Why not get a child an Arduino, breadboard, assorted basic electronic components (resistors, caps, relays, lots of LEDs, switches, buttons, etc.) and a book by Simon Monk. Total cost should be ~$50-60. Start by working through the projects in the book together.
In short order, the child will: A) get curious and wonder how to change the circuit/code from simply blinking and LED on and off to alternate between multiple colors, and onto how to rig an RGB LED to a visual weather indicator, and so on, and be left on their own to create ever more complicated projects... Or B) try to figure out what happens when a cap is overloaded or if a resistor can catch fire, or how to terrorize the pets, which is still a good sign, but they will require ongoing close supervision.... Or C) they get board and you find LED leads stabbing your feet if you walk barefoot on the carpet. In this case, a programming, electronics, engineering path is probably not in their future. This is still not a problem, as one can still have a full, enriching life without ever know how to read a circuit diagram or write a line of code. Business, chemistry, medical, art, etc. paths can be pursued without any of this background.
First you can ignore it, figuring that the govt. Has bigger fish to fry than someone who regularly travels about 5-10 miles above the speed limit, and may have purchased a couple lockpicks or ninja stars over the years--this will probably work fine unless somehow you match a certain profile and feds bust down your door and interrogate you for a couple days or more.
You can go into deep privacy survival mode, following such titles as "How to be Invisible" by J.J. Luna to set up anonymous bank accounts, ghost addresses, and shell companies to manage your finances, while you plan your way out to a less developed part of the world whereupon you cease all communication with your friends and family and develop bartering skills which do not use any officially recognized currency. Always use prepaid cellphones which were purchased by someone who knows neither your real name nor where you live or hang out. And never, ever leave the battery or SIM in it within 3 miles of your home or workplace. Recycle regularly anyway.
The third option is to poison the well. Pick 100 random names out of the phonebook and write them on separate slips of paper before you dump it. Throw your own name, address, and phone into a bowl with all the other slips. Find some old magazines at the library, the salon, your doctor's office, your mechanic, etc. Grab every prepaid postcard you can find that offers a free sample, information, or free trial subscription. You want a good mix of men's, women's, children's, art, religion, automotive, science, non-profit, etc magazines to draw from. Draw three names from the bowl. Fill out one of these cards using the name from the first, the address from the second, and the phone number from the third. Lather, rinse, and repeat. You and your 100 new found friends are about to be barraged with tons of junk mail, telephone solicitations, surveys, scams, collection notices (from uncancelled trial subscriptions), etc. You can ignore all this sudden attention or you can futily try to stop the storm you created. But you've just linked 100 other people with yourself, their addresses, and phone numbers to random interests. You will now be maintaining residences in both the tonyest of neighborhoods as well as the projects. You enjoy muscle cars, crochet, Afro-Cuban pop, in your second trimester of pregnancy, a devout Hindi who is interested in meeting gay men over 50.
Better be sure you never pay with plastic while you're there, or anywhere else in the near vicinity. That ANPR scanner down the street already placed you into the general whereabouts of the store. Or did you walk there while wearing a ski mask? That certainly didn't get anybody's attention now did it?
And how do you propose building such a firewall within the same database?
A hammer can build a house--or tear it apart. A fire can spur life, save life, or destroy life. Nuclear fission can supply massive amounts of energy, or it can destroy everything in its path. We can't do away with hammers, fires, or nuclear energy, it would be devastating to society, moreover there's no putting those genies back in the bottle. What we can do with the first two items is punish those who act with malice through vandalism or arson. Nuclear energy remains an ever tangled morass. We can try to regulate it, contain it, and hope that no party with the means uses it with destructive intent. There'd be no effective punishment for a nuclear missile attack, aside from a retaliatory strike.
So too with one giant database. We can hope that access to its contents remain extremely limited and that those who do always act with benevolent or at least benign intent. History isn't looking terribly favorable to either of those measures: Those with access to information tend to exploit it for personal gain at the expense of others; an information is rarely if ever, adequately protected from unauthorized access. What's worse, unlike a nuclear first strike in which the actors are fully aware of the repercussions, unauthorized use or abuse of a centralized database may not have any clearly delineated consequences.
In any group who is "preaching to the choir", one of the best tools to get the proverbial choir to sing louder is to speak about those "others" who seek to undermine their organization.
Therefore to the religious, it's all those secularists and/or heathens/pagans/the devil who want to destroy their church citing "the war on Christmas" or the refusal to teach creationism in schools for instance. Conversely, GLBT groups, Planned Parenthood, and others will solicit donations to fight against the "relentless assault" from the religious right against things such as ex-gay ministries or the bombing of abortion clinics.
Similarly, nationalists will shout that the sky is falling any time any sort of aid is provided to immigrants: "Press 1 to continue in English? WTH! They're taking our jobs!"
And let's not forget the vast conspiracies against the moon hoaxers, 9/11 truthers, and most of all, the birthers! Must get those tinfoil hats aligned properly!
As a devout agnostic, I have no issue with anyone who takes a moment to quietly pray before a meal in a state building or school, not do I care if they put up a Christmas tree. So long as those individuals respect the rights of those who either do not wish to participate, or would prefer to display a Star of David, Buddha, or humanist icons. However, creationism does not belong in school, just as trigonometry or particle physics would not be an appropriate discussion in any religious service that I know about.
One is free to discuss all the threats that gay marriage poses to humanity, just as I'm free to laugh about that to their faces. But forbidding a same-sex couple to be legally recognized as a wedded couple is just as egregious to me as imposing a statute that every person of the age of consent must be married to another of the same sex. That outlawing abortion is as bad as mandating that a fetus showing any signs of abnormality be aborted immediately.
Armed conflict always results in more fatalities than had the conflict not occurred.
I believe the salient point is that civilian deaths pretty much always vastly outnumber those of combatants. It was true before the rifle was the primary weapon of war. It's still true in the age of "smart bombs" and drone strikes. Even if we are to believe that an enemy combatant (or whichever colloquialism you prefer) cannot be safely detained or assassinated^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H engaged by any other means, and that their specific whereabouts are confirmed; do you really believe that the US, or any other nation tries to do anything to remove civilians from the apartment complex or other facility they're presently sharing?
Even if a commander had the noblest intentions to do so, it would surely be overruled by another person in command. "How about we evacuate all the non-combatants from the building before we blow the building sky high?" "And how do you propose we do that without losing track of the guy we're after or tipping him off that something's up?"
Add in combat fatigue, propaganda directed to one's own troops and the overall "fog of war" and it becomes reduced to "kill them all, let God sort 'em out!" Then after you've wiped out their, infrastructure, places of religious and historical importance as well as most of their family members; you've done anything but "winning their hearts and minds" and the cycle continues.
But if such micropayments were automatic, then you can bet there'd be plenty of unscrupulous webmasters embedding thousands of 1x1 iFrames into their sites, Javascript auto-refreshes every couple of seconds, botnets and so on. It'd become more profitable to wring lots of loose change from unsuspecting web users than current phishing scams.
If you have to authorize micropayments to each website you read on a regular basis, then we're back to square one, and we already have systems like the PayPal Donate button or the Amazon Tip Jar in place.
Hmm, via Square pretty much any Joe off the street with a smartphone can take credit cards and pay a 2.75% transaction fee. So I could theoretically set up a restaurant in my kitchen. order dinner from myself, pay via my Visa card which offers 5% back on restaurants and make a small profit.
BitCoin's fees seem unreasonable, not to mention I still see no reason to trust the "interesting, yet misguided currency which just won't die."
Hmm, trying to come up with a list of appropriate sponsors:
Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog presented by TCBY..
Stanley: For all your tool needs, including hammers. Lotion and/or wet wipes commercials. JCPenney announcing a new line of sweater vests. PSA for the Second Harvest Food Bank or your local homeless shelter. Does any toy company make an R/C van?
Could have milked that situation for fun and profit..
"Oh this? I really shouldn't tell you this, but it's a advance release edition of Windows 8 for software developers."
"Cool! it looks really slick.. Know how I could get a copy?"
Looking around furtively, you reply; "Do you have any idea how secretive they are in Redmond? I could be fired/sued just for letting you see what you have already!"
"Well as long as you're in for a penny, do you think you could make a copy for me?"
"Oh gee... well there's absolutely no way that I can just give you a copy of the disk, you see, the installer is serialized and we'd both certainly get nastygrams from Microsoft's lawyers if we tried that, but... " (continue looking nervous and gasping for air)
"But what?"
(whispering very quietly) "You seem honest enough... If you brought me your laptop, I might be able to scrub the install codes and serial numbers, but I'd need at least a couple weeks to work on that and I'd have to charge for my time working on it, so you'd really be better off waiting 'til it's released publicly next year.."
"Really? How much would you charge?"
"You have to remember that we're talking about over 6 gigabytes of code I'd have to pore over to make sure it doesn't incriminate me and jeopardize you in the process."
"C',mon. just name your price!"
(looking flushed) "Keep your voice down.. We don't know who else is here, but for the hours I'd have to work on it, I'd normally be compensated around 5K, but since I'll benefit somewhat from analyzing the binaries, I suppose I could do it for you for maybe 1500."
"That is a lot of money!"
"Listen, I told you you'd be better off waiting. I don't work for free, I hope you understand that, but you are the one who's been expressing such an interest."
"True.. Look could I give you half in advance and the balance on delivery?"
(rubbing your temple for a couple of seconds) "I suppose I could work with you on that."
"Okay, deal!"
Now just install Ubuntu, and set up a few wallpaper images bearing a Windows 8 logo along with a Banner stating "For Development Use Only" on each one, Delete any stock backgrounds depicting penguins, or specifying Linux, Ubuntu, or such... Stick it in the closet and stall him when he calls over the next three weeks stating that you are still analyzing, debugging, getting video drivers to work, etc.. before giving it back to him a month later upon receipt of the final payment.
Oh I signed it... Get my name on the "No-Fly" list? Heck with that, I put myself on it 5 years ago before the body scanners were put in place. I've only flown once since the implementation of the TSA, and that was only due to winning a free trip to DIsneyworld.. My husband was screened for explosives both ways for having the audacity to be confined to a wheelchair. They throw away the bottle of soda I forgot in my carry-on on our way home, which also had my husband screened for so long (even without the "SSSS" designation) that we nearly missed our flight back from Orlando that we arrived over an hour in advance for.
The last vacation we took, and probably the next few; was/will be to places we can readily access in my car. Yes, I know I'm far more likely to be injured/killed driving than by flying. I have no fear of flying, but I refuse to submit to the modern security apparatus, to be irradiated or groped. I've never been a "frequent flyer" but for about 25 years or so, I flew about 2-3 roundtrips a year. We both have medical conditions which do not need to be exacerbated while causing us humiliation at the groping hands of some mouthbreathers hired off a pizza box. If and when some sanity returns to the airport screening process, we'll be more than happy to fly regularly again. But about the only thing I can see that will get me on a plane today would be the death or serious illness of my parents/siblings.
As to being bombarded by political info? Rand Paul probably already figured out that was not such a bright idea when I and many other/.'ers signed his anti-TSA petition. Thankfully my unsubscribe request was eventually honored, but that's what spam filters are for anyway. As to the risk to the current administration? Assuming a human has ever actually read all the posts I've made here and other sites, (which I'm certain have been collected and correlated automatically into several private and government databases anyway) then I think they can safely conclude that President Obama will not get my vote again, but Mitt Romney won't receive my vote either. I still don't know who'll I'll vote for, or if I'll just write in "None of the Above" but until I find a candidate from any party whose platform even approximately matches my views which run the gamut between conservative, liberal, and libertarian; no one's getting my vote for president.
So for any aspiring presidential, congressional, and other politicians who seek my vote; these are some of my core issues and beliefs:
1) Defund the TSA, maintain common sense procedures such as reinforced cockpit doors, metal detectors, and canine patrols. Also improve the vetting and screening of airport employees, vendors, and contractors. 2) End the "War on Drugs." Tax and regulate cannaboids, amphetamines, hallucinogens, and narcotics much the way alcohol, tobacco, and/or prescription drugs are at present. This will greatly reduce the power and violence of Mexican drug cartels, and reduce gang violence in America, and reduce our overall prison population. Taxes raised from this legalization should go to real education of the dangers of drugs, and not "Reefer Madness" style scare tactics. Taxes raised should also go to counseling, detox and rehabilitation efforts to those adversely affected by drug abuse. 3) Raise taxes on the wealthy and the middle class alike. Our debt cannot be controlled by spending cuts alone, we also have to raise revenue broadly. It will take someone willing to advocate such a politically unpopular decision. On this issue alone, someone like Laurence Kotlikoff would win my vote, but there's little information on what else he stands for, and not all that is, is in sync with my views. But I have to give him credit for making an unpopular but necessary step his chief selling point. 4) Improve education for all. By this I don't mean inflexible testing standards such as NCLB. But investing heavily in education from preschool to advanced degrees,
Boxcutters were not illegal to carry aboard commercial aircraft on 9/11/01. Mace and pepper spray were. However then, as now, a canister of pepper spray would be nearly invisible on Xray, and may or may not be seen on a person using AIT. 70% of simulated weapons and explosives still make it through the current screening regimen. I doubt that number is much different (either better or worse) than in the days of private security screening.
Two reasons that the 9/11 attacks were successful is because of the SOP which essentially said, "To reduce risk to passengers or flight crews, don't put up any resistance and comply with hijackers' demands." That thinking allowed three planes to be used as cruise missiles to disastrous effect. Which brings up the second major factor: Credible intelligence reports were mishandled. That student pilot(s) stated they wanted to know how to fly 747s, but were not interested in how to land them.
The first factor was corrected automatically the very same day with United 93's passengers upon learning what had happened earlier that morning took control of the situation and thwarted the attack.. Yes they all died, but they knew they would have anyway, but they prevented much more death and destruction. Reinforcing and locking cockpit doors was a very intelligent procedure change in the wake of that fateful day. That is something that I fully support, and I expect that the insurance companies do as well.
But what of all the other apparatus? Does anyone seriously believe that a bottle of water or a tube of toothpaste poses a credible security risk? Intelligence gathering has increased dramatically, but information sharing as a result has, if anything, only gotten worse.They've essentially created a much larger haystack from which to search for the same needles. Think of the "underwear bomber" attempted attack. It was reported that the terrorist's own father reported him to authorities. Yet he was still granted a visa into the U.S.? WTF? However tragedy was averted due to the important changes I cited earlier. Passengers (and an air marshal) recognized the threat that intelligence officials and security screeners missed and stopped the attack cold in its tracks! Even if he had managed to detonate his explosive, the worst case scenario would be that the plane crashed killing all aboard and possibly a few people on the ground as well. The odds that the plane would have crashed into a densely populated area, or a building of strategic and/or national significance would have been astronomically small.
But back to your insurance standpoint, do you believe any sane underwriter would think increasing the cost of the security apparatus 1000-fold or more to reduce the probability of a terrorist attack by a fraction of one-percent would be a wise choice? Considering that in the process, they've increased their liability to claims based on civil rights violations, delayed flights, stolen or damaged items in luggage, and health problems that may be (rightly or wrongly) attributed to backscatter radiation by passengers, screeners, flight crews, and airport staff?
No. If the companies who insured airports and airlines were the ones dictating security procedures, I would expect things to look a lot more like they did on September 10, 2001 than they do today.
What you describe is already widely used at Big Box stores such as Walmart. It's an LCD display, not E-Ink, but they not only detect your presence, but try to determine your age and sex to deliver a targeted ad to you as you walk by.
Now when the butcher paper that holds my cold cuts starts advertising products to me as I drive home or when I open the fridge to make a sandwich, Fahrenheit 451 will come true, only it'll be the populace, not the authorities, on patrol with blowtorches.
I agree SOPA and similar bills are wrong ethically, morally, and legally, but let me try to play devil's advocate here and give you some arguments a pro-SOPA lobbyist might.
1) Cyberwarfare is a real threat! One could foresee an instance where hackers from Russia or China successfully compromised a major content provider and planted malware that would install a rootkit from a ubiquitous and otherwise innocuous looking flash ad served from Akamai, Doubleclick, or whatnot meaning that all you needed to do to be infected is visit Yahoo, Amazon, eBay, Valve, or even Slashdot.-- or receive an email from someone you know well whose computer is now part of the botnet which runs on Windows, Mac, Linux, iOS, or Android. CERN recognises the severity of the threat and knows that by the time the agency with the proper jurisdictional authority is notified and a judicial take-down order is received, far more damage will have been done over shutting the compromised site(s) down immediately.
2) Sites like Wikileaks have already seriously hampered US diplomatic relations with the secret documents they've exposed. Shutting the site down now is pointless as the data has already been shared far and wide. However we must be vigilant to protect against a future security breach. Were a file containing highly sensitive data to be published such as a dossier of CIA operatives worldwide; or a database of all SSNs with names, addresses, phone numbers and dates of birth associated with them; it would be imperative to shut the site down immediately before this data could likewise be spread across the globe.
3) Telling a copyright holder that they have to obtain a warrant to have a site which is unlawfully distributing their IP would be like you coming home to find a burglar loading your possessions into a truck and having to get a court order before you could attempt to stop the burglar or even try to protect the remaining contents of your house.
The key point, which is not addressed at all within the press release is whether the Govt. will subsidize private screening or not. This is important because if so, then the TSA will simply be subcontracted out to Halliburton or other firm, and waste, fraud, and abuse will only increase, more security theater = more screeners = more equipment = more profit!
If, instead, airport screening was funded by the airport or airlines themselves (yes, either way, the air traveler ultimately picks up the tab) then they'd have an incentive to maximize passenger throughput while minimizing cost. They would still want reasonable security measures for safety's sake and to keep insurance premiums low and lawsuits to a minimum.
If JFK Intl still insisted on Whole Body Imaging, pat downs, no fly lists, liquid bans, shoe removal, and all the other nonsense introduced over the past decade, they'd probably have to charge about $15 per passenger to cover the cost. Therefore LaGuardia may then see that by just relying on metal detectors, X-rays for carry-ons, and canine patrols, they could screen each passenger for about $2 each, while having fewer delays and fewer upset travelers.
The upshot in this hypothetical example is that passengers who are still worried about another 9/11 style attack can fly out of JFK and feel reassured that they'll be perfectly safe from terrorists and will gladly pay for the privilege of being strip-searched, irradiated, groped, and prodded in exchange for this reassurance. Those who'd rather not pay to be humiliated can fly out of LaGuardia instead. Even humoring the idea that they'd be twice as likely to die in a terrorist incident as those who opted for the "enhanced" screening at JFK. Or in other words, instead of 25,000,000:1 odds, they'd be facing 12,500,000:1 odds.
Would traffic out of these two airports remain largely unchanged, would travel dry up out of LaGuardia out of fear, or would traffic dry up at JFK due to invasive security theater. I'd place my bets on the third scenario. However, in a true Libertarian sense, whatever imbalance was created if any would be corrected in short order by one airport adopting the policies of the other which took away their business.
I second Sycraft's concern. I signed the petition, and have been getting emails thanking me for my support of ending the Federal Reserve and other loony ideas and a message even had the gall to identify me as a "conservative." (I don't identify as a "liberal" either, but I was taken aback by that)
I opted out, and, so far, have received one more mailing since, but it seems like the petition is more of a backdoor to try and promote Rand Paul and solicit campaign contributions than an actual petition drive against the TSA.
Given that the Rep of my district, Jim Cooper, was one of 42 Democrats who voted for it.. In my case, absolutely no difference at all between Dems and Reps.
I'd send him a letter, but back in 2003 when he was joining the Bush II drum circle for a preemptive war in Iraq, I wrote to tell him I believed this was a colossally bad idea. I received a form letter in response which basically amounted to "STFU, we know what's best for you." I'd expect a similar response today. Since then, I've never voted for him, and wouldn't were he running unopposed. Tennessee is considered a solidly red state anyway, and Jim Cooper is one of the "Blue Dog Democrats" who are largely indistinguishable from the GOP. So, I will cast my ballot for 3rd party candidates in November as it's all but guaranteed that our electoral votes will go to Romney.
However, I'd still vote third party even if I lived in Ohio or any of the other "battleground" states. After the extrajudicial assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki, the NDAA, the expansion of the USA PATRIOT Act, and AIT/Grope-downs added to the TSA's repertoire under Obama--I find him mostly indistinguishable from GWB. Obama's far more articulate and much less smug, but just as dangerous to our civil liberties, and, likewise, virtually indistinguishable from Romney.
Slashdot Mirror
I would agree that medical use trumps party use; but how difficult would it be to retool an MRI to use, say, liquid nitrogen for cooling?
Why not get a child an Arduino, breadboard, assorted basic electronic components (resistors, caps, relays, lots of LEDs, switches, buttons, etc.) and a book by Simon Monk. Total cost should be ~$50-60. Start by working through the projects in the book together.
In short order, the child will: A) get curious and wonder how to change the circuit/code from simply blinking and LED on and off to alternate between multiple colors, and onto how to rig an RGB LED to a visual weather indicator, and so on, and be left on their own to create ever more complicated projects... Or B) try to figure out what happens when a cap is overloaded or if a resistor can catch fire, or how to terrorize the pets, which is still a good sign, but they will require ongoing close supervision.... Or C) they get board and you find LED leads stabbing your feet if you walk barefoot on the carpet. In this case, a programming, electronics, engineering path is probably not in their future. This is still not a problem, as one can still have a full, enriching life without ever know how to read a circuit diagram or write a line of code. Business, chemistry, medical, art, etc. paths can be pursued without any of this background.
I can see the re-tweets now:
"Your computer is infected and internet access has been disabled. Click Here[www.malware-infection.site] to restore."
I believe there's a few courses of action here:
First you can ignore it, figuring that the govt. Has bigger fish to fry than someone who regularly travels about 5-10 miles above the speed limit, and may have purchased a couple lockpicks or ninja stars over the years--this will probably work fine unless somehow you match a certain profile and feds bust down your door and interrogate you for a couple days or more.
You can go into deep privacy survival mode, following such titles as "How to be Invisible" by J.J. Luna to set up anonymous bank accounts, ghost addresses, and shell companies to manage your finances, while you plan your way out to a less developed part of the world whereupon you cease all communication with your friends and family and develop bartering skills which do not use any officially recognized currency. Always use prepaid cellphones which were purchased by someone who knows neither your real name nor where you live or hang out. And never, ever leave the battery or SIM in it within 3 miles of your home or workplace. Recycle regularly anyway.
The third option is to poison the well. Pick 100 random names out of the phonebook and write them on separate slips of paper before you dump it. Throw your own name, address, and phone into a bowl with all the other slips. Find some old magazines at the library, the salon, your doctor's office, your mechanic, etc. Grab every prepaid postcard you can find that offers a free sample, information, or free trial subscription. You want a good mix of men's, women's, children's, art, religion, automotive, science, non-profit, etc magazines to draw from. Draw three names from the bowl. Fill out one of these cards using the name from the first, the address from the second, and the phone number from the third. Lather, rinse, and repeat. You and your 100 new found friends are about to be barraged with tons of junk mail, telephone solicitations, surveys, scams, collection notices (from uncancelled trial subscriptions), etc. You can ignore all this sudden attention or you can futily try to stop the storm you created. But you've just linked 100 other people with yourself, their addresses, and phone numbers to random interests. You will now be maintaining residences in both the tonyest of neighborhoods as well as the projects. You enjoy muscle cars, crochet, Afro-Cuban pop, in your second trimester of pregnancy, a devout Hindi who is interested in meeting gay men over 50.
Better be sure you never pay with plastic while you're there, or anywhere else in the near vicinity. That ANPR scanner down the street already placed you into the general whereabouts of the store. Or did you walk there while wearing a ski mask? That certainly didn't get anybody's attention now did it?
And how do you propose building such a firewall within the same database?
A hammer can build a house--or tear it apart. A fire can spur life, save life, or destroy life. Nuclear fission can supply massive amounts of energy, or it can destroy everything in its path. We can't do away with hammers, fires, or nuclear energy, it would be devastating to society, moreover there's no putting those genies back in the bottle. What we can do with the first two items is punish those who act with malice through vandalism or arson. Nuclear energy remains an ever tangled morass. We can try to regulate it, contain it, and hope that no party with the means uses it with destructive intent. There'd be no effective punishment for a nuclear missile attack, aside from a retaliatory strike.
So too with one giant database. We can hope that access to its contents remain extremely limited and that those who do always act with benevolent or at least benign intent. History isn't looking terribly favorable to either of those measures: Those with access to information tend to exploit it for personal gain at the expense of others; an information is rarely if ever, adequately protected from unauthorized access. What's worse, unlike a nuclear first strike in which the actors are fully aware of the repercussions, unauthorized use or abuse of a centralized database may not have any clearly delineated consequences.
In any group who is "preaching to the choir", one of the best tools to get the proverbial choir to sing louder is to speak about those "others" who seek to undermine their organization.
Therefore to the religious, it's all those secularists and/or heathens/pagans/the devil who want to destroy their church citing "the war on Christmas" or the refusal to teach creationism in schools for instance. Conversely, GLBT groups, Planned Parenthood, and others will solicit donations to fight against the "relentless assault" from the religious right against things such as ex-gay ministries or the bombing of abortion clinics.
Similarly, nationalists will shout that the sky is falling any time any sort of aid is provided to immigrants: "Press 1 to continue in English? WTH! They're taking our jobs!"
And let's not forget the vast conspiracies against the moon hoaxers, 9/11 truthers, and most of all, the birthers! Must get those tinfoil hats aligned properly!
As a devout agnostic, I have no issue with anyone who takes a moment to quietly pray before a meal in a state building or school, not do I care if they put up a Christmas tree. So long as those individuals respect the rights of those who either do not wish to participate, or would prefer to display a Star of David, Buddha, or humanist icons. However, creationism does not belong in school, just as trigonometry or particle physics would not be an appropriate discussion in any religious service that I know about.
One is free to discuss all the threats that gay marriage poses to humanity, just as I'm free to laugh about that to their faces. But forbidding a same-sex couple to be legally recognized as a wedded couple is just as egregious to me as imposing a statute that every person of the age of consent must be married to another of the same sex. That outlawing abortion is as bad as mandating that a fetus showing any signs of abnormality be aborted immediately.
Armed conflict always results in more fatalities than had the conflict not occurred.
I believe the salient point is that civilian deaths pretty much always vastly outnumber those of combatants. It was true before the rifle was the primary weapon of war. It's still true in the age of "smart bombs" and drone strikes. Even if we are to believe that an enemy combatant (or whichever colloquialism you prefer) cannot be safely detained or assassinated^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H engaged by any other means, and that their specific whereabouts are confirmed; do you really believe that the US, or any other nation tries to do anything to remove civilians from the apartment complex or other facility they're presently sharing?
Even if a commander had the noblest intentions to do so, it would surely be overruled by another person in command. "How about we evacuate all the non-combatants from the building before we blow the building sky high?" "And how do you propose we do that without losing track of the guy we're after or tipping him off that something's up?"
Add in combat fatigue, propaganda directed to one's own troops and the overall "fog of war" and it becomes reduced to "kill them all, let God sort 'em out!" Then after you've wiped out their, infrastructure, places of religious and historical importance as well as most of their family members; you've done anything but "winning their hearts and minds" and the cycle continues.
But if such micropayments were automatic, then you can bet there'd be plenty of unscrupulous webmasters embedding thousands of 1x1 iFrames into their sites, Javascript auto-refreshes every couple of seconds, botnets and so on. It'd become more profitable to wring lots of loose change from unsuspecting web users than current phishing scams.
If you have to authorize micropayments to each website you read on a regular basis, then we're back to square one, and we already have systems like the PayPal Donate button or the Amazon Tip Jar in place.
Hmm, via Square pretty much any Joe off the street with a smartphone can take credit cards and pay a 2.75% transaction fee. So I could theoretically set up a restaurant in my kitchen. order dinner from myself, pay via my Visa card which offers 5% back on restaurants and make a small profit.
BitCoin's fees seem unreasonable, not to mention I still see no reason to trust the "interesting, yet misguided currency which just won't die."
The plan you refer to is an exclusive deal through Walmart. A T-mobile phone purchased elsewhere won't work, let alone a BYOD.
Hmm, trying to come up with a list of appropriate sponsors:
Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog presented by TCBY..
Stanley: For all your tool needs, including hammers.
Lotion and/or wet wipes commercials.
JCPenney announcing a new line of sweater vests.
PSA for the Second Harvest Food Bank or your local homeless shelter.
Does any toy company make an R/C van?
I thought that was South Park.
Could have milked that situation for fun and profit..
"Oh this? I really shouldn't tell you this, but it's a advance release edition of Windows 8 for software developers."
"Cool! it looks really slick.. Know how I could get a copy?"
Looking around furtively, you reply; "Do you have any idea how secretive they are in Redmond? I could be fired/sued just for letting you see what you have already!"
"Well as long as you're in for a penny, do you think you could make a copy for me?"
"Oh gee... well there's absolutely no way that I can just give you a copy of the disk, you see, the installer is serialized and we'd both certainly get nastygrams from Microsoft's lawyers if we tried that, but... " (continue looking nervous and gasping for air)
"But what?"
(whispering very quietly) "You seem honest enough... If you brought me your laptop, I might be able to scrub the install codes and serial numbers, but I'd need at least a couple weeks to work on that and I'd have to charge for my time working on it, so you'd really be better off waiting 'til it's released publicly next year.."
"Really? How much would you charge?"
"You have to remember that we're talking about over 6 gigabytes of code I'd have to pore over to make sure it doesn't incriminate me and jeopardize you in the process."
"C',mon. just name your price!"
(looking flushed) "Keep your voice down.. We don't know who else is here, but for the hours I'd have to work on it, I'd normally be compensated around 5K, but since I'll benefit somewhat from analyzing the binaries, I suppose I could do it for you for maybe 1500."
"That is a lot of money!"
"Listen, I told you you'd be better off waiting. I don't work for free, I hope you understand that, but you are the one who's been expressing such an interest."
"True.. Look could I give you half in advance and the balance on delivery?"
(rubbing your temple for a couple of seconds) "I suppose I could work with you on that."
"Okay, deal!"
Now just install Ubuntu, and set up a few wallpaper images bearing a Windows 8 logo along with a Banner stating "For Development Use Only" on each one, Delete any stock backgrounds depicting penguins, or specifying Linux, Ubuntu, or such... Stick it in the closet and stall him when he calls over the next three weeks stating that you are still analyzing, debugging, getting video drivers to work, etc.. before giving it back to him a month later upon receipt of the final payment.
Oh I signed it... Get my name on the "No-Fly" list? Heck with that, I put myself on it 5 years ago before the body scanners were put in place. I've only flown once since the implementation of the TSA, and that was only due to winning a free trip to DIsneyworld.. My husband was screened for explosives both ways for having the audacity to be confined to a wheelchair. They throw away the bottle of soda I forgot in my carry-on on our way home, which also had my husband screened for so long (even without the "SSSS" designation) that we nearly missed our flight back from Orlando that we arrived over an hour in advance for.
The last vacation we took, and probably the next few; was/will be to places we can readily access in my car. Yes, I know I'm far more likely to be injured/killed driving than by flying. I have no fear of flying, but I refuse to submit to the modern security apparatus, to be irradiated or groped. I've never been a "frequent flyer" but for about 25 years or so, I flew about 2-3 roundtrips a year. We both have medical conditions which do not need to be exacerbated while causing us humiliation at the groping hands of some mouthbreathers hired off a pizza box. If and when some sanity returns to the airport screening process, we'll be more than happy to fly regularly again. But about the only thing I can see that will get me on a plane today would be the death or serious illness of my parents/siblings.
As to being bombarded by political info? Rand Paul probably already figured out that was not such a bright idea when I and many other /.'ers signed his anti-TSA petition. Thankfully my unsubscribe request was eventually honored, but that's what spam filters are for anyway. As to the risk to the current administration? Assuming a human has ever actually read all the posts I've made here and other sites, (which I'm certain have been collected and correlated automatically into several private and government databases anyway) then I think they can safely conclude that President Obama will not get my vote again, but Mitt Romney won't receive my vote either. I still don't know who'll I'll vote for, or if I'll just write in "None of the Above" but until I find a candidate from any party whose platform even approximately matches my views which run the gamut between conservative, liberal, and libertarian; no one's getting my vote for president.
So for any aspiring presidential, congressional, and other politicians who seek my vote; these are some of my core issues and beliefs:
1) Defund the TSA, maintain common sense procedures such as reinforced cockpit doors, metal detectors, and canine patrols. Also improve the vetting and screening of airport employees, vendors, and contractors.
2) End the "War on Drugs." Tax and regulate cannaboids, amphetamines, hallucinogens, and narcotics much the way alcohol, tobacco, and/or prescription drugs are at present. This will greatly reduce the power and violence of Mexican drug cartels, and reduce gang violence in America, and reduce our overall prison population. Taxes raised from this legalization should go to real education of the dangers of drugs, and not "Reefer Madness" style scare tactics. Taxes raised should also go to counseling, detox and rehabilitation efforts to those adversely affected by drug abuse.
3) Raise taxes on the wealthy and the middle class alike. Our debt cannot be controlled by spending cuts alone, we also have to raise revenue broadly. It will take someone willing to advocate such a politically unpopular decision. On this issue alone, someone like Laurence Kotlikoff would win my vote, but there's little information on what else he stands for, and not all that is, is in sync with my views. But I have to give him credit for making an unpopular but necessary step his chief selling point.
4) Improve education for all. By this I don't mean inflexible testing standards such as NCLB. But investing heavily in education from preschool to advanced degrees,
Proven? How?
Boxcutters were not illegal to carry aboard commercial aircraft on 9/11/01. Mace and pepper spray were. However then, as now, a canister of pepper spray would be nearly invisible on Xray, and may or may not be seen on a person using AIT. 70% of simulated weapons and explosives still make it through the current screening regimen. I doubt that number is much different (either better or worse) than in the days of private security screening.
Two reasons that the 9/11 attacks were successful is because of the SOP which essentially said, "To reduce risk to passengers or flight crews, don't put up any resistance and comply with hijackers' demands." That thinking allowed three planes to be used as cruise missiles to disastrous effect. Which brings up the second major factor: Credible intelligence reports were mishandled. That student pilot(s) stated they wanted to know how to fly 747s, but were not interested in how to land them.
The first factor was corrected automatically the very same day with United 93's passengers upon learning what had happened earlier that morning took control of the situation and thwarted the attack.. Yes they all died, but they knew they would have anyway, but they prevented much more death and destruction. Reinforcing and locking cockpit doors was a very intelligent procedure change in the wake of that fateful day. That is something that I fully support, and I expect that the insurance companies do as well.
But what of all the other apparatus? Does anyone seriously believe that a bottle of water or a tube of toothpaste poses a credible security risk? Intelligence gathering has increased dramatically, but information sharing as a result has, if anything, only gotten worse.They've essentially created a much larger haystack from which to search for the same needles. Think of the "underwear bomber" attempted attack. It was reported that the terrorist's own father reported him to authorities. Yet he was still granted a visa into the U.S.? WTF? However tragedy was averted due to the important changes I cited earlier. Passengers (and an air marshal) recognized the threat that intelligence officials and security screeners missed and stopped the attack cold in its tracks! Even if he had managed to detonate his explosive, the worst case scenario would be that the plane crashed killing all aboard and possibly a few people on the ground as well. The odds that the plane would have crashed into a densely populated area, or a building of strategic and/or national significance would have been astronomically small.
But back to your insurance standpoint, do you believe any sane underwriter would think increasing the cost of the security apparatus 1000-fold or more to reduce the probability of a terrorist attack by a fraction of one-percent would be a wise choice? Considering that in the process, they've increased their liability to claims based on civil rights violations, delayed flights, stolen or damaged items in luggage, and health problems that may be (rightly or wrongly) attributed to backscatter radiation by passengers, screeners, flight crews, and airport staff?
No. If the companies who insured airports and airlines were the ones dictating security procedures, I would expect things to look a lot more like they did on September 10, 2001 than they do today.
I'm so glad that the password I use everywhere, "peanut", is not on that list. I must be perfectly safe then right?
1) Go to your nearest big box retailer.
2) Buy Soccer ball and a laser pointer.
3) ????
4) Profit!
What you describe is already widely used at Big Box stores such as Walmart. It's an LCD display, not E-Ink, but they not only detect your presence, but try to determine your age and sex to deliver a targeted ad to you as you walk by.
Now when the butcher paper that holds my cold cuts starts advertising products to me as I drive home or when I open the fridge to make a sandwich, Fahrenheit 451 will come true, only it'll be the populace, not the authorities, on patrol with blowtorches.
One thing they definitely got wrong in this production was the direction the earth rotates on its axis.
I agree SOPA and similar bills are wrong ethically, morally, and legally, but let me try to play devil's advocate here and give you some arguments a pro-SOPA lobbyist might.
1) Cyberwarfare is a real threat! One could foresee an instance where hackers from Russia or China successfully compromised a major content provider and planted malware that would install a rootkit from a ubiquitous and otherwise innocuous looking flash ad served from Akamai, Doubleclick, or whatnot meaning that all you needed to do to be infected is visit Yahoo, Amazon, eBay, Valve, or even Slashdot.-- or receive an email from someone you know well whose computer is now part of the botnet which runs on Windows, Mac, Linux, iOS, or Android. CERN recognises the severity of the threat and knows that by the time the agency with the proper jurisdictional authority is notified and a judicial take-down order is received, far more damage will have been done over shutting the compromised site(s) down immediately.
2) Sites like Wikileaks have already seriously hampered US diplomatic relations with the secret documents they've exposed. Shutting the site down now is pointless as the data has already been shared far and wide. However we must be vigilant to protect against a future security breach. Were a file containing highly sensitive data to be published such as a dossier of CIA operatives worldwide; or a database of all SSNs with names, addresses, phone numbers and dates of birth associated with them; it would be imperative to shut the site down immediately before this data could likewise be spread across the globe.
3) Telling a copyright holder that they have to obtain a warrant to have a site which is unlawfully distributing their IP would be like you coming home to find a burglar loading your possessions into a truck and having to get a court order before you could attempt to stop the burglar or even try to protect the remaining contents of your house.
The key point, which is not addressed at all within the press release is whether the Govt. will subsidize private screening or not. This is important because if so, then the TSA will simply be subcontracted out to Halliburton or other firm, and waste, fraud, and abuse will only increase, more security theater = more screeners = more equipment = more profit!
If, instead, airport screening was funded by the airport or airlines themselves (yes, either way, the air traveler ultimately picks up the tab) then they'd have an incentive to maximize passenger throughput while minimizing cost. They would still want reasonable security measures for safety's sake and to keep insurance premiums low and lawsuits to a minimum.
If JFK Intl still insisted on Whole Body Imaging, pat downs, no fly lists, liquid bans, shoe removal, and all the other nonsense introduced over the past decade, they'd probably have to charge about $15 per passenger to cover the cost. Therefore LaGuardia may then see that by just relying on metal detectors, X-rays for carry-ons, and canine patrols, they could screen each passenger for about $2 each, while having fewer delays and fewer upset travelers.
The upshot in this hypothetical example is that passengers who are still worried about another 9/11 style attack can fly out of JFK and feel reassured that they'll be perfectly safe from terrorists and will gladly pay for the privilege of being strip-searched, irradiated, groped, and prodded in exchange for this reassurance. Those who'd rather not pay to be humiliated can fly out of LaGuardia instead. Even humoring the idea that they'd be twice as likely to die in a terrorist incident as those who opted for the "enhanced" screening at JFK. Or in other words, instead of 25,000,000:1 odds, they'd be facing 12,500,000:1 odds.
Would traffic out of these two airports remain largely unchanged, would travel dry up out of LaGuardia out of fear, or would traffic dry up at JFK due to invasive security theater. I'd place my bets on the third scenario. However, in a true Libertarian sense, whatever imbalance was created if any would be corrected in short order by one airport adopting the policies of the other which took away their business.
Another event from 2001: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJ-uG2UCZaU
I second Sycraft's concern. I signed the petition, and have been getting emails thanking me for my support of ending the Federal Reserve and other loony ideas and a message even had the gall to identify me as a "conservative." (I don't identify as a "liberal" either, but I was taken aback by that)
I opted out, and, so far, have received one more mailing since, but it seems like the petition is more of a backdoor to try and promote Rand Paul and solicit campaign contributions than an actual petition drive against the TSA.
Given that the Rep of my district, Jim Cooper, was one of 42 Democrats who voted for it.. In my case, absolutely no difference at all between Dems and Reps.
I'd send him a letter, but back in 2003 when he was joining the Bush II drum circle for a preemptive war in Iraq, I wrote to tell him I believed this was a colossally bad idea. I received a form letter in response which basically amounted to "STFU, we know what's best for you." I'd expect a similar response today. Since then, I've never voted for him, and wouldn't were he running unopposed. Tennessee is considered a solidly red state anyway, and Jim Cooper is one of the "Blue Dog Democrats" who are largely indistinguishable from the GOP. So, I will cast my ballot for 3rd party candidates in November as it's all but guaranteed that our electoral votes will go to Romney.
However, I'd still vote third party even if I lived in Ohio or any of the other "battleground" states. After the extrajudicial assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki, the NDAA, the expansion of the USA PATRIOT Act, and AIT/Grope-downs added to the TSA's repertoire under Obama--I find him mostly indistinguishable from GWB. Obama's far more articulate and much less smug, but just as dangerous to our civil liberties, and, likewise, virtually indistinguishable from Romney.