What's perplexing is why they haven't shifted to softer targets
They have. Off the top of my head -
- London Underground Bombing
- Madrid Train Bombing
- Bali Night Club Bombing
- Mumbai Hotel Attack
- Times Square Bomber (foiled)
- Oslo, Norway Shootings
- Moscow Theatre Attack
Those selected for secondary screening may find it much less pleasant than TSA's most invasive screening
In the fall of 2000, I experienced Israeli secondary screening at Ben Gurion (I was travelling onwards from Israel to Arab states). While no screening is 'pleasant,' at all times I felt I was interacting with a skilled, intelligent, articulate professional. I have never felt that way interacting with the TSA as I try to explain to them that they've pulling the zipper on my bag in the wrong direction. "STEP AWAY SIR." Ugh.
The "9/11 dudes" were operating under the old rules - Whereby flight crews were trained to agree to hijacker demands. The cockpit door was also unlocked. Today, flight crews don't give in to demands, and the doors are armoured and locked. You sure as hell can't 'jimmy' the door open, and while you were busy jimmying you'd be beaten to death by the passengers.
There are lots of things I'm "not a fan of" but it doesn't mean I think there should be billions wasted on those things. Spend your tax dollars on REAL threats - Not some fantasy involving jacknives.
Exactly. I remember reading an interview with an Israeli security screener. In a nutshell, he said that "Once I trust you, I'll let you on the plane with dynamite. It's not dynamite I'm screening for - It's you." I experienced Israeli security once - I felt like I was interacting with a highly skilled, trained professional. I've never felt that way at an American airport.
By directing the billions you're wasting screening Granny's pasta sauce jar towards law enforcement so you catch the underwear bomber before he even arrives at the airport.
If he does make it to the airport, you catch it by profiling him for special extra screening. So you don't screen granny, but you do screen me (44 year old darker skinned guy, non US-citizen, with beard).
Please outline a plan to keep dangerous people/articles off of planes with near certain precision without invasive searches.
1) Continue to screen, but limit screening to items that are actually dangerous. Bomb? Dangerous. Gun? Dangerous. Swiss Army Knife? Not dangerous. T-Shirt with Arabic writing? Not dangerous. In other words, screen at year-2000 level.
2) Employee educated, intelligent screeners and allow them to exhibit common sense (witness Israel). Granny with a jar of homemade pasta sauce is not a threat. Mentally handicapped boy with a plastic toy hammer is not a threat. Handbag with an embroidered gun is not a threat. Don't just blindly follow rules.
3) Accept that 'near certain precision' as applies to screening is impossible. Life is full of risks. Somewhere / somehow / sometime something or someone is going to slip through. "Keep calm and carry on."
Not troll. TSA spends billions of dollars screening for sharps and shampoo. What exactly is the threat of having a sharp on board? And how is it different from a sharp on a ferry or train?
What exactly is this obession with 'sharps' on board anway? What exactly could a 'terrorist' do if they managed to smuggle a hunting (or x-acto) knife on board? I can see the value of banning guns and bombs - They could take down an aircraft - But what exactly can someone do with a knife? I realize the 9/11 hijackers took the planes down with boxcutters, but the paradigm has changed... If someone stood up with a knife today, not only would they not get into the cockpit, the other passengers would beat them to death with the drinks trolley.
Rather ironic considering that the U.S. government is doing everything in its power to censor its _own_ people on the Internet.
Oh give it a rest you anonymous coward. I'm not American and I don't live in the USA, but if you hate the place so much go live in a *real* police state. Then you'll know what censorship really is. I guarantee you if Iran were to host an "eEmbassy" not only would the US government not block it, they'd have no means to do so other than the courts, and the courts would tell the government to piss off.
So they're creating an alternative way of working with the iPhone? Oh man, apple lawsuit incoming.
As of iOS 4.3, Apple has an extensible set of APIs that allow third-party applications to manage iDevice endpoints in the Enterprise (iPads / iPhones, even iPods). Apple refers to this as "MDM" (Mobile Device Management). There are already numerous players in this space.
The rich will immunize because its a smart move. The poor will immunize because its a smart move.
Interestingly, here in Canada, the 'poor' actually have a higher immunization rate for their children than the rich, because the poor trust their doctors and don't have the time/energy/wherewithall to spend their time with 'herbalists' and other rubbish. A note comes from school saying 'we're immunizing against rubella tomorrow' and the poor sign the permission slip because to them it sounds like a good idea. And they're right.
Granted, not all jobs are suited for telecommuted [sic]
Not all people are suited to telecommuting either. I personally like the division between 'home' and 'work.' At home I play with my kids, walk the dog, work on the house, watch TV etc. At work, I, well, work. Plus, if you have children, to effectively work at home you need a space designated as an office that you can put yourself in where you'll be reasonably free of interruption. Pretty tough if there's a kid banging on the door demanding to know why daddy can't build Lego, or if you have a small residence. Is it handy to be able to work at home from time to time? Absolutely. Would I want to do it 100% of my time? No. (And that doesn't even include all the political advantages of being in the office day to day and visible to management and your colleagues...)
Truecrypt could use an "erase key" feature for wiping hard drives with random data.
The new self-encrypting hard drives (that adhere to the OPAL standard) have this feature. One software command shreds the key - In effect wiping the drive back to factory spec.
Slashdot Mirror
What separated Stephen King's experiment from Louis CK's?
Stephen King's book was a decade ago, before everyone had e-readers.
I might be wrong
You are wrong:
http://www.brightsideofnews.com/Data/2011_11_1/PHOTO-Horrific-Images-of-Flooded-Western-Digital-Factory/WD_FloodB_689.jpg
http://www.innovationpov.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/HDD-Production-Equip.jpg
What's perplexing is why they haven't shifted to softer targets
They have. Off the top of my head -
- London Underground Bombing
- Madrid Train Bombing
- Bali Night Club Bombing
- Mumbai Hotel Attack
- Times Square Bomber (foiled)
- Oslo, Norway Shootings
- Moscow Theatre Attack
Those selected for secondary screening may find it much less pleasant than TSA's most invasive screening
In the fall of 2000, I experienced Israeli secondary screening at Ben Gurion (I was travelling onwards from Israel to Arab states). While no screening is 'pleasant,' at all times I felt I was interacting with a skilled, intelligent, articulate professional. I have never felt that way interacting with the TSA as I try to explain to them that they've pulling the zipper on my bag in the wrong direction. "STEP AWAY SIR." Ugh.
The "9/11 dudes" were operating under the old rules - Whereby flight crews were trained to agree to hijacker demands. The cockpit door was also unlocked. Today, flight crews don't give in to demands, and the doors are armoured and locked. You sure as hell can't 'jimmy' the door open, and while you were busy jimmying you'd be beaten to death by the passengers.
When some [sic] takes control of ferrys [sic] and trains with a blade, then the [sic] flys [sic] them into buildings, we will see a ban on blades
How, today, exactly would you use a blade on a plane to fly it into a building? Walk us through it. This isn't 1995.
but not a fan of allowing knives on planes either
There are lots of things I'm "not a fan of" but it doesn't mean I think there should be billions wasted on those things. Spend your tax dollars on REAL threats - Not some fantasy involving jacknives.
Those that pass, go through easily
Exactly. I remember reading an interview with an Israeli security screener. In a nutshell, he said that "Once I trust you, I'll let you on the plane with dynamite. It's not dynamite I'm screening for - It's you." I experienced Israeli security once - I felt like I was interacting with a highly skilled, trained professional. I've never felt that way at an American airport.
By directing the billions you're wasting screening Granny's pasta sauce jar towards law enforcement so you catch the underwear bomber before he even arrives at the airport.
If he does make it to the airport, you catch it by profiling him for special extra screening. So you don't screen granny, but you do screen me (44 year old darker skinned guy, non US-citizen, with beard).
Please outline a plan to keep dangerous people/articles off of planes with near certain precision without invasive searches.
1) Continue to screen, but limit screening to items that are actually dangerous. Bomb? Dangerous. Gun? Dangerous. Swiss Army Knife? Not dangerous. T-Shirt with Arabic writing? Not dangerous. In other words, screen at year-2000 level.
2) Employee educated, intelligent screeners and allow them to exhibit common sense (witness Israel). Granny with a jar of homemade pasta sauce is not a threat. Mentally handicapped boy with a plastic toy hammer is not a threat. Handbag with an embroidered gun is not a threat. Don't just blindly follow rules.
3) Accept that 'near certain precision' as applies to screening is impossible. Life is full of risks. Somewhere / somehow / sometime something or someone is going to slip through. "Keep calm and carry on."
Not troll. TSA spends billions of dollars screening for sharps and shampoo. What exactly is the threat of having a sharp on board? And how is it different from a sharp on a ferry or train?
and that's not including knives
What exactly is this obession with 'sharps' on board anway? What exactly could a 'terrorist' do if they managed to smuggle a hunting (or x-acto) knife on board? I can see the value of banning guns and bombs - They could take down an aircraft - But what exactly can someone do with a knife? I realize the 9/11 hijackers took the planes down with boxcutters, but the paradigm has changed... If someone stood up with a knife today, not only would they not get into the cockpit, the other passengers would beat them to death with the drinks trolley.
What will dimwit hot chicks do for a living now?
Marry rich and bang the pool boy on the side.
Rather ironic considering that the U.S. government is doing everything in its power to censor its _own_ people on the Internet.
Oh give it a rest you anonymous coward. I'm not American and I don't live in the USA, but if you hate the place so much go live in a *real* police state. Then you'll know what censorship really is. I guarantee you if Iran were to host an "eEmbassy" not only would the US government not block it, they'd have no means to do so other than the courts, and the courts would tell the government to piss off.
Even 2001 was shot mostly with "in camera" effects work
I was pretty surprised to learn that most of the FX in "Moonraker" were shot in-camera by winding back the film.
Bit of a silly movie, but FX are pretty impressive considering how they were done.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NI6ygeZxUBA
I don't believe in imaginary property.
Please send me all your money, via wire transfer. Thank you.
It also has no user-serviceable parts and no bolt-on supplemental fuel tanks.
So they're creating an alternative way of working with the iPhone? Oh man, apple lawsuit incoming.
As of iOS 4.3, Apple has an extensible set of APIs that allow third-party applications to manage iDevice endpoints in the Enterprise (iPads / iPhones, even iPods). Apple refers to this as "MDM" (Mobile Device Management). There are already numerous players in this space.
More here:
http://www.apple.com/iphone/business/integration/mdm/
So no, no lawsuit coming, particularly as Apple doesn't actually make these tools themselves.
Result: Search results will be controlled by botnets
Nope, search results will be controlled by geeks. Result? 15K hits on Pikachu cosplay girl searches, zero on Project Runway.
They're vicious SOBs down there
*knew this was a one way ticket but you know i had to come*_______ *luv u wife*
/. lameness filter won't let me quote properly.)
(I know it's supposed to be in all caps, but the lame
Why are there millions of muslims in previously all white countries?
Because white people have greatly reduced the number of babies they have..
The rich will immunize because its a smart move. The poor will immunize because its a smart move.
Interestingly, here in Canada, the 'poor' actually have a higher immunization rate for their children than the rich, because the poor trust their doctors and don't have the time/energy/wherewithall to spend their time with 'herbalists' and other rubbish. A note comes from school saying 'we're immunizing against rubella tomorrow' and the poor sign the permission slip because to them it sounds like a good idea. And they're right.
Granted, not all jobs are suited for telecommuted [sic]
Not all people are suited to telecommuting either. I personally like the division between 'home' and 'work.' At home I play with my kids, walk the dog, work on the house, watch TV etc. At work, I, well, work. Plus, if you have children, to effectively work at home you need a space designated as an office that you can put yourself in where you'll be reasonably free of interruption. Pretty tough if there's a kid banging on the door demanding to know why daddy can't build Lego, or if you have a small residence. Is it handy to be able to work at home from time to time? Absolutely. Would I want to do it 100% of my time? No. (And that doesn't even include all the political advantages of being in the office day to day and visible to management and your colleagues...)
You eat basically the same amount bike commuting or sitting your ass in a car
True. The difference is that the bike commuters "in general" aren't fat like car commuters.
Truecrypt could use an "erase key" feature for wiping hard drives with random data.
The new self-encrypting hard drives (that adhere to the OPAL standard) have this feature. One software command shreds the key - In effect wiping the drive back to factory spec.