If you don't like hypothetical posts, then this isn't the post for you. Feel free to mod it down, flame it, whatever you do best...
Let's say for the time being that these devices are 100% foolproof. If you're carrying something onto an airplane, and it is capable of taking down said airplane, it will get noticed. I'm fully ware this isn't the case. That's irrelevant to the point I'm trying to make. Let's also say that the images taken from full-body scanners are not capable of being saved out to remote locations, or even locally. Finally, let's say that your average TSA isn't an immature kid who will giggle and point when looking at a full-body scan image. YMMV on this, depending upon location.
Under those conditions, what's the big deal? To me, it isn't a big deal.
First, since when has the internet (especially/.) become so self-conscious? I mean, "Hey, you can't look at my junk" is on the same sensitivity level I'd expect to hear from school districts, churches and daycares. Have we really fallen that far? I mean, my bits look just like the next guy's bits. Under the hypothetical assumption above, your average TSA agent wouldn't care about the bits. They just care about the bombs. If we're saying that we can't find a person to objectively look at body-scans without it becoming an "ordeal", then we've lost more than just the "war on terror."
Second, for those who cite Franklin and his Safety/Liberty bit, what personal liberty are you giving up? Do you have a right to protection from Body Scans? I mean, you already agree to have your entire contents searched via x-ray and also agree to not transport certain materials. Those rules are strictly enforced as it is. Assuming that the body-scan is 100% effective and your TSA agent isn't a snickering 15 year old...How does this violate anything that isn't already being violated?
Finally, to address the phrase "The risk of a terrorist attack is so infinitesimal and its impact so relatively insignificant": Risk and Impact here are presented in a grayscale. That's just not the case. If you or your loved one is killed in something like 9/11, the chance is 100%. There's no statistical consolation in this case, and the impact is quite significant.
So, if we could close those loopholes outlined in the hypothetical section, what do we have to lose? What am I missing here?
I had the same experience. We had to run to two different stores (not even AT&T stores) just to buy phones. Most AT&T stores in the area (read: Dallas Metroplex) only got between 5 - 7 phones. Really.
We don't even know if the impact will happen, because multiple orbital bodies are a chaotic system, so we can't possibly predict where they'll be in 172 years.
You're right. It could happen next year. Everybody Panic!!!!
And if Obama gets his moratorium on deep-water drilling, it should be no problem to find a handful of rag-tag well-drillers to complete the ultimate space mission.
Actually, the Bible does have much to say about "Single-Partner, Long-term, Public" homosexual relationships. Often when you find mentions of homosexuality, it is in the same sentence or passage with rape and incest.
If you come across a Bible Thumper, you should really ask them if their hard-line, book-waving stance on homosexuality is preached with the same fervor as all the other teachings of the Bible. Ask them how they feel about Women's Hairstyles (Longer is better!) or about how they should plant their crops. (Two types of seed in the same vineyard is really, really bad.)
Would like to go tangent here and say that Battle Kid is insane. Fun game, and hard as heck. Plus, the cart is pretty empty since technology shrunk the daylights out of the ICs in there.
It was always impressed upon me (heavily) that the term "art" was bidirectional.
If the observer thinks the piece is art, then it is art.
If the creator considers it art, then it is art.
My guess as to why these brash and controversial statements are surfacing has two words: Rotten Tomatoes. With the proliferation of social media, anyone can be a film critic. The quintessential movie critic days have long since passed, and there just isn't place for Ebert anymore. He needs to let it go, get out on his front porch and tell kids to get off his lawn.
Some cities go a step further than just a picture. They will give you a picture before, a picture after and a 12-second video of you running the light. All that information can be found online via a URL given to you with your citation.
Dark Age of Camelot (the game that put Mythic on the map) players were affected too. Unfortunately, DAoC players don't have the luxury of prepaid game cards, and MUST use a CC/Debit card to pay for their account.
I'm not sure why people are surprised, this isn't the first time there's been a billing issue: See here
Are we talking about the searching, or just the look and feel of it? If it is the latter, I've always just run the oldbar addon to revert back to the FF2 feel. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/6227 YMMV though
Last month, Google changed its policy stating that "advertisers will be allowed to use trademark terms in their ad text even if they do not own that trademark or have explicit approval from the trademark owner to use it," Rosetta Stone said
The problem is NOT Google infringing upon the trademarks that Rosetta Stone holds. The issue is that Google is now willingly allowing Joe Schmuck, a competitor, to use trademarks to their own benefit. This seems like a pretty obvious infringement issue. I'm confused though, as to why Google JUST now started to allow this. If it was a no-brainer back when Adwords started, wouldn't they have allowed it at that point? Sounds to me like Adwords revenue was down, and allowing the use of non-approved trademarks in ads made the Adsword space that much more appealing in hopes of getting people off the fence when evaluating their advertising budget.
Honestly, it seems rather useless (in these examples). I won't knock music in general, but does a computer singing a song really going to be helpful in diagnosing something? Just because you have more information, doesn't mean you have any higher level of useful information.
I will give the presenter props though. That was like a Science Word Bingo caller going for blackout.
Slashdot Mirror
If you don't like hypothetical posts, then this isn't the post for you. Feel free to mod it down, flame it, whatever you do best...
/.) become so self-conscious? I mean, "Hey, you can't look at my junk" is on the same sensitivity level I'd expect to hear from school districts, churches and daycares. Have we really fallen that far? I mean, my bits look just like the next guy's bits. Under the hypothetical assumption above, your average TSA agent wouldn't care about the bits. They just care about the bombs. If we're saying that we can't find a person to objectively look at body-scans without it becoming an "ordeal", then we've lost more than just the "war on terror."
Let's say for the time being that these devices are 100% foolproof. If you're carrying something onto an airplane, and it is capable of taking down said airplane, it will get noticed. I'm fully ware this isn't the case. That's irrelevant to the point I'm trying to make. Let's also say that the images taken from full-body scanners are not capable of being saved out to remote locations, or even locally. Finally, let's say that your average TSA isn't an immature kid who will giggle and point when looking at a full-body scan image. YMMV on this, depending upon location.
Under those conditions, what's the big deal? To me, it isn't a big deal.
First, since when has the internet (especially
Second, for those who cite Franklin and his Safety/Liberty bit, what personal liberty are you giving up? Do you have a right to protection from Body Scans? I mean, you already agree to have your entire contents searched via x-ray and also agree to not transport certain materials. Those rules are strictly enforced as it is. Assuming that the body-scan is 100% effective and your TSA agent isn't a snickering 15 year old...How does this violate anything that isn't already being violated?
Finally, to address the phrase "The risk of a terrorist attack is so infinitesimal and its impact so relatively insignificant": Risk and Impact here are presented in a grayscale. That's just not the case. If you or your loved one is killed in something like 9/11, the chance is 100%. There's no statistical consolation in this case, and the impact is quite significant.
So, if we could close those loopholes outlined in the hypothetical section, what do we have to lose? What am I missing here?
I had the same experience. We had to run to two different stores (not even AT&T stores) just to buy phones. Most AT&T stores in the area (read: Dallas Metroplex) only got between 5 - 7 phones. Really.
We both love our phones.
We don't even know if the impact will happen, because multiple orbital bodies are a chaotic system, so we can't possibly predict where they'll be in 172 years.
You're right. It could happen next year. Everybody Panic!!!!
And if Obama gets his moratorium on deep-water drilling, it should be no problem to find a handful of rag-tag well-drillers to complete the ultimate space mission.
Actually, the Bible does have much to say about "Single-Partner, Long-term, Public" homosexual relationships. Often when you find mentions of homosexuality, it is in the same sentence or passage with rape and incest.
If you come across a Bible Thumper, you should really ask them if their hard-line, book-waving stance on homosexuality is preached with the same fervor as all the other teachings of the Bible. Ask them how they feel about Women's Hairstyles (Longer is better!) or about how they should plant their crops. (Two types of seed in the same vineyard is really, really bad.)
I think Betty Bowers has the best take on it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFkeKKszXTw
Would like to go tangent here and say that Battle Kid is insane. Fun game, and hard as heck. Plus, the cart is pretty empty since technology shrunk the daylights out of the ICs in there.
It was always impressed upon me (heavily) that the term "art" was bidirectional.
If the observer thinks the piece is art, then it is art.
If the creator considers it art, then it is art.
My guess as to why these brash and controversial statements are surfacing has two words: Rotten Tomatoes. With the proliferation of social media, anyone can be a film critic. The quintessential movie critic days have long since passed, and there just isn't place for Ebert anymore. He needs to let it go, get out on his front porch and tell kids to get off his lawn.
Just my $.02.
I'm pretty sure if we could get 1.3 billion PEOPLE to run on a treadmill, we could produce just as much power, and we'd actually shed some fat....
Nah, screw it. Make the cows do it.
That R2 is in prime condition, a real bargain.
Some cities go a step further than just a picture. They will give you a picture before, a picture after and a 12-second video of you running the light. All that information can be found online via a URL given to you with your citation.
http://www.plano.gov/Departments/Police/RedLightCameras/Pages/default.aspx
Dark Age of Camelot (the game that put Mythic on the map) players were affected too. Unfortunately, DAoC players don't have the luxury of prepaid game cards, and MUST use a CC/Debit card to pay for their account.
I'm not sure why people are surprised, this isn't the first time there's been a billing issue: See here
If I was a mod, I'd have to rate this AC as a +5 for Trolling. It is a valiant effort.
That, or the person is from Texas. (Likely close to where I live. I see "Red Blooded AH-MUR-I-CUNS" day in and day out down here...)
If you weren't curious, the lolcat would still be 50% alive, damnit!
I'm pretty sure the first "D" in DDoS stands for "Distributed."
/^65\.55\.(106|107|207)/. from TFA).
If it was really a DDoS, you wouldn't be able to filter the IP out with a simple regex (like the
To boot, TFA didn't even say DDoS. Maybe that's too much to expect the editors to oh... I don't know...say... RTFA or Fact-Check it?
I should drop my bar a bit, I suppose.
Macs need an admin? I thought they "just worked."
Uh, yeah. Godmode ftw. Who else didn't see this coming?
Are we talking about the searching, or just the look and feel of it? If it is the latter, I've always just run the oldbar addon to revert back to the FF2 feel. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/6227 YMMV though
For those who skimmed TFA:
Last month, Google changed its policy stating that "advertisers will be allowed to use trademark terms in their ad text even if they do not own that trademark or have explicit approval from the trademark owner to use it," Rosetta Stone said
The problem is NOT Google infringing upon the trademarks that Rosetta Stone holds. The issue is that Google is now willingly allowing Joe Schmuck, a competitor, to use trademarks to their own benefit. This seems like a pretty obvious infringement issue. I'm confused though, as to why Google JUST now started to allow this. If it was a no-brainer back when Adwords started, wouldn't they have allowed it at that point? Sounds to me like Adwords revenue was down, and allowing the use of non-approved trademarks in ads made the Adsword space that much more appealing in hopes of getting people off the fence when evaluating their advertising budget.
In Soviet Russia... Mir forgets YOU!
This has to be one of the best "funny" comments I've read in a while. New keyboard, plz.
Honestly, it seems rather useless (in these examples). I won't knock music in general, but does a computer singing a song really going to be helpful in diagnosing something? Just because you have more information, doesn't mean you have any higher level of useful information.
I will give the presenter props though. That was like a Science Word Bingo caller going for blackout.
Some games *used* to let the client dictate the game state (position) but that leads to all sorts of fun/nasty things like speedhacks, wallhacks, etc.
Who saw the topic and thought "Goblin Jumper Cables" ??? God.
I for one and totally for a house with legs...in the mountains. What could go wrong?
Well I stand corrected. Do you have to hit them in any specific location?