Nah, I've got to disagree with you there. IMHO, I'd much rather watch a lower-budget movie with a really good plot (Terminator) than a weak plot with high-budget special effects (T2). Don't get me wrong; the original had it's flaws* but it's by far my favorite.
If you had said Aliens2 rather than T2, I'd have to agree with you.
*The dialog was often a little forced, and I would have like Linda Hamilton to have been a bit stronger of a character -- although not quite the caricature she became in T2.
I had a crystal radio kit as a kid, too. I don't remember if it was a Heathkit or not (although I remember my dad building several Heathkit projects), but it was still a very cool project. I do remember being disappointed it wasn't louder, though, lol.
Now that you've stirred up the memories, I want to build another crystal radio:)
Yeah, I actually broke/. tradition and read TFA looking to understand what exactly "truth is less interesting than reality" is supposed to mean, but I'm no more enlightened than I was before.
I believe it means something along the lines of "great", or "is great".
Incidentally, and please excuse my pedantry, but "Muslim" isn't a language; it's a religion (yes, I know, on/., as well as other Internet forums, language sometimes becomes a religion -- as I'm treading dangerously close to doing right now -- but you get my point).
This is not to say that engineers are always creationists, of course - it's just that whenever you get a creationist who claims to have a degree in something scientific, it's always a degree in engineering.
Counter-example: Michael Behe, who, IIRC, has a degree in molecular biology.
I suppose that depends upon your definition of the word, "useful". I tend to hate semantic arguments, so I'll just cut to the chase. If by "useful", you mean to wax eloquently upon the tragedies of the world, the philosophical implications of attempts to address those tragedies in the past, and touch the hearts of tens of your like-minded peers, then yes, the liberal arts degree is the most useful.
However, if by "useful", you mean to actually, you know, get sh^htuff done and/or provide food and shelter for your family, then I'd take any one of the other degrees, thanks. It's not by coincidence that most of the liberal arts majors I know have gone back to college to get another degree within a few years of graduation.
I'm not 100% sure I agree with Asimov (I'm not 100% sure I disagree, either), but yeah, I agree with what you were saying, and it reminded me of what Asimov said.
The article you link is only a handbook any only covers narcotics.
No, I linked to 14 CFR Part 91 and Part 121, which are the operating regulations that govern general aviation and scheduled airlines, respectively.
Cargo is covered by a different set of TSA and FAA rules.
For air taxi aircraft (part 135 operations) and scheduled commercial aircraft (part 121 operations), that may be the case, but I have yet to see such a regulation for general aviation. I'll admit that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but in 18 years of flight training and flight instruction given (I'm a flight instructor), I have never run across it.
Oh and it's a private site the official FAA site says the same thing, but is well, official.
If it says the same thing, what difference does it make? I linked to that site because I didn't have a lot of time to search, and that site was easier to find than the official regs on the faa.gov web site. Just about every pilot in the country flies with a copy of the regs that are from commercial vendors (like Jeppesen or ASA), rather than "official" documents that came from the Government Printing Office. For that matter, I'd wager that most professional pilots fly with charts and instrument approach plates from a commercial vendor rather than the government published ones.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/RL32022.pdf has a half decent, if somewhat long (and admittedly largely unnecessary discussion) about how cargo is to be carried. Radioactive and hazardous goods, and goods in general need a TSO number from the FAA.
I will confess, I was unaware of that document. I'll check it out, and thanks for the link.
Yes, but you specifically said "...the FAA might have something to say about it.", so I specifically addressed the FAA's regulations. In truth, what you carry into a secure zone at an airport is more a TSA issue than an FAA issue, which, in a round-about way, was more or less my point.
Going back to february they were looking to extend existing rules to basically block all sorts of stuff from private use the way commercial use planes are. They have backed off much of that plan...
Yeah, they've basically been in a power grab since their inception. Don't get me up on my soap box. AOPA and other pilot groups (successfully, so far) have lobbied against the less reasonable and more onerous of their power grabs.
...but you don't extend rules that don't exist.
Since when was the U.S. government constrained by logic? I think you are giving TSA *waaaaay* too much credit (but then again, I'm a cynical old curmudgeon).
Being neither an american nor a private plane owner I feel no compelling reason to try and hunt down hand weapons in their documentation, but if they don't like it, they have rules about it. That's what government is for I suppose.
Being neither American nor a private plane owner, then no, it probably has little relevance to you. I suppose I could have just posted, "[citation needed]" after you claimed that the FAA might have something to say about what you can carry in your own, private airplane because in my experience, the FAA actually says very little about that.
I'm sure that people flying with weapons regularly fly out of commercial airports, they just never go through security...
As a private aircraft owner who regularly flies his airplane out of public airports, frequently with a firearm in his survival gear, I can confirm that you are entirely correct.
So...all the terrorists need to do is purchase their own jets?
Did you actually bother to think that through at all before posting your emotional knee-jerk?
Yeah, he did. Did you?
Let me help you out here. Since you specifically stated, "So...all the terrorists need to do is purchase their own jets?", suppose that a terrorist has the money to buy his own jet. Why is he trying to sneak a shuriken onto the airplane? Are you worried he is going to throw shurikens out the window at people on the ground?
If a terrorist wants to do 9/11 over again with his own jet, *nothing in the world* will prevent him from doing so. He is already in the cockpit because HE OWNS THE ******* AIRPLANE... in which case, it really doesn't matter if he has a box cutter, a shuriken or an AK-47 in his carry on luggage, does it?
That changed when some guy flew his private plane into an IRS building. Even private planes can be used for terrorism...
Seriously...I really, really despise the "OMG! Terrists!!!" culture of fear we've developed since 9/11. It's time for Americans to grow a pair. My motorcycle is more dangerous than my airplane. My airplane has approximately the same mass as my motorcycle (450 pounds airplane vs. 440 pounds motorcycle, when empty; 730 pounds airplane vs. 663 pounds motorcycle, typical). My motorcycle is *much* faster than the airplane (120 mph max vs. 90mph max). Kinetic energy is mass x velocity squared, so the my motorcycle has close to *twice* as much kinetic energy as my airplane at max speed and typical load. My motorcycle is also smaller, can carry a heavier payload, and can disappear in traffic much easier than my airplane. So by that logic, motorcycles should be subject to even more stringent regulations than private airplanes!
...so now [private planes] are as strictly regulated as public planes. Same rules.
Uh, no, they aren't. 14 CFR 91 governs "General Aviation" (i.e., "private" planes) and 14 CFR 121 governs commercial airliners. If you are talking maintenance (which from the context, I don't think you are), then you are still mistaken, even though I don't remember which parts of 14 CFR apply (I'm a flight instructor, not a mechanic).
I would think if you wanted to park a plane in your yard you can probably put whatever weapons on it you want, but if you want to be allowed to take off, well then the FAA might have a few things to say about it.
Would you care to find what the FAA says about it and point it out for me? Because in 19 years of flying, I've never seen the rule that prohibits me from carrying a shuriken, a knife or even a gun of some kind in my own airplane while flying. Even when flying out of public airports (which, in all honesty, is all I've ever flown out of).
If you are flying out of an FBO, even at a big airport like BWI, then you get to bypass airport security. However, TFS said Jobs was flying out of the public terminal. At Kenai Municipal Airport, in Kenai, Alaska (much smaller than BWI; I've been to both airports), some of the private, chartered flights board through the same gate as the passenger flights. In that case, yes, you would pass through airport security. If you are in a small, private airplane like I was, you go out a different door to a different ramp on the airport (if you go into the terminal at all), and you don't pass through security. So it all depends.
So you think it's ok for people to be allowed to bring weapons onto planes?
Yes, honestly, I do.
1) I own my own airplane. It's not a private jet, like what Steve Jobs was trying to board, but nevertheless, it is an airplane. Since I live in Alaska, and in 15 minutes flying time (even in a sloooow airplane like mine), you can be in the remote wilderness, I carry typically carry a gun and a knife when I fly. There are bears in those woods that think people are yummy, so I almost always bring a shotgun with me when I fly. Even without worrying about bears, if my engine quits (it's a two-stroke, so it's possible...) and I'm not within a few miles of a road, I might be camping for a few days until someone tracks down my ELT. Since I tend to get hungry every few hours, I equip myself for the possibility that I might need to shoot a grouse or a rabbit for food, if I am forced to land "off-airport." So yes, a gun of some kind is a part of the survival gear I regularly carry in an airplane.
2) Even if we limit our discussion to commercial airplanes (which only tangentially applies to this story, since this was a private jet that was boarding through a commercial gate at an airport) then I still think at least *some* weapons should be allowed. Maybe the aforementioned shotgun is a bit much on a commercial airliner, but I'd certainly like to be able to carry a pocket knife again. I'd even go so far as to say that I wish that the airlines would issue tasers to all adults on the airplane. The big argument is that weapons in the hands of passengers on the airplane would allow "the terrists" to hijack another airplane. As Norman Schwarzkopf once said,bovine scatology (that's B.S., for short). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_93" target="Flight 93">Flight 93 proved that the days of a hijacker taking over an airplane while the passengers sit like sheep are over. IMHO, the *best* defense for airplanes is making sure every able-bodied adult on the airplane is armed and willing to take down anyone who ever tries that crap again. Far better, in my opinion, to just drop the expense -- and pretense -- of security theatre, and instead give the people who have the most to lose -- the passengers on the airplane -- the right and the ability to protect themselves from terrorists and hijackers.
I use a slightly different mechanism: I turn the ringer to silent, and don't empty my voice mail. If I see you've called *and* I actually want to talk to you, I'll call you back.
The problem is, I loathe telephones. Typically, when the phone rings, it's because someone expects me to drop whatever I'm doing RIGHT NOW and attend to whatever it is they need. Worse, when I'm talking to people on the telephone, they tend to feel slighted if I don't give them my full and undivided attention. So if I'm at work trying to, you know, work, and my phone rings, the expectation is that I will immediately cease work to chat/be a chimney while they vent/solve the world's problems/whatever. Maybe I'm just a curmudgeon, but I find that rather irritating.
I much prefer text messages or e-mail, since I can look at it and get back to you when I actually have the CPU cycles to devote to whatever it is you need.
Now go read your reply to me again, and see how much bitterness and anger drips out of it. Need I say more?
You say your parents' divorce was a good thing for you. My wife had a daughter from a previous marriage when we met, so I counter your anecdote with the example of my step-daughter. At 24, she is still looking for someone to fill the pain in her heart that her biological dad left when he decided he had better things to do than be a dad and husband. You mention your friends who have parents who are divorced. I am the youth pastor at my church, and about half the kids in my youth group come from broken homes, so again, I've got anecdotes to counter yours. Dude, you can deny it, bury it, whatever, but IME, divorce leaves scars that can last a lifetime...but maybe you're the exception. I hope so, but from the tone of your post, I'd say I hit a nerve, so I doubt it.
I will agree that by the time a marriage reaches the point your parents' marriage was at, sex is the least important issue. It starts long before that with two things: to love the other person unconditionally and to put the other person first, all the time. But in our society, we are so caught up in ourselves, we don't even think about the other person. Janet Jackson was wrong. It's not "What have you done for me lately?" It's "What have I done for YOU lately" Until we figure that out, the divorce rate will continue to skyrocket.
As for pastors wanting to have an endless stream of broken people to counsel...you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Again, I'm sure there are exceptions, and maybe you've had the bad luck to run into one, but most pastors I have ever met sincerely want to work themselves out of a job. They are overworked, tired and stressed-out because they are always trying to meet the needs of everyone else. They would like nothing better than for their "problem children" to figure things out and leave them alone so they can rest and spend time with their own families for a while.
Maybe I'm just being naive, but I kind of hope that as our indiscretions become more and more public, we'll stop pointing fingers at each other for their indiscretions. Glass houses, and all that.
There are whackos of every stripe, religious and otherwise, in positions of power around the world. Unfortunately, religion is a tool that is often abused by those who seek power. Also unfortunately, there are plenty of people who are willing to surrender their good judgment to someone who wears a certain label, but that applies equally to religion, politics, patriotism, etc. Pointing out just the religious whackos, while ignoring the others, is simply prejudice.
...whose mental disease revolves around fighting "sin"...
First, I'm assuming that this is where to break the sentence, since your grammar is so atrocious that you broke my English language parser...and I'm a native speaker of the language. I think, however, there was supposed to be a comma between "sin" and "killing", so on that assumption, I'll continue.
If you really look at the big picture, most things that are frowned upon in religion tend to be bad for individuals or for society, anyway. Since I am most familiar with Judeo-Christianity, I'll give you an example from there: the ten commandments: "do not steal" -- yep, pretty tough to argue that that's a good thing regardless of your religion; likewise for "do not commit murder", "do not give false testimony against your neighbor" and"do not covet that which belongs to your neighbor". In our society, we tend to think of the commandment against adultery as being one of those antiquated, old-fashioned things, but talk to a kid who's parent's are getting divorced because of infidelity and tell me again how good adultery is. Again, it provides for a stable society.
...killing is a far, far, far, lesser crime than all things sex-related.
The problem here, is that you are looking at the way we humans have screwed religion up. Again, speaking from a non-Catholic, Judeo-Christian background, that's a human invention. IIRC, Catholics *do* have a hierarchy of sins, but I've never seen that anywhere in the Bible, and not being raised in a Catholic environment, I don't know where that tradition comes from. IME, there's no infraction that get's you "damned to Hell" when another only gets you "darned to Heck" so to say that "killing is a far, far, far lesser crime than all things sex-related" is simply false. At least, as I understand it:) YMMV.
You see killing is a forgivable sin...
Have you ever read the texts of any of the religions you are bashing? In Christianity, at least, repentance leads to forgiveness regardless of what you've done.
...(after all you can't have religious wars without killing and the "holy book" of the month is full of mass murder in the name of spreading the lunacy)...
Just because people who have rallied under a banner of religion have engaged in religious wars doesn't mean it's OK. 'Nuff said.
...but controlling sex resides deeply at the very core of the warped, hateful, controlling, jealous egos of the zealots.
There's enough warped, hateful, controlling, jealous, ego-maniac zealots around, that's true, and it's a black eye for anyone who holds to any given faith. But again, that's hardly limited to the religious set. Are you going to renounce atheism because some other atheist happened to be a warped, hateful, controlling, jealous, ego-maniac, too? No? Didn't think so. Neither, then, will I renounce my faith because some of the people who have claimed to share my religion have been...flawed (I'd say they were actually manifesting the nature of the devil rather than the
And if were to display similar astoundingly bad judgment, I'd be in jail. As has been said already, the criminal intent was the intent to spy on the kids, whether or not the administration realized it was illegal to do so.
The administrators probably started out using it in the intended fashion, and eventually came to rely upon it to understand and keep safe at-risk students. While I definitely disagree with that usage, I remember how hard high school was on the teachers. The school admins stumbled across a magic tool they didn't understand that gave them a window into the people they were trying to help. They didn't know any better, and they used it.
No, no, no, no, NO!
Stupidity is no excuse. Let's suppose two at-risk teens are in a fight outside. I grab a gun and fire it in the air, trying to get them to stop fighting. The bullet, when it comes back down, hits someone and kills them. I didn't intend to hurt anyone. I was only trying to keep at-risk students safe. I just stumbled across a magic tool that I didn't quite understand, and used it. I still (rightfully!) end up in jail for negligent manslaughter at the least. Stupidity should be painful. Otherwise, there's no incentive to learn.
These guys have lost a lot of time, effort, and money fighting this thing. They're never going to do it again. And even if they win every case, they're still going to get reamed by legal fees in the civil cases.
That's a good thing. I absolutely do not want some other school district to try this because this one got away with it.
Considering that their intent wasn't just non-malicious, but was actually intending to do good for these students...
And you know this -- not just believe it -- how? Even if you are right, those responsible for this act should never, ever be allowed to supervise children again. If they thought this was even remotely a good idea, then their judgment is so seriously flawed, they should spend the rest of their lives flipping burgers.
Well, speeding is illegal. Apparently having pre-installed software which takes pictures isn't...But afaik it's not illegal to take pictures of people in the US without informing them...
You are partially correct, but as it applies to this case, dead wrong.
If intent is necessary in order to break the law, then if, as GPP said, he is doing 55 MPH in a 35 MPH zone because he didn't see the sign, then he didn't intend to speed. That won't make a whit of difference if a cop busts him with a radar gun, though (unless he can prove that the sign was obscured, and any reasonable person could not be expected to see it).
You are partially correct regarding taking pictures of people in the U.S. without informing them is not illegal...as long as they are in an area where they have no reasonable expectation of privacy. In other words, if I am walking down the street or in a shopping mall and you take a picture of me, I have no legal recourse. I am in a public place, and therefore I cannot reasonably expect privacy there. On the other hand, in my bedroom, I most certainly do have a reasonable expectation of privacy and if you use "pre-installed software which takes pictures" to spy on my while I am at home, you'd better expect that I will take legal action against you. Every so often, a news article pops up where a landlord or employee at a store that has dressing rooms has installed covert cameras to peek in on people in bedrooms, restrooms, dressing rooms, etc., and they typically end up in jail for doing so. What the staff at this school did is essentially no different. They used the "anti-theft" software to spy on kids in their homes and in their bedrooms, and if they don't all end up in jail for it, then it will be a gross miscarriage of justice.
I'm sorry, if any student gets that command and doesn't start sniffing network traffic, they got what they deserved.
That's typical/. elitism there. How many kids in high school went on to become geeks? So there's what, ten per cent of the population of that school who could reasonably be expected to know how to sniff traffic, and the other 90% deserve to be spied on? I suppose you also think that everyone who is ever bullied in school deserved it because they never took a martial arts class?
Our legal system is supposed to provide protections against abuse because it is not right for those in positions of power to abuse others, not because some subset of the population is strong/smart/rich/powerful enough to protect themselves. Anything else is not justice.
Slashdot Mirror
Now if we're talking Highlander....
"There can be only one."
Nah, I've got to disagree with you there. IMHO, I'd much rather watch a lower-budget movie with a really good plot (Terminator) than a weak plot with high-budget special effects (T2). Don't get me wrong; the original had it's flaws* but it's by far my favorite.
If you had said Aliens2 rather than T2, I'd have to agree with you.
*The dialog was often a little forced, and I would have like Linda Hamilton to have been a bit stronger of a character -- although not quite the caricature she became in T2.
Cool -- thanks for the link!
I had a crystal radio kit as a kid, too. I don't remember if it was a Heathkit or not (although I remember my dad building several Heathkit projects), but it was still a very cool project. I do remember being disappointed it wasn't louder, though, lol.
:)
Now that you've stirred up the memories, I want to build another crystal radio
Yeah, I actually broke /. tradition and read TFA looking to understand what exactly "truth is less interesting than reality" is supposed to mean, but I'm no more enlightened than I was before.
I believe it means something along the lines of "great", or "is great".
/., as well as other Internet forums, language sometimes becomes a religion -- as I'm treading dangerously close to doing right now -- but you get my point).
Incidentally, and please excuse my pedantry, but "Muslim" isn't a language; it's a religion (yes, I know, on
This is not to say that engineers are always creationists, of course - it's just that whenever you get a creationist who claims to have a degree in something scientific, it's always a degree in engineering.
Counter-example: Michael Behe, who, IIRC, has a degree in molecular biology.
I suppose that depends upon your definition of the word, "useful". I tend to hate semantic arguments, so I'll just cut to the chase. If by "useful", you mean to wax eloquently upon the tragedies of the world, the philosophical implications of attempts to address those tragedies in the past, and touch the hearts of tens of your like-minded peers, then yes, the liberal arts degree is the most useful.
However, if by "useful", you mean to actually, you know, get sh^htuff done and/or provide food and shelter for your family, then I'd take any one of the other degrees, thanks. It's not by coincidence that most of the liberal arts majors I know have gone back to college to get another degree within a few years of graduation.
"Violence is the last resort of the incompetent." --Isaac Asimov
I'm not 100% sure I agree with Asimov (I'm not 100% sure I disagree, either), but yeah, I agree with what you were saying, and it reminded me of what Asimov said.
The article you link is only a handbook any only covers narcotics.
No, I linked to 14 CFR Part 91 and Part 121, which are the operating regulations that govern general aviation and scheduled airlines, respectively.
Cargo is covered by a different set of TSA and FAA rules.
For air taxi aircraft (part 135 operations) and scheduled commercial aircraft (part 121 operations), that may be the case, but I have yet to see such a regulation for general aviation. I'll admit that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but in 18 years of flight training and flight instruction given (I'm a flight instructor), I have never run across it.
Oh and it's a private site the official FAA site says the same thing, but is well, official.
If it says the same thing, what difference does it make? I linked to that site because I didn't have a lot of time to search, and that site was easier to find than the official regs on the faa.gov web site. Just about every pilot in the country flies with a copy of the regs that are from commercial vendors (like Jeppesen or ASA), rather than "official" documents that came from the Government Printing Office. For that matter, I'd wager that most professional pilots fly with charts and instrument approach plates from a commercial vendor rather than the government published ones.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/RL32022.pdf has a half decent, if somewhat long (and admittedly largely unnecessary discussion) about how cargo is to be carried. Radioactive and hazardous goods, and goods in general need a TSO number from the FAA.
I will confess, I was unaware of that document. I'll check it out, and thanks for the link.
The TSA has a (very long and nearly impossible to read) breakdown of their rules http://www.tsa.gov/research/laws/regs/editorial_1786.shtm.
Yes, but you specifically said "...the FAA might have something to say about it.", so I specifically addressed the FAA's regulations. In truth, what you carry into a secure zone at an airport is more a TSA issue than an FAA issue, which, in a round-about way, was more or less my point.
Going back to february they were looking to extend existing rules to basically block all sorts of stuff from private use the way commercial use planes are. They have backed off much of that plan...
Yeah, they've basically been in a power grab since their inception. Don't get me up on my soap box. AOPA and other pilot groups (successfully, so far) have lobbied against the less reasonable and more onerous of their power grabs.
...but you don't extend rules that don't exist.
Since when was the U.S. government constrained by logic? I think you are giving TSA *waaaaay* too much credit (but then again, I'm a cynical old curmudgeon).
Being neither an american nor a private plane owner I feel no compelling reason to try and hunt down hand weapons in their documentation, but if they don't like it, they have rules about it. That's what government is for I suppose.
Being neither American nor a private plane owner, then no, it probably has little relevance to you. I suppose I could have just posted, "[citation needed]" after you claimed that the FAA might have something to say about what you can carry in your own, private airplane because in my experience, the FAA actually says very little about that.
I'm sure that people flying with weapons regularly fly out of commercial airports, they just never go through security...
As a private aircraft owner who regularly flies his airplane out of public airports, frequently with a firearm in his survival gear, I can confirm that you are entirely correct.
...In public airspace? Over public property?
So...all the terrorists need to do is purchase their own jets?
Did you actually bother to think that through at all before posting your emotional knee-jerk?
Yeah, he did. Did you?
... in which case, it really doesn't matter if he has a box cutter, a shuriken or an AK-47 in his carry on luggage, does it?
Let me help you out here. Since you specifically stated, "So...all the terrorists need to do is purchase their own jets?", suppose that a terrorist has the money to buy his own jet. Why is he trying to sneak a shuriken onto the airplane? Are you worried he is going to throw shurikens out the window at people on the ground?
If a terrorist wants to do 9/11 over again with his own jet, *nothing in the world* will prevent him from doing so. He is already in the cockpit because HE OWNS THE ******* AIRPLANE
That changed when some guy flew his private plane into an IRS building. Even private planes can be used for terrorism...
Seriously...I really, really despise the "OMG! Terrists!!!" culture of fear we've developed since 9/11. It's time for Americans to grow a pair. My motorcycle is more dangerous than my airplane. My airplane has approximately the same mass as my motorcycle (450 pounds airplane vs. 440 pounds motorcycle, when empty; 730 pounds airplane vs. 663 pounds motorcycle, typical). My motorcycle is *much* faster than the airplane (120 mph max vs. 90mph max). Kinetic energy is mass x velocity squared, so the my motorcycle has close to *twice* as much kinetic energy as my airplane at max speed and typical load. My motorcycle is also smaller, can carry a heavier payload, and can disappear in traffic much easier than my airplane. So by that logic, motorcycles should be subject to even more stringent regulations than private airplanes!
...so now [private planes] are as strictly regulated as public planes. Same rules.
Uh, no, they aren't. 14 CFR 91 governs "General Aviation" (i.e., "private" planes) and 14 CFR 121 governs commercial airliners. If you are talking maintenance (which from the context, I don't think you are), then you are still mistaken, even though I don't remember which parts of 14 CFR apply (I'm a flight instructor, not a mechanic).
I would think if you wanted to park a plane in your yard you can probably put whatever weapons on it you want, but if you want to be allowed to take off, well then the FAA might have a few things to say about it.
Would you care to find what the FAA says about it and point it out for me? Because in 19 years of flying, I've never seen the rule that prohibits me from carrying a shuriken, a knife or even a gun of some kind in my own airplane while flying. Even when flying out of public airports (which, in all honesty, is all I've ever flown out of).
Private tarmac.
And there's the difference.
If you are flying out of an FBO, even at a big airport like BWI, then you get to bypass airport security. However, TFS said Jobs was flying out of the public terminal. At Kenai Municipal Airport, in Kenai, Alaska (much smaller than BWI; I've been to both airports), some of the private, chartered flights board through the same gate as the passenger flights. In that case, yes, you would pass through airport security. If you are in a small, private airplane like I was, you go out a different door to a different ramp on the airport (if you go into the terminal at all), and you don't pass through security. So it all depends.
So you think it's ok for people to be allowed to bring weapons onto planes?
Yes, honestly, I do.
1) I own my own airplane. It's not a private jet, like what Steve Jobs was trying to board, but nevertheless, it is an airplane. Since I live in Alaska, and in 15 minutes flying time (even in a sloooow airplane like mine), you can be in the remote wilderness, I carry typically carry a gun and a knife when I fly. There are bears in those woods that think people are yummy, so I almost always bring a shotgun with me when I fly. Even without worrying about bears, if my engine quits (it's a two-stroke, so it's possible...) and I'm not within a few miles of a road, I might be camping for a few days until someone tracks down my ELT. Since I tend to get hungry every few hours, I equip myself for the possibility that I might need to shoot a grouse or a rabbit for food, if I am forced to land "off-airport." So yes, a gun of some kind is a part of the survival gear I regularly carry in an airplane.
2) Even if we limit our discussion to commercial airplanes (which only tangentially applies to this story, since this was a private jet that was boarding through a commercial gate at an airport) then I still think at least *some* weapons should be allowed. Maybe the aforementioned shotgun is a bit much on a commercial airliner, but I'd certainly like to be able to carry a pocket knife again. I'd even go so far as to say that I wish that the airlines would issue tasers to all adults on the airplane. The big argument is that weapons in the hands of passengers on the airplane would allow "the terrists" to hijack another airplane. As Norman Schwarzkopf once said,bovine scatology (that's B.S., for short). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_93" target="Flight 93">Flight 93 proved that the days of a hijacker taking over an airplane while the passengers sit like sheep are over. IMHO, the *best* defense for airplanes is making sure every able-bodied adult on the airplane is armed and willing to take down anyone who ever tries that crap again. Far better, in my opinion, to just drop the expense -- and pretense -- of security theatre, and instead give the people who have the most to lose -- the passengers on the airplane -- the right and the ability to protect themselves from terrorists and hijackers.
I use a slightly different mechanism: I turn the ringer to silent, and don't empty my voice mail. If I see you've called *and* I actually want to talk to you, I'll call you back.
The problem is, I loathe telephones. Typically, when the phone rings, it's because someone expects me to drop whatever I'm doing RIGHT NOW and attend to whatever it is they need. Worse, when I'm talking to people on the telephone, they tend to feel slighted if I don't give them my full and undivided attention. So if I'm at work trying to, you know, work, and my phone rings, the expectation is that I will immediately cease work to chat/be a chimney while they vent/solve the world's problems/whatever. Maybe I'm just a curmudgeon, but I find that rather irritating.
I much prefer text messages or e-mail, since I can look at it and get back to you when I actually have the CPU cycles to devote to whatever it is you need.
Now go read your reply to me again, and see how much bitterness and anger drips out of it. Need I say more?
You say your parents' divorce was a good thing for you. My wife had a daughter from a previous marriage when we met, so I counter your anecdote with the example of my step-daughter. At 24, she is still looking for someone to fill the pain in her heart that her biological dad left when he decided he had better things to do than be a dad and husband. You mention your friends who have parents who are divorced. I am the youth pastor at my church, and about half the kids in my youth group come from broken homes, so again, I've got anecdotes to counter yours. Dude, you can deny it, bury it, whatever, but IME, divorce leaves scars that can last a lifetime...but maybe you're the exception. I hope so, but from the tone of your post, I'd say I hit a nerve, so I doubt it.
I will agree that by the time a marriage reaches the point your parents' marriage was at, sex is the least important issue. It starts long before that with two things: to love the other person unconditionally and to put the other person first, all the time. But in our society, we are so caught up in ourselves, we don't even think about the other person. Janet Jackson was wrong. It's not "What have you done for me lately?" It's "What have I done for YOU lately" Until we figure that out, the divorce rate will continue to skyrocket.
As for pastors wanting to have an endless stream of broken people to counsel...you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Again, I'm sure there are exceptions, and maybe you've had the bad luck to run into one, but most pastors I have ever met sincerely want to work themselves out of a job. They are overworked, tired and stressed-out because they are always trying to meet the needs of everyone else. They would like nothing better than for their "problem children" to figure things out and leave them alone so they can rest and spend time with their own families for a while.
Sigh...I know. I just said "I HOPE"
Maybe I'm just being naive, but I kind of hope that as our indiscretions become more and more public, we'll stop pointing fingers at each other for their indiscretions. Glass houses, and all that.
You have to remember that in an insane society...
Agreed...
...ruled by religious wackos...
There are whackos of every stripe, religious and otherwise, in positions of power around the world. Unfortunately, religion is a tool that is often abused by those who seek power. Also unfortunately, there are plenty of people who are willing to surrender their good judgment to someone who wears a certain label, but that applies equally to religion, politics, patriotism, etc. Pointing out just the religious whackos, while ignoring the others, is simply prejudice.
...whose mental disease revolves around fighting "sin"...
First, I'm assuming that this is where to break the sentence, since your grammar is so atrocious that you broke my English language parser...and I'm a native speaker of the language. I think, however, there was supposed to be a comma between "sin" and "killing", so on that assumption, I'll continue.
If you really look at the big picture, most things that are frowned upon in religion tend to be bad for individuals or for society, anyway. Since I am most familiar with Judeo-Christianity, I'll give you an example from there: the ten commandments: "do not steal" -- yep, pretty tough to argue that that's a good thing regardless of your religion; likewise for "do not commit murder", "do not give false testimony against your neighbor" and"do not covet that which belongs to your neighbor". In our society, we tend to think of the commandment against adultery as being one of those antiquated, old-fashioned things, but talk to a kid who's parent's are getting divorced because of infidelity and tell me again how good adultery is. Again, it provides for a stable society.
...killing is a far, far, far, lesser crime than all things sex-related.
The problem here, is that you are looking at the way we humans have screwed religion up. Again, speaking from a non-Catholic, Judeo-Christian background, that's a human invention. IIRC, Catholics *do* have a hierarchy of sins, but I've never seen that anywhere in the Bible, and not being raised in a Catholic environment, I don't know where that tradition comes from. IME, there's no infraction that get's you "damned to Hell" when another only gets you "darned to Heck" so to say that "killing is a far, far, far lesser crime than all things sex-related" is simply false. At least, as I understand it :) YMMV.
You see killing is a forgivable sin...
Have you ever read the texts of any of the religions you are bashing? In Christianity, at least, repentance leads to forgiveness regardless of what you've done.
...(after all you can't have religious wars without killing and the "holy book" of the month is full of mass murder in the name of spreading the lunacy)...
Just because people who have rallied under a banner of religion have engaged in religious wars doesn't mean it's OK. 'Nuff said.
...but controlling sex resides deeply at the very core of the warped, hateful, controlling, jealous egos of the zealots.
There's enough warped, hateful, controlling, jealous, ego-maniac zealots around, that's true, and it's a black eye for anyone who holds to any given faith. But again, that's hardly limited to the religious set. Are you going to renounce atheism because some other atheist happened to be a warped, hateful, controlling, jealous, ego-maniac, too? No? Didn't think so. Neither, then, will I renounce my faith because some of the people who have claimed to share my religion have been...flawed (I'd say they were actually manifesting the nature of the devil rather than the
And if were to display similar astoundingly bad judgment, I'd be in jail. As has been said already, the criminal intent was the intent to spy on the kids, whether or not the administration realized it was illegal to do so.
The administrators probably started out using it in the intended fashion, and eventually came to rely upon it to understand and keep safe at-risk students. While I definitely disagree with that usage, I remember how hard high school was on the teachers. The school admins stumbled across a magic tool they didn't understand that gave them a window into the people they were trying to help. They didn't know any better, and they used it.
No, no, no, no, NO!
Stupidity is no excuse. Let's suppose two at-risk teens are in a fight outside. I grab a gun and fire it in the air, trying to get them to stop fighting. The bullet, when it comes back down, hits someone and kills them. I didn't intend to hurt anyone. I was only trying to keep at-risk students safe. I just stumbled across a magic tool that I didn't quite understand, and used it. I still (rightfully!) end up in jail for negligent manslaughter at the least. Stupidity should be painful. Otherwise, there's no incentive to learn.
These guys have lost a lot of time, effort, and money fighting this thing. They're never going to do it again. And even if they win every case, they're still going to get reamed by legal fees in the civil cases.
That's a good thing. I absolutely do not want some other school district to try this because this one got away with it.
Considering that their intent wasn't just non-malicious, but was actually intending to do good for these students...
And you know this -- not just believe it -- how? Even if you are right, those responsible for this act should never, ever be allowed to supervise children again. If they thought this was even remotely a good idea, then their judgment is so seriously flawed, they should spend the rest of their lives flipping burgers.
Well, speeding is illegal. Apparently having pre-installed software which takes pictures isn't...But afaik it's not illegal to take pictures of people in the US without informing them...
You are partially correct, but as it applies to this case, dead wrong.
If intent is necessary in order to break the law, then if, as GPP said, he is doing 55 MPH in a 35 MPH zone because he didn't see the sign, then he didn't intend to speed. That won't make a whit of difference if a cop busts him with a radar gun, though (unless he can prove that the sign was obscured, and any reasonable person could not be expected to see it).
You are partially correct regarding taking pictures of people in the U.S. without informing them is not illegal...as long as they are in an area where they have no reasonable expectation of privacy. In other words, if I am walking down the street or in a shopping mall and you take a picture of me, I have no legal recourse. I am in a public place, and therefore I cannot reasonably expect privacy there. On the other hand, in my bedroom, I most certainly do have a reasonable expectation of privacy and if you use "pre-installed software which takes pictures" to spy on my while I am at home, you'd better expect that I will take legal action against you. Every so often, a news article pops up where a landlord or employee at a store that has dressing rooms has installed covert cameras to peek in on people in bedrooms, restrooms, dressing rooms, etc., and they typically end up in jail for doing so. What the staff at this school did is essentially no different. They used the "anti-theft" software to spy on kids in their homes and in their bedrooms, and if they don't all end up in jail for it, then it will be a gross miscarriage of justice.
I'm sorry, if any student gets that command and doesn't start sniffing network traffic, they got what they deserved.
That's typical /. elitism there. How many kids in high school went on to become geeks? So there's what, ten per cent of the population of that school who could reasonably be expected to know how to sniff traffic, and the other 90% deserve to be spied on? I suppose you also think that everyone who is ever bullied in school deserved it because they never took a martial arts class?
Our legal system is supposed to provide protections against abuse because it is not right for those in positions of power to abuse others, not because some subset of the population is strong/smart/rich/powerful enough to protect themselves. Anything else is not justice.