, and in the case of a major event a lot of calls would be redundant anyway (e.g. all neighbors on a block calling to report the same fire at a nearby house).
I put a bunch of things in my driveway (think "free" garage sale) along with a sign that says "please take whatever you want". I mistakenly include sexually graphic pictures of my wife in the stuff I've put on display. You find them and take pictures of them with your smartphone, then show them to your friends -- should I be able to charge you with theft (or some other crime?) because you should have known that I didn't intend to give those away?"
In other words I left my front door unlocked, this doesn't give you the right to go in and snoop around and take my stuff, you CAN however report to me and the newspaper that my door is unlocked.
Isn't the analogy more "If I put a bunch of things in my driveway (think "free" garage sale) along with a sign that said "please take whatever you want", but mistakenly put some of my wife's cherished possessions on display, should I be able to charge you with theft for taking my wife's things?"
You more-or-less have it, but the key is that you can't be compelled to provide witness/evidence against yourself when your liberty is at jeopardy (not sure of the exact legal phrasing).
This leads to situations where a defendant can invoke the Fifth Amendment and not testify to a particular issue at trial, but if he/she is given immunity from prosecution (in one form or another) can be compelled to testify to the same issue (with further refusals to testify met by an open-ended contempt of court charge).
in the US we have something called the rule of law and due process. that means if the law says you can't get kicked out just because someone thinks you did something bad, you have to be convicted after a trial.
We all know about the recent case of the Canadian man who was suspected of terrorist connections, detained in New York, sent to Syria--through a rendition agreement--tortured, only to find out later it was all a case of mistaken identity and poor information...
I've wondered about this myself and have asked a lawyer about it, my understanding is that (as stated on the Wiki page below) the Fifth Amendment only applies to criminal cases (not civil, hence allowing a civil case after criminal case, e.g. O.J. Simpson). Even in criminal cases, again my understanding is that the limitation only applies to a particular sovereign (?), i.e. you could be found not guilty of a crime in state court, but still stand trial for that in federal court. Further, re trying the same civil case over-and-over, my understanding is that anyone can sue anyone, but it does have to pass a few hurdles before actually getting tried (e.g. you probably have to get a lawyer to agree that the case has merit, then have to get a court to accept it along the same lines and agree to run the trial -- my guess is that at some point the court could refuse to accept it, perhaps even penalizing the petitioner with a monetary fine of some sort?).
Isn't correlation more an indicator of things the insurance company should investigate re establishing a plausible link to causation? Otherwise they'd be chasing blips in data, e.g. if over some period Virgos (Virgoes ?) had half as many accidents as those born under other astrological signs, would you expect insurance companies to incorporate that into their pricing models?
Why do the slashmongs trot out the "correlation does not imply causation" line as if it's some deep wisdom?
Who cares about causation here? Certainly not the insurance companies, they just want to identify factors correlating with crashes.
Maybe for "slashmongs" like yourself who apparently don't get the (not-so-subtle) difference between causation and correlation?
Insurance companies certainly care about causation, not simply correlation, e.g. if they instituted a "what did you have for breakfast monitor" and found that 20% of their driving population sample ate Brand X cereals before having an accident (aha! correlation!), I doubt they'd offer discounts for households that swore off Brand X cereal.
The first thing I did after graduating from high school was immediately and gladly stop writing in cursive forever. It's been nearly 30 years, and I've never had a use for it, besides my signature.
About the same for me (though I think I stopped cursive in high school), except for one instance when to make some extra $$ during college I signed up to be a UPS "seasonal driver's helper" (i.e. a runner for a package delivery service). During the "training" they had a form where you were asked to write all the letters of the alphabet in upper- and lower-case (in both print and cursive). I had some serious trouble with cursive capitals, was kind of shocking to me at the time that I had forgotten how to produce 4 or 5 letters.
We've all come across users with 40 apps open whining their pc is slow
Likewise, we've all encountered clueless IT departments who force apps onto work PCs that suck the life out of them (e.g. anti-virus crap, various drops of MS Kool-Aid the IT dept has bought into, etc.), then on a support call act as if it is the first time anyone has ever complained about the situation.
My professional wild assed guess is that it cost the industry 1 billion to implement and maybe 1 million a year to maintain/support.
Not sure what your profession is, but if your guesses are as poor as the one above I'd suggest some vocational retraining. Let's say that 20 million lines get ported every year, and 2% fall out of the mainstream (i.e. easy) category -- that's 400k orders in need of manual intervention (on both sides of the port, at that), and each order certainly costs a LEC more than $1.25 to process at that point (figuring a fully-loaded cost for tier-2 support of $20/hr at least).
Slashdot Mirror
Alternative headline: father explains parenting strategy for raising irresponsible children.
"The key is to blame others," he said.
Another alternative:"father begins laying the foundation for wrongful death suit defense" (for when Mr. McCarthy's estate sues).
Or the cover from Led Zeppelin's Houses of the Holy.
You might as well just redefine "within airports" to mean "the area within the TSA checkpoint radius" -- that way the whole Security Theater apparatus continues on, and you don't even have to set up any new checkpoints.
http://music.cbc.ca/#!/radio3
What makes it worse to me is that since they know how many flights are scheduled, they pretty much know exactly how many people will be passing through particular security gates (and at about what time, for that matter). Knowing that you think they could staff the checkpoints appropriately -- even without access to actual ticketing information, historical load factors should allow for very good guesses.
Maybe change it so the H-1B visas are awarded based on annual salary?
In other words, issue the visas for the jobs that will pay the most. My guess is a transparent market like that would quickly get rid of wage disparities (though how to combat the lobbying effort+money that supports the status quo is the next obvious question).
Rightly or wrongly, doctors and lawyers have well-established blocks that effectivly bar outside competition.
This case is about mortgage fraud, not terrorism. Different rules.
Not sure what the context of this thread is at this point, actually, but my point (if any) is that the "rule of law" has been superseded by a hard-to-pin-down power ceded to the President:
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/three_myths_about_the_detention_bill/singleton/
But, to take your argument, what's to stop a President from somehow deciding that your mortgage fraud "substantially supported al-Qaeda"? Remember, there's no judicial review, no jury review, no recourse to habeas corpus, etc, just whatever the President wants to do, for as long as he wants to do it.
I'm really not paranoid, but to respond to that along the lines of "well, I trust that they'll never do that (to me?)" is to admit that the "government of laws, not men" is a thing of the past.
If they want to detain me, they can use whatever excuse to detain me.
No, they can't.
Well, the hazy area that's been with us over the past 10 years or so has been clarified (in case you missed it): http://compliancecampaign.wordpress.com/2012/01/24/u-s-slammed-on-indefinite-detention-torture-and-censorship/
The justice system may not be perfect, but however much people here bleat about the Western world being run by the SS, it isn't. We have the rule of law...
That "National Defense Authorization Act" establishes (to parody http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_formalism) is a "government of men, not of laws", insofar as a single person (POTUS) can now indefinitely detain any person for any length of time, without review.
pique
There are regulations for this, something along the lines of requiring one 9-1-1 trunk per 5k lines. Seems wildly low, but (as you alluded to) the PSAPs can only handle so many calls, and in the case of a major event a lot of calls would be redundant anyway (e.g. all neighbors on a block calling to report the same fire at a nearby house).
Point taken -- how about:
I put a bunch of things in my driveway (think "free" garage sale) along with a sign that says "please take whatever you want". I mistakenly include sexually graphic pictures of my wife in the stuff I've put on display. You find them and take pictures of them with your smartphone, then show them to your friends -- should I be able to charge you with theft (or some other crime?) because you should have known that I didn't intend to give those away?"
Isn't the analogy more "If I put a bunch of things in my driveway (think "free" garage sale) along with a sign that said "please take whatever you want", but mistakenly put some of my wife's cherished possessions on display, should I be able to charge you with theft for taking my wife's things?"
You more-or-less have it, but the key is that you can't be compelled to provide witness/evidence against yourself when your liberty is at jeopardy (not sure of the exact legal phrasing).
This leads to situations where a defendant can invoke the Fifth Amendment and not testify to a particular issue at trial, but if he/she is given immunity from prosecution (in one form or another) can be compelled to testify to the same issue (with further refusals to testify met by an open-ended contempt of court charge).
Does this article (or this one) help at all?
in the US we have something called the rule of law and due process. that means if the law says you can't get kicked out just because someone thinks you did something bad, you have to be convicted after a trial.
Are you sure about that?
We all know about the recent case of the Canadian man who was suspected of terrorist connections, detained in New York, sent to Syria--through a rendition agreement--tortured, only to find out later it was all a case of mistaken identity and poor information...
I've wondered about this myself and have asked a lawyer about it, my understanding is that (as stated on the Wiki page below) the Fifth Amendment only applies to criminal cases (not civil, hence allowing a civil case after criminal case, e.g. O.J. Simpson). Even in criminal cases, again my understanding is that the limitation only applies to a particular sovereign (?), i.e. you could be found not guilty of a crime in state court, but still stand trial for that in federal court. Further, re trying the same civil case over-and-over, my understanding is that anyone can sue anyone, but it does have to pass a few hurdles before actually getting tried (e.g. you probably have to get a lawyer to agree that the case has merit, then have to get a court to accept it along the same lines and agree to run the trial -- my guess is that at some point the court could refuse to accept it, perhaps even penalizing the petitioner with a monetary fine of some sort?).
The wiki page on double jeopardy.
And missing their exit and backing up on the shoulder...
And unfortunately your kids will probably drive just like you, adding to the hammerhead population that refuses to drive in the right lane.
Isn't correlation more an indicator of things the insurance company should investigate re establishing a plausible link to causation? Otherwise they'd be chasing blips in data, e.g. if over some period Virgos (Virgoes ?) had half as many accidents as those born under other astrological signs, would you expect insurance companies to incorporate that into their pricing models?
Why do the slashmongs trot out the "correlation does not imply causation" line as if it's some deep wisdom?
Who cares about causation here? Certainly not the insurance companies, they just want to identify factors correlating with crashes.
Maybe for "slashmongs" like yourself who apparently don't get the (not-so-subtle) difference between causation and correlation?
Insurance companies certainly care about causation, not simply correlation, e.g. if they instituted a "what did you have for breakfast monitor" and found that 20% of their driving population sample ate Brand X cereals before having an accident (aha! correlation!), I doubt they'd offer discounts for households that swore off Brand X cereal.
The first thing I did after graduating from high school was immediately and gladly stop writing in cursive forever. It's been nearly 30 years, and I've never had a use for it, besides my signature.
About the same for me (though I think I stopped cursive in high school), except for one instance when to make some extra $$ during college I signed up to be a UPS "seasonal driver's helper" (i.e. a runner for a package delivery service). During the "training" they had a form where you were asked to write all the letters of the alphabet in upper- and lower-case (in both print and cursive). I had some serious trouble with cursive capitals, was kind of shocking to me at the time that I had forgotten how to produce 4 or 5 letters.
Likewise, we've all encountered clueless IT departments who force apps onto work PCs that suck the life out of them (e.g. anti-virus crap, various drops of MS Kool-Aid the IT dept has bought into, etc.), then on a support call act as if it is the first time anyone has ever complained about the situation.
They can default on bonds they have issued, though, can't they?
My professional wild assed guess is that it cost the industry 1 billion to implement and maybe 1 million a year to maintain/support.
Not sure what your profession is, but if your guesses are as poor as the one above I'd suggest some vocational retraining. Let's say that 20 million lines get ported every year, and 2% fall out of the mainstream (i.e. easy) category -- that's 400k orders in need of manual intervention (on both sides of the port, at that), and each order certainly costs a LEC more than $1.25 to process at that point (figuring a fully-loaded cost for tier-2 support of $20/hr at least).