Says Pundit Gasbag "it is clear that the TSA dropped the ball on this, and as a result, thousands of American lives are at risk every day"
Therein lies the inherent problem: we don't teach, nor do we practice, critical thinking. Consequently, when Pundit Gasbag says such blatantly ridiculous tripe, we don't have the ability to dissect his statement and reject it because it is so obviously false; instead, we take it at face value.
I really do not know what to think of the article's suggestions on liquids. I've read where various chemistry experts essentially say that terrorists cannot construct liquid bombs that will work at all without having to basically use chemistry equipment, ice baths, lengthy mixing sessions that no one could possibly ignore, etc. Yet here the former TSA head insists that there is a very real risk here. Who is right? Does the former TSA head know something that chemistry experts have somehow missed? Or is the former TSA head working on crap information? I sure don't know but that's one question I'd like resolved.
I'll trust a chemist over a manager any day of the week, when the question is "is it or is it not possible to create a liquid explosive on an airliner." YMMV.
My experience has been that the people who bitch the most about screening are those who travel the least. I'm not saying that there aren't regular travelers who don't complain. Not at all. But in my circle of acquaintances, the people I know who just completely and utterly cannot talk about this subject without getting completely bent out of shape about it simply do not travel by plane....yet this whole subject of TSA screenings is some kind of hot button issue to him.
Granted, you said "I'm not saying that there aren't regular travelers who don't complain..." but nevertheless, you are still making it sound like the people complaining are those who have no vested interest. I, on the other hand, flew pretty regularly but stopped traveling shortly after TSA tightened security too much in 11/2010. I haven't been on an airplane since 01/2011, and if there had been an AIT scanner at Anchorage Int'l (I refuse to call it "Ted Stevens Int'l Airport"), I would have skipped that trip as well. My family used to go on vacation by air every other year or so. I used to go to various training and/or job-related events at irregular intervals, but roughly about once a year. I had every intention of taking my family to Hawaii last year, but now we are thinking of buying an RV instead because I have vowed that my wife and daughter will *NEVER* be scoped-and-groped by a pervert at the airport so long as I am alive. I know several people who have made different choices, but IMHO, most people are sheep. I, on the other hand, am a cranky, rebellious, anti-authoritarian &$^#!!:)
We may be quickly marching in that direction, but we have not yet reached the point where Joe Average is willing to risk life and family to start another Revolution. I'm pretty fed up and disgusted with my government, but I don't want to forcibly overthrow it yet. I'm still hoping Americans will continue to wake up and start pressuring their elected representatives to start turning things around before we get *that* pissed off.
But you're right -- it *is* a fascinating story, and I think if more of my fellow citizens would have actually read it and LEARNED from it, we wouldn't be where we are today, sigh.
Perhaps, but I don't have enough information to either support or refute that claim. I pretty much agree with everything he said above, however. Do you have anything to substantiate your claim? Would you care to share your reasoning and turn an equally idiotic post into something worth reading, or do you just want to sit in the kindergarten sandbox calling names?
Seriously, a few times I've used the brakes to transfer torque from the tire spinning on the ice back to the tire on dry pavement... Just enough to get off the ice patch.
I've done that myself...just last Saturday, in fact (yes, we are still seeing occasional snowfall here in Alaska, sigh).
...but us old geezers know how to drive cars without computers.
Which brings up a really good question...what will all these young-uns do when the computers that they depend upon to maintain control of their vehicles fail? (Hint: the answer lies in the problem the engineers are trying to solve by adding even more layers of electronic safety nets)
First ABS that can't be switched off to make sure you can't purposely lock up the brakes.
I have yet to see a vehicle where you couldn't disable ABS, if by no other means, then at least by pulling a fuse. I suppose there could be one where this isn't possible, but I haven't seen such a vehicle yet. Also, at least in the Eagle Talon I used to own, the e-brake bypassed ABS, which allowed me to slide around corners at will. But yeah, I pretty much agree with you.
That doesn't negate ledow's primary point: before you operate a vehicle, you really had better understand how it works. Quite honestly, I am boggled by the fact that people apparently didn't think to shift their car out of gear when the accelerator stuck in the open position.
The first time I rode a motorcycle, a little 80cc dirt bike, I found myself approaching a corner (off-road) at too high speed. I hit the brakes, but my right hand was positioned incorrectly on the throttle, so when the front end dived due to weight shift, I ended up giving the bike full throttle. Even though the sight of a rapidly approaching corn field and the sound of a two-stroke at full throttle combined to lock up my brain, I still had the presence of mind to squeeze both clutch and front brake, disengaging the engine from the rear wheel and slowing the bike to a stop. Shifting to neutral and/or depressing the clutch (on a manual transmission) when things go pear shaped ought to be second nature. If not, go out and practice until they are.
It can also be a very useful technique for regaining traction on slippery surfaces...like driving up my driveway (10-12% grade) in the winter. My wife got her truck stuck on the driveway in the snow recently; I was able to get it "unstuck" by fully depressing the brake with my left foot while slowly increasing RPM with my right foot on the gas, then slowly letting off the brake with my left foot. By maintaining a little brake pressure, I basically created a poor-man's limited slip differential by preventing the tire with the least traction from spinning. In my truck, with a manual transmission, I use the e-brake for the same purpose.
If the accelerator is stuck in the WFO position, then shift to neutral or, in a manual transmission car, push the clutch in. Problem solved -- no need for fancy, expensive, potentially failure-prone override systems. You already *HAVE* an override system. Use it!
"In a world where people post up-to-the-minute location information through Facebook Places or Foursquare, the police may feel justified in attaching a GPS to your car. In a world where people tweet about their sexual experiences and eager thousands read about them the morning after, it may well be reasonable for law enforcement, in pursuit of terrorists and criminals, to spy with high-powered binoculars through people's bedroom windows or put concealed cameras in public restrooms. In a world where you can listen to people shouting lurid descriptions of their gall-bladder operations into their cell phones, it may well be reasonable to ask telephone companies or even doctors for access to their customer records. If we the people don't consider our own privacy terribly valuable, we cannot count on government — with its many legitimate worries about law-breaking and security — to guard it for us.'"
Absolutely not. Just because individuals -- or even society at large -- choose to make their public lives private does not mean, suggest or imply that *I* have chosen to do so. Similarly, even if I do create posts on Facebook Places at times, tweet about (some of) my sexual exploits, or discuss selected health issues on the telephone in public places, that does not mean that I have agreed to disclose my whereabouts at all times, agreed to allow voyeurs to peek through my bedroom windows at all, nor agreed that all of my health and telephone records should be public (and just to be clear, I was not aware there even was a Facebook Places, nor have ever signed up for Twitter, much less Tweeted about my sex life -- although, I probably have discussed selected health issues in places where I could be overheard).
To argue that, at times, we may knowingly and consciously choose to give up certain elements of our privacy means that we therefore have no value for privacy at all -- and that consequently, the government should be allowed to violate our privacy at their whim -- is absurd beyond belief. That a sitting judge would suggest such a thing is frightening beyond belief. I would expect a judge to have, well, better judgment than that.
I do, however, agree completely with his last sentence in the quote above. Both individually and collectively, we had better start acting as if privacy is still important to us before we no longer have any privacy left, and we had better make sure our elected officials get that message loud and clear.
If your children are already vaccinated, what disease are you afraid they will catch? It appears that the parents afraid of autism do not have a monopoly on faulty logic.
One other option I just thought of...if the app really is crap, and you are being coerced into writing a review, you could always go *sooo* over-the-top that it's obvious the review isn't sincere. Ever see the "Joe Isuzu" commercials from the '80s? Something like that:
"This app is *SO* good, it improved my car's fuel economy, paid for my child's college tuition, found me a supermodel girlfriend AND paid off the national debt...overnight!"
...but have you actually *TRIED* the app? Is it any good? Does your employer have any way of actually checking to see if you have liked/reviewed/+1'd the app?
If you've tried the app and it's decent, then why not go ahead and say so? If it sucks, however, then I probably wouldn't put my endorsement on it but then again, I'm not the one who'll be heading for the unemployment line so that's easy for me to say. If your employer doesn't really have any way of checking to see if you've "liked" or "+1'd" the app, then the choice is a lot easier. If they can verify who has and who has not endorsed the app, then you need to decide if the risk of potentially losing your job is worth violating your conscience. Unfortunately, no one here on/. can answer that question for you. Best of luck to you, whatever you decide!
I see two options:
1) People are free to make their own decisions about what to buy, how much to buy, how much to pay for it, etc. Ditto for the production side of the equation. Purchasing and producing also apply equally to services (i.e., labor) as well as products.
2) People work at the discretion and direction of a controlling entity, usually government. Prices and production are set by that entity, and both labor and business follows that direction.
There may be an infinite grey scale between the two extremes provided above, but I don't see a completely separate third option. Note that I'm not claiming one doesn't exist; merely that I cannot fathom such an option. If you can, I'm all ears.
The alternative, however, is to have the state control everything (since it is the only entity with the resources, i.e. power, to control all production). That economic system collapsed even quicker than the free market economic system. How many of the former communist-block countries still operate under that economic system? Sure...what we have sucks, but pretty much everything else I have seen sucks even worse.
I think evilRhino's point is that a PHB is generally considered to be a poor manager, not just a manager in general. Therefore, you don't need a PHB; you need someone competent. For example, I'm fortunate in that my boss is a technical guy who got promoted into a management position. He is still very hands-on, and has about a decade more experience in the industry than I do. He is quickly becoming a pretty decent leader as well. That's the kind of manager you need, not a PHB who is technically incompetent as well as completely unable to motivate or lead his workers.
That's not a failure of the free market itself, though. That's a failure of a particular organization operating in a free market*. Free market economic theory predicts that there will indeed be certain organizations that do a better job of predicting the outcomes of various decisions and that those organizations will succeed while those that do a poor job of predicting the outcomes of various decisions will fail. In a free market, a boss who fires an employee for bringing poor practices to light will eventually either get fired himself or will ruin the company he manages, while a competitor who encourages employees to make things better will eventually rise to the top. It might not happen right away, but the poor practices will eventually catch up with the first boss and the culture of excellence fostered by the second boss will eventually pay off.
*In this case, however, it is not truly a free market, because the government has a monopoly on airport security, to some extent. Airports were supposed to have the right to opt out of TSA security and to hire private firms instead if they so chose, but IIRC, TSA has stopped allowing airports to do that. Even if that were not the case, it still would not truly be a free market since even the private security firms providing airport security still have to follow TSA guidelines (i.e., AIT scanners, pat-downs, etc.).
You can buy a prepaid "credit" card at grocery and department stores. AFAIK, your name doesn't have to be tied to one, and therefore you *can* purchase things without leaving (much) of a paper trail. It wouldn't be completely untraceable, but would be a far cry better than using the credit card tied to your name, SSN and bank account.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't be such an 4$$hole.
Says Pundit Gasbag "it is clear that the TSA dropped the ball on this, and as a result, thousands of American lives are at risk every day"
Therein lies the inherent problem: we don't teach, nor do we practice, critical thinking. Consequently, when Pundit Gasbag says such blatantly ridiculous tripe, we don't have the ability to dissect his statement and reject it because it is so obviously false; instead, we take it at face value.
I really do not know what to think of the article's suggestions on liquids. I've read where various chemistry experts essentially say that terrorists cannot construct liquid bombs that will work at all without having to basically use chemistry equipment, ice baths, lengthy mixing sessions that no one could possibly ignore, etc. Yet here the former TSA head insists that there is a very real risk here. Who is right? Does the former TSA head know something that chemistry experts have somehow missed? Or is the former TSA head working on crap information? I sure don't know but that's one question I'd like resolved.
I'll trust a chemist over a manager any day of the week, when the question is "is it or is it not possible to create a liquid explosive on an airliner." YMMV.
My experience has been that the people who bitch the most about screening are those who travel the least. I'm not saying that there aren't regular travelers who don't complain. Not at all. But in my circle of acquaintances, the people I know who just completely and utterly cannot talk about this subject without getting completely bent out of shape about it simply do not travel by plane....yet this whole subject of TSA screenings is some kind of hot button issue to him.
Granted, you said "I'm not saying that there aren't regular travelers who don't complain..." but nevertheless, you are still making it sound like the people complaining are those who have no vested interest. I, on the other hand, flew pretty regularly but stopped traveling shortly after TSA tightened security too much in 11/2010. I haven't been on an airplane since 01/2011, and if there had been an AIT scanner at Anchorage Int'l (I refuse to call it "Ted Stevens Int'l Airport"), I would have skipped that trip as well. My family used to go on vacation by air every other year or so. I used to go to various training and/or job-related events at irregular intervals, but roughly about once a year. I had every intention of taking my family to Hawaii last year, but now we are thinking of buying an RV instead because I have vowed that my wife and daughter will *NEVER* be scoped-and-groped by a pervert at the airport so long as I am alive. I know several people who have made different choices, but IMHO, most people are sheep. I, on the other hand, am a cranky, rebellious, anti-authoritarian &$^#!!:)
Did you read the part where he said lighters were banned by an act of Congress? Even the CEO answers to the shareholders.
We may be quickly marching in that direction, but we have not yet reached the point where Joe Average is willing to risk life and family to start another Revolution. I'm pretty fed up and disgusted with my government, but I don't want to forcibly overthrow it yet. I'm still hoping Americans will continue to wake up and start pressuring their elected representatives to start turning things around before we get *that* pissed off.
But you're right -- it *is* a fascinating story, and I think if more of my fellow citizens would have actually read it and LEARNED from it, we wouldn't be where we are today, sigh.
Perhaps, but I don't have enough information to either support or refute that claim. I pretty much agree with everything he said above, however. Do you have anything to substantiate your claim? Would you care to share your reasoning and turn an equally idiotic post into something worth reading, or do you just want to sit in the kindergarten sandbox calling names?
I didn't realize it was shift-by-wire as well as throttle-by-wire. That *does* make a difference. Thanks for the education!
Seriously, a few times I've used the brakes to transfer torque from the tire spinning on the ice back to the tire on dry pavement... Just enough to get off the ice patch.
I've done that myself...just last Saturday, in fact (yes, we are still seeing occasional snowfall here in Alaska, sigh).
...but us old geezers know how to drive cars without computers.
Which brings up a really good question...what will all these young-uns do when the computers that they depend upon to maintain control of their vehicles fail? (Hint: the answer lies in the problem the engineers are trying to solve by adding even more layers of electronic safety nets)
First ABS that can't be switched off to make sure you can't purposely lock up the brakes.
I have yet to see a vehicle where you couldn't disable ABS, if by no other means, then at least by pulling a fuse. I suppose there could be one where this isn't possible, but I haven't seen such a vehicle yet. Also, at least in the Eagle Talon I used to own, the e-brake bypassed ABS, which allowed me to slide around corners at will. But yeah, I pretty much agree with you.
That doesn't negate ledow's primary point: before you operate a vehicle, you really had better understand how it works. Quite honestly, I am boggled by the fact that people apparently didn't think to shift their car out of gear when the accelerator stuck in the open position.
The first time I rode a motorcycle, a little 80cc dirt bike, I found myself approaching a corner (off-road) at too high speed. I hit the brakes, but my right hand was positioned incorrectly on the throttle, so when the front end dived due to weight shift, I ended up giving the bike full throttle. Even though the sight of a rapidly approaching corn field and the sound of a two-stroke at full throttle combined to lock up my brain, I still had the presence of mind to squeeze both clutch and front brake, disengaging the engine from the rear wheel and slowing the bike to a stop. Shifting to neutral and/or depressing the clutch (on a manual transmission) when things go pear shaped ought to be second nature. If not, go out and practice until they are.
It can also be a very useful technique for regaining traction on slippery surfaces...like driving up my driveway (10-12% grade) in the winter. My wife got her truck stuck on the driveway in the snow recently; I was able to get it "unstuck" by fully depressing the brake with my left foot while slowly increasing RPM with my right foot on the gas, then slowly letting off the brake with my left foot. By maintaining a little brake pressure, I basically created a poor-man's limited slip differential by preventing the tire with the least traction from spinning. In my truck, with a manual transmission, I use the e-brake for the same purpose.
If the accelerator is stuck in the WFO position, then shift to neutral or, in a manual transmission car, push the clutch in. Problem solved -- no need for fancy, expensive, potentially failure-prone override systems. You already *HAVE* an override system. Use it!
"In a world where people post up-to-the-minute location information through Facebook Places or Foursquare, the police may feel justified in attaching a GPS to your car. In a world where people tweet about their sexual experiences and eager thousands read about them the morning after, it may well be reasonable for law enforcement, in pursuit of terrorists and criminals, to spy with high-powered binoculars through people's bedroom windows or put concealed cameras in public restrooms. In a world where you can listen to people shouting lurid descriptions of their gall-bladder operations into their cell phones, it may well be reasonable to ask telephone companies or even doctors for access to their customer records. If we the people don't consider our own privacy terribly valuable, we cannot count on government — with its many legitimate worries about law-breaking and security — to guard it for us.'"
Absolutely not. Just because individuals -- or even society at large -- choose to make their public lives private does not mean, suggest or imply that *I* have chosen to do so. Similarly, even if I do create posts on Facebook Places at times, tweet about (some of) my sexual exploits, or discuss selected health issues on the telephone in public places, that does not mean that I have agreed to disclose my whereabouts at all times , agreed to allow voyeurs to peek through my bedroom windows at all, nor agreed that all of my health and telephone records should be public (and just to be clear, I was not aware there even was a Facebook Places, nor have ever signed up for Twitter, much less Tweeted about my sex life -- although, I probably have discussed selected health issues in places where I could be overheard).
To argue that, at times, we may knowingly and consciously choose to give up certain elements of our privacy means that we therefore have no value for privacy at all -- and that consequently, the government should be allowed to violate our privacy at their whim -- is absurd beyond belief. That a sitting judge would suggest such a thing is frightening beyond belief. I would expect a judge to have, well, better judgment than that.
I do, however, agree completely with his last sentence in the quote above. Both individually and collectively, we had better start acting as if privacy is still important to us before we no longer have any privacy left, and we had better make sure our elected officials get that message loud and clear.
Until it's overturned on appeal.
"Credit fraud? My God, that's worse than murder!"
It was funny when I heard that line in "Max Headroom" back when I was a kid...
If your children are already vaccinated, what disease are you afraid they will catch? It appears that the parents afraid of autism do not have a monopoly on faulty logic.
If your child is vaccinated, then the risk to your child is so low as to be nil. That's what the vaccine is for, right?
One other option I just thought of...if the app really is crap, and you are being coerced into writing a review, you could always go *sooo* over-the-top that it's obvious the review isn't sincere. Ever see the "Joe Isuzu" commercials from the '80s? Something like that:
"This app is *SO* good, it improved my car's fuel economy, paid for my child's college tuition, found me a supermodel girlfriend AND paid off the national debt...overnight!"
...but have you actually *TRIED* the app? Is it any good? Does your employer have any way of actually checking to see if you have liked/reviewed/+1'd the app?
/. can answer that question for you. Best of luck to you, whatever you decide!
If you've tried the app and it's decent, then why not go ahead and say so? If it sucks, however, then I probably wouldn't put my endorsement on it but then again, I'm not the one who'll be heading for the unemployment line so that's easy for me to say. If your employer doesn't really have any way of checking to see if you've "liked" or "+1'd" the app, then the choice is a lot easier. If they can verify who has and who has not endorsed the app, then you need to decide if the risk of potentially losing your job is worth violating your conscience. Unfortunately, no one here on
I'm open to suggestions...
I see two options:
1) People are free to make their own decisions about what to buy, how much to buy, how much to pay for it, etc. Ditto for the production side of the equation. Purchasing and producing also apply equally to services (i.e., labor) as well as products.
2) People work at the discretion and direction of a controlling entity, usually government. Prices and production are set by that entity, and both labor and business follows that direction.
There may be an infinite grey scale between the two extremes provided above, but I don't see a completely separate third option. Note that I'm not claiming one doesn't exist; merely that I cannot fathom such an option. If you can, I'm all ears.
The alternative, however, is to have the state control everything (since it is the only entity with the resources, i.e. power, to control all production). That economic system collapsed even quicker than the free market economic system. How many of the former communist-block countries still operate under that economic system? Sure...what we have sucks, but pretty much everything else I have seen sucks even worse.
I think evilRhino's point is that a PHB is generally considered to be a poor manager, not just a manager in general. Therefore, you don't need a PHB; you need someone competent. For example, I'm fortunate in that my boss is a technical guy who got promoted into a management position. He is still very hands-on, and has about a decade more experience in the industry than I do. He is quickly becoming a pretty decent leader as well. That's the kind of manager you need, not a PHB who is technically incompetent as well as completely unable to motivate or lead his workers.
That's not a failure of the free market itself, though. That's a failure of a particular organization operating in a free market*. Free market economic theory predicts that there will indeed be certain organizations that do a better job of predicting the outcomes of various decisions and that those organizations will succeed while those that do a poor job of predicting the outcomes of various decisions will fail. In a free market, a boss who fires an employee for bringing poor practices to light will eventually either get fired himself or will ruin the company he manages, while a competitor who encourages employees to make things better will eventually rise to the top. It might not happen right away, but the poor practices will eventually catch up with the first boss and the culture of excellence fostered by the second boss will eventually pay off.
*In this case, however, it is not truly a free market, because the government has a monopoly on airport security, to some extent. Airports were supposed to have the right to opt out of TSA security and to hire private firms instead if they so chose, but IIRC, TSA has stopped allowing airports to do that. Even if that were not the case, it still would not truly be a free market since even the private security firms providing airport security still have to follow TSA guidelines (i.e., AIT scanners, pat-downs, etc.).
You can buy a prepaid "credit" card at grocery and department stores. AFAIK, your name doesn't have to be tied to one, and therefore you *can* purchase things without leaving (much) of a paper trail. It wouldn't be completely untraceable, but would be a far cry better than using the credit card tied to your name, SSN and bank account.
No problem at all -- just file a FoIA request and you're golden.