But that's not all. They also have let the underwear bomber pass the security checks without even having a passport, skipping totally the checks thanks to a guy that was accompanying him.
No one who is in a position to know anything has said that.
The only claim is that a "sharp dressed man" tried to get the underwear bomber through checkin without a passport but was rebuffed, and the eventually the bomber did show his passport and only then was let through.
Since it became unconfortable telling parents that their child was killed by someone that it was known would re-offend since very nearly 100% do so.
Typical fear-mongering - probably not your fault, most likely you are just repeating the same "common sense" bullshit that politicians regularly use to rally votes for their "tough on crime" platforms.
At worst ~50% re-offend, and that's for the group of offenders who are (a) young (b) molest boys (c) do not know the victim. Which itself is a very tiny portion of the population of molesters - somewhere on the order of 3% because almost all pedophiles who actual molest a child do it to a family member or a family member of a friend. That ~50% number drops to around 5% if they receive significant counseling. So the actual number of recidivist pedophiles is quite low and would be practically nil if sentencing was focused on rehabilitation rather than revenge.
Sociopaths perform important functions in modern organisations. I don't like it anymore than you do but if the ship is going down somebody has to decide who gets a seat on a lifeboat.
So, if a pedophile is in charge, then they will put all the children on the lifeboat first. Hhhm.
You're missing the point, the Finns want to use it by default for everyone.
Lol, thanks for repeating the article summary for me. I don't know how I ever read it and didn't read it at the same time. If we all just stuck to the exact contents of the article summary there would be no posts here.
I'm pretty sure you can't name a private mailbox facility that does scan and email without seriously googling for it. The point of my post being that most people are unaware that they can get the personal benefits of that service themselves without involving a government agency. Oh look - government abuse of privacy was actually mentioned in the article, I guess that was part of the original point after all.
From your own link - and virtually any business will have verbage to this effect in their employee manauls.
No they don't. I've read a LOT of HR guidelines over the years. Pretty much the only places that do that are the ones where employees don't have their own desk & phone - like people working at grocery stores.
Some full-service private mailbox facilities will do this for you to - they scan all the snail mail that arrives for you and then email the scans to you. Convenient for maintaining a mailing address if you are on the road a lot or are otherwise far away from your mailing address.
On a closer note, it's the same privacy standard as if she'd had the conversation with her lawyer on the company phone
I'm too lazy to get you a citation, but the "lawyer" half isn't necessary - the courts long ago ruled that an employer can not snoop on her phone calls to ANYONE even if she is using a company phone.
And it'll happen despite a warning from the guy's father or other intelligence sources all because two intelligence agencies can't figure out the meaning of the word "sharing,"
You are far too optimistic. We've all heard how the underwear bomber's father reported him and no one paid attention. Well, that's not true. They DID pay attention and they actively chose to let him keep his american visa. It wasn't a mistake, they did it on purpose. This information was released by Patrick F. Kennedy, undersecretary for management at the State Department.
Therefore all these "security changes" are 100% bullshit. No amount of hassling passengers will make any difference as long as the people in charge can arbitrarily exempt the ones that are actually known to be dangerous.
And THAT is why you get a SECOND OPINION from this group of college educated geniuses.
I second that. My wife had massive headaches. The ER thought it must be an aneurysm - but when they did the spinal tap test, it came back negative. So she went to a specialist - he prescribed an anti-depressant, said that as a side-effect it "helps with headaches." We said WTF? and went to another specialist - he said it was a tiny leak of spinal fluid, that these things happen spontaneously once in a great while and that it will heal on its own in a week or so, plus the spinal tap exacerbated it. Sure enough, a week goes by and she is 100% recovered.
The abstinence only kids had the lowest rate of beginning sexual activity.
Except it wasn't really an abstinence program because it taught that the kids should delay sex "until they were ready" - not "until they were married." It kinda defeats the purpose of abstinence if the only requirement to breaking the chastity is feeling like.
Which makes this entire sub-thread just another internet penis measuring contest.
The only reason you can run AnyDVD is because Slysoft found a loophole in the DMCA and moved to a country that will let them exploit it. It certainly isn't because of MS that you can watch BDs on vista - it is, in fact, in spite of them. Kinda like the way this hacker wants to re-enable linux on the PS3 in spite of Sony's efforts to the contrary.
That makes sense if someone is willing to pay $100 million for the first copy of the movie.
Or maybe we just stop having $100 million movies. Half that goes to big names and the only reason they need big names is because they need to recoup the huge amount of money they spent on the movie.
Not that there aren't potential methods to get lots of people to each pay a little bit for the movie - kinda like selling tickets ahead of time - I'm just saying that the basic assumption that $100M movies are necessary is a poor one.
One the prime reasons that cyber bullying is of particular focus now is that you simply can't escape it.
That's bullshit. Most of those web 2.0 thingamobbers give you full control over who can communicate with you. And failing that - as someone else already said, just log out.
Maybe those services could be a little more explicit about their blocking options, but if the stress is enough to cause some to commit suicide, then its more than enough for them to figure out how to block the bullies too.
"Incontrovertible evidence" of what, exactly ? Since when is a particular vehicle's manual an authoritative source on how to drive safely ?
Lol. And the dissonance keeps on ringing. You think you can change the subject from what that driver did in that car to some other topic - those straws ain't working.
Don't even try to change the subject to turning the engine off,
Incidentally, I notice you are conveniently ignoring that the Prius manual says to turn the engine off in case of an emergency.
The dissonance is strong in this one. In case it really wasn't clear - you were the one with the one-track mind about shifting to neutral being a minimum requirement for competent driving - when faced with incontrovertible evidence of your folly you started grasping for straws - first by ignoring the part about losing control of the vehicle and then second by trying to shift the discussion to turning the engine off. You screwed the pooch, but you've got too much pride to own up to it. So much so that you just went back to trying to argue for shifting to neutral again.
You asked a question, I gave an answer. Throwing around ad-hominems isn't going to change the answer. I'll say it again: anyone who doesn't understand what neutral is shouldn't be behind the wheel of a car.
Its not an ad-hominem if it is an accurate description. You've just got so little empathy you can't step outside yourself for even a second -- I mean look at youreself, still trying to argue that he should be expected to shift to neutral. The shoe fits dude.
No, I'd observe that destroying a transmission or simply turning off the engine is still a preferable outcome to being in a couple of tons of metal that won't stop. Of course, instead of doing that I'd just turn the engine off like that manual says to do in an emergency situation.
And the cognitive dissonance sets in - live by the sword die by the sword sucka. "Loss of control of the vehicle" has nothing to do with destroying the transmission. Don't even try to change the subject to turning the engine off, you were the one requiring 100% competence and at the same time advocating a complete disregard for the instructions.
After 15+ years of driving, and over half a million kilometres covered in ten different countries, I feel confident that an answer of "hundreds" is likely a gross underestimate.
Your aptitude for failing to see beyond your own personal experiences is fantastic! Joyful even.
No. Intolerance for stupidity and incompetence is not a "lack of empathy". This is particularly true when multiple tons of metal and people's lives are involved. Someone who does not grasp that neutral disconnects the engine from the wheels should not be driving a car, because they are a hazard to themselves and, more important, everyone around them.
So, if the Prius manual said, "Do not, under any circumstances, shift the shift lever to 'R', 'N' or push the 'P' position switch while the vehicle is moving. Doing so can cause significant damage to the transmission and may result in a loss of vehicle control." you would have to fail to tolerate yourself, eh?
You really couldn't be any more wrong. Man with a history of filing false police reports, deep in debt, calls 911 and tries to turn it around to get some cash.
Lol - your rebuttal to my point that it was mere innuendo is... more innuendo? And well-known false innuendo at that? He never asked for money. He just wanted the car replaced -- he didn't even ask for his car loan to be zeroed.
Everyone who's investigated this has said that his claims are nonsensical and Sikes is a fraud. (You really don't think it's possible to tell the difference between intermittent braking and constant hard braking?)
Yeah, everyone - and that would be how many people? Sure... As for the difference between hard braking and intermittent braking - think for just a second - if you tried hard braking and it didn't work, what would you do? It is entirely reasonable to think something was stuck and that by pumping the brakes pedal you could loosen it or jigger it back into place.
Every automatic transmission I've ever seen has neutral. Most of them don't even require pressing the release button to move from Reverse or Drive into neutral. Anyone who doesn't understand, at the very least, that "N" means the car doesn't go, shouldn't be driving.
What a typical lack of empathy you've displayed. Consider this - in all the times you've driven in an automatic, how many times have you shifted to neutral - not through neutral, but to neutral? For most people that would be nearly zero - neutral in an automatic is nearly useless, you can't roll-start an automatic and unless you need a tow or a push, you aren't going to use it. Take it one step further - how many times have you shifted to neutral while in motion? For the vast majority of people that is zero.
But you know what? That's all moot, the point still stands that if he needed to shift to neutral something was seriously broken to begin with.
Since the biggest Toyota runaway story has turned out to be a problem exists between seat and pedals situation...
The article you linked to does not even begin to support that conclusion. Basically its a bunch of innuendo, like he [i]might[/i] have been late on payments on the car (since proven false) or that he should have shifted it to neutral (not an intuitive action for someone who has never driven a manual transmission - and certainly a last resort that does not negate the existence of a problem to begin with). Even information released after that article was published has been far from damning - basically toyota has said "we couldn't reproduce the problem" - as if "works for me" means there are no software bugs.
The undisputed facts are that the brakes were severely worn (although Toyota claims that the wear is not consistent with emergency braking - huh?) and that the car's black-box showed that the guy hit the brakes over 200 times during the time of the incident and that a cop witnessed the guy practically standing on the brakes.
Unless there is more that's come out recently, all facts released so far point to a failure with the car, not the nut behind the wheel.
Furthermore, the notion that your mythical 'market' can correctly assign prices seems to have been blown out of the water by the recent failure of that market to correctly price financial derivatives.
Why do you think that? I think the meltdown in derivative pricing was precisely the invisible hand correcting the over-valuing of those derivatives. If anything, its been the government's interference in that market correction that has slowed down the process. If Bush and then Obama had just stayed out of it instead of trying to prop it up, those prices would be in tune with reality by now.
Slashdot Mirror
But that's not all. They also have let the underwear bomber pass the security checks without even having a passport, skipping totally the checks thanks to a guy that was accompanying him.
No one who is in a position to know anything has said that.
The only claim is that a "sharp dressed man" tried to get the underwear bomber through checkin without a passport but was rebuffed, and the eventually the bomber did show his passport and only then was let through.
Since it became unconfortable telling parents that their child was killed by someone that it was known would re-offend since very nearly 100% do so.
Typical fear-mongering - probably not your fault, most likely you are just repeating the same "common sense" bullshit that politicians regularly use to rally votes for their "tough on crime" platforms.
At worst ~50% re-offend, and that's for the group of offenders who are (a) young (b) molest boys (c) do not know the victim. Which itself is a very tiny portion of the population of molesters - somewhere on the order of 3% because almost all pedophiles who actual molest a child do it to a family member or a family member of a friend. That ~50% number drops to around 5% if they receive significant counseling. So the actual number of recidivist pedophiles is quite low and would be practically nil if sentencing was focused on rehabilitation rather than revenge.
http://www.vnews.com/sexcrimes/recidivism.htm
Sociopaths perform important functions in modern organisations. I don't like it anymore than you do but if the ship is going down somebody has to decide who gets a seat on a lifeboat.
So, if a pedophile is in charge, then they will put all the children on the lifeboat first. Hhhm.
Why the heck do we have judges who are so out of touch with reality making these sorts of mistakes?
He was probably elected on a platform of being "stupid tough on crime."
You're missing the point, the Finns want to use it by default for everyone.
Lol, thanks for repeating the article summary for me. I don't know how I ever read it and didn't read it at the same time. If we all just stuck to the exact contents of the article summary there would be no posts here.
I'm pretty sure you can't name a private mailbox facility that does scan and email without seriously googling for it. The point of my post being that most people are unaware that they can get the personal benefits of that service themselves without involving a government agency. Oh look - government abuse of privacy was actually mentioned in the article, I guess that was part of the original point after all.
From your own link - and virtually any business will have verbage to this effect in their employee manauls.
No they don't. I've read a LOT of HR guidelines over the years. Pretty much the only places that do that are the ones where employees don't have their own desk & phone - like people working at grocery stores.
Some full-service private mailbox facilities will do this for you to - they scan all the snail mail that arrives for you and then email the scans to you. Convenient for maintaining a mailing address if you are on the road a lot or are otherwise far away from your mailing address.
Translation: Bullshit
The only time that has ever held true is when a company has specifically said the conversation ARE private.
Translation: suck my iPenis.
The company does not get to say when the conversation is private - if it isn't company business, it is personal.
Under federal case law, when an employer realizes the call is personal, he or she must immediately stop monitoring the call. (Watkins v. L.M. Berry & Co., 704 F.2d 577, 583 (11th Cir. 1983)).
On a closer note, it's the same privacy standard as if she'd had the conversation with her lawyer on the company phone
I'm too lazy to get you a citation, but the "lawyer" half isn't necessary - the courts long ago ruled that an employer can not snoop on her phone calls to ANYONE even if she is using a company phone.
And it'll happen despite a warning from the guy's father or other intelligence sources all because two intelligence agencies can't figure out the meaning of the word "sharing,"
You are far too optimistic. We've all heard how the underwear bomber's father reported him and no one paid attention. Well, that's not true. They DID pay attention and they actively chose to let him keep his american visa. It wasn't a mistake, they did it on purpose. This information was released by Patrick F. Kennedy, undersecretary for management at the State Department.
Therefore all these "security changes" are 100% bullshit. No amount of hassling passengers will make any difference as long as the people in charge can arbitrarily exempt the ones that are actually known to be dangerous.
And THAT is why you get a SECOND OPINION from this group of college educated geniuses.
I second that. My wife had massive headaches. The ER thought it must be an aneurysm - but when they did the spinal tap test, it came back negative. So she went to a specialist - he prescribed an anti-depressant, said that as a side-effect it "helps with headaches." We said WTF? and went to another specialist - he said it was a tiny leak of spinal fluid, that these things happen spontaneously once in a great while and that it will heal on its own in a week or so, plus the spinal tap exacerbated it. Sure enough, a week goes by and she is 100% recovered.
The abstinence only kids had the lowest rate of beginning sexual activity.
Except it wasn't really an abstinence program because it taught that the kids should delay sex "until they were ready" - not "until they were married." It kinda defeats the purpose of abstinence if the only requirement to breaking the chastity is feeling like.
or you've got something like AnyDVD HD installed.
Yep.
Which makes this entire sub-thread just another internet penis measuring contest.
The only reason you can run AnyDVD is because Slysoft found a loophole in the DMCA and moved to a country that will let them exploit it.
It certainly isn't because of MS that you can watch BDs on vista - it is, in fact, in spite of them. Kinda like the way this hacker wants to re-enable linux on the PS3 in spite of Sony's efforts to the contrary.
That makes sense if someone is willing to pay $100 million for the first copy of the movie.
Or maybe we just stop having $100 million movies. Half that goes to big names and the only reason they need big names is because they need to recoup the huge amount of money they spent on the movie.
Not that there aren't potential methods to get lots of people to each pay a little bit for the movie - kinda like selling tickets ahead of time - I'm just saying that the basic assumption that $100M movies are necessary is a poor one.
Basically, bullshitting around shouldn't be enough to convict someone,
Tell that to most of the people convicted of 'conspiracy to commit terrorism' over the last 9 years.
One the prime reasons that cyber bullying is of particular focus now is that you simply can't escape it.
That's bullshit. Most of those web 2.0 thingamobbers give you full control over who can communicate with you. And failing that - as someone else already said, just log out.
Maybe those services could be a little more explicit about their blocking options, but if the stress is enough to cause some to commit suicide, then its more than enough for them to figure out how to block the bullies too.
I'm kind of surprised too, though I wish I wasn't. Sometimes the only way to deal with a shithead is to be the crap out of them
Holy existential typo batman!
"Incontrovertible evidence" of what, exactly ? Since when is a particular vehicle's manual an authoritative source on how to drive safely ?
Lol. And the dissonance keeps on ringing. You think you can change the subject from what that driver did in that car to some other topic - those straws ain't working.
Don't even try to change the subject to turning the engine off,
Incidentally, I notice you are conveniently ignoring that the Prius manual says to turn the engine off in case of an emergency.
The dissonance is strong in this one. In case it really wasn't clear - you were the one with the one-track mind about shifting to neutral being a minimum requirement for competent driving - when faced with incontrovertible evidence of your folly you started grasping for straws - first by ignoring the part about losing control of the vehicle and then second by trying to shift the discussion to turning the engine off. You screwed the pooch, but you've got too much pride to own up to it. So much so that you just went back to trying to argue for shifting to neutral again.
You asked a question, I gave an answer. Throwing around ad-hominems isn't going to change the answer. I'll say it again: anyone who doesn't understand what neutral is shouldn't be behind the wheel of a car.
Its not an ad-hominem if it is an accurate description. You've just got so little empathy you can't step outside yourself for even a second -- I mean look at youreself, still trying to argue that he should be expected to shift to neutral. The shoe fits dude.
No, I'd observe that destroying a transmission or simply turning off the engine is still a preferable outcome to being in a couple of tons of metal that won't stop. Of course, instead of doing that I'd just turn the engine off like that manual says to do in an emergency situation.
And the cognitive dissonance sets in - live by the sword die by the sword sucka. "Loss of control of the vehicle" has nothing to do with destroying the transmission. Don't even try to change the subject to turning the engine off, you were the one requiring 100% competence and at the same time advocating a complete disregard for the instructions.
After 15+ years of driving, and over half a million kilometres covered in ten different countries, I feel confident that an answer of "hundreds" is likely a gross underestimate.
Your aptitude for failing to see beyond your own personal experiences is fantastic! Joyful even.
No. Intolerance for stupidity and incompetence is not a "lack of empathy". This is particularly true when multiple tons of metal and people's lives are involved. Someone who does not grasp that neutral disconnects the engine from the wheels should not be driving a car, because they are a hazard to themselves and, more important, everyone around them.
So, if the Prius manual said, "Do not, under any circumstances, shift the shift lever to 'R', 'N' or push the 'P' position switch while the vehicle is moving. Doing so can cause significant damage to the transmission and may result in a loss of vehicle control." you would have to fail to tolerate yourself, eh?
Hundreds.
Lol, typical smug bastard response.
You really couldn't be any more wrong. Man with a history of filing false police reports, deep in debt, calls 911 and tries to turn it around to get some cash.
Lol - your rebuttal to my point that it was mere innuendo is ... more innuendo? And well-known false innuendo at that?
He never asked for money. He just wanted the car replaced -- he didn't even ask for his car loan to be zeroed.
Everyone who's investigated this has said that his claims are nonsensical and Sikes is a fraud. (You really don't think it's possible to tell the difference between intermittent braking and constant hard braking?)
Yeah, everyone - and that would be how many people? Sure... As for the difference between hard braking and intermittent braking - think for just a second - if you tried hard braking and it didn't work, what would you do? It is entirely reasonable to think something was stuck and that by pumping the brakes pedal you could loosen it or jigger it back into place.
Every automatic transmission I've ever seen has neutral. Most of them don't even require pressing the release button to move from Reverse or Drive into neutral. Anyone who doesn't understand, at the very least, that "N" means the car doesn't go, shouldn't be driving.
What a typical lack of empathy you've displayed. Consider this - in all the times you've driven in an automatic, how many times have you shifted to neutral - not through neutral, but to neutral? For most people that would be nearly zero - neutral in an automatic is nearly useless, you can't roll-start an automatic and unless you need a tow or a push, you aren't going to use it. Take it one step further - how many times have you shifted to neutral while in motion? For the vast majority of people that is zero.
But you know what? That's all moot, the point still stands that if he needed to shift to neutral something was seriously broken to begin with.
Since the biggest Toyota runaway story has turned out to be a problem exists between seat and pedals situation...
The article you linked to does not even begin to support that conclusion. Basically its a bunch of innuendo, like he [i]might[/i] have been late on payments on the car (since proven false) or that he should have shifted it to neutral (not an intuitive action for someone who has never driven a manual transmission - and certainly a last resort that does not negate the existence of a problem to begin with). Even information released after that article was published has been far from damning - basically toyota has said "we couldn't reproduce the problem" - as if "works for me" means there are no software bugs.
The undisputed facts are that the brakes were severely worn (although Toyota claims that the wear is not consistent with emergency braking - huh?) and that the car's black-box showed that the guy hit the brakes over 200 times during the time of the incident and that a cop witnessed the guy practically standing on the brakes.
Unless there is more that's come out recently, all facts released so far point to a failure with the car, not the nut behind the wheel.
Furthermore, the notion that your mythical 'market' can correctly assign prices seems to have been blown out of the water by the recent failure of that market to correctly price financial derivatives.
Why do you think that? I think the meltdown in derivative pricing was precisely the invisible hand correcting the over-valuing of those derivatives. If anything, its been the government's interference in that market correction that has slowed down the process. If Bush and then Obama had just stayed out of it instead of trying to prop it up, those prices would be in tune with reality by now.