That is what this reminds me of. A friend of mine bought me one many years back. It was just a normal lock, but with a metal bar strapped on the front and the alarm mechanism was a striker that would make a gentle "ding".
It starts out with one ding, then another 3 minutes later, and increases in frequency over the next 10 minutes until it is making a ding every 3 seconds.
I really liked it until it made for a very gentle wake up....that is...it did until it fell off a table and broke. Oddly my cell phone has taken a lot more drops, maybe this isn't such a bad development?
Well yes, exactly, and I guess what I would say is, they are absolutely right. While exposure to the internet doesn't make everyone lazy, doesn't diffuse all disagreements and redirect all anger, and certainly, not by any means, does it correct all ignorance.... but exposure to it does increase the likelyhood of spending more time in front of the glowing nipple and less down at their cut rate magic show (seriously, most of those guys don't even bother to learn any tricks anymore, they just claim some other dude did them when you weren't there...at least the snake dancers still put on a show)
Actually, it could be the answer to violence. How many militants go off to fight for the lack of a keyboard to sit in front of and be a tough guy on the internet? How many bombs will sit, half built, while the builder deftly slays the infidels on the internet with his clever trolling? How many will lose the will to fight today when they rail over injustice only to find themselves pointed at snopes?
Assuming that you think China's garauntees are rock solid sure. However, I suspect they are more to prevent war and thumb their nose at the US than a real desire to defend the DPRK.
Frankly, I think if it really comes down to them crossing too many lines and war is looking inevitable, China will find a reason to ditch their annoying little buddy.
It is, sure. Humans are very inventive and if they really want to solve that problem, they probably can.
However they can't fake the source of the bomb, and they can't deliver enough to preclude a response, and it is doubtful that China really wants WWIII so, its unlikely the Chineese alliance really extends to protecting them in the event of their own nuclear provocation of the US, or anywhere else for that matter.
Lots of things could happen, I could go down to the airport with my sword and start registering my displeasure at the TSA directly. Among the many reasons I will not be going to Logan airport tomorrow at noon to deliver death to the infidels (NSA: Made you look. Why are you reading this and not leaking documents?) is that it would be a suicide attack and I am not into glorious death for myself.
If by "end of life as we know it" you mean "another round of them being provocative to get attention and remain in the news" or "more talks of sanctions and deals" then.... yes, life as we know it is going to totally end...and by end, I mean not change one bit.
> The issue in this case is "where can you have them," not "why not have them."
Actually I think "why not have them" is more appropriate because the onus should always be on those advocating in favour of restriction to justify why their restriction is needed and will work to address that need.
All those people grenades can't be a new situation, I suspect that many and more travelled with passengers in the past, I mean, its not like the grenade is even remotely new technology. Its not like some guy in 2005 suddenly thought "I can pack explosives into a hand-held shell with a simple pull pin and lever to activate the fuse" and now poof, we have grenades everywhere.
Those grenades were always there. So why the change? If people have been travelling with their grenades without incident for all these decades now, what is the issue? Because somebody imagined that a grenade might be used to hijack a plane? Why should real people be inconvenienced because of the actions of imaginary ones?
Only on the outside, the inside is still cool and a bit purple, which is quite rare. Well done is when the meat is cooked all the way through, which takes more of the heat, and less of the shock wave.
Look at real conspiracies, people at the top shaking hands in back rooms. They make deals to move arms around, or sell political support. Things that can be hard to prove, or can be easily brushed under a rug.
Having a team of people, enter buildings, and place precision explosives over so many floors, not only would it take months or years, which is months or years of not being discovered, but it would take several operatives.
There are just too many smoking guns laying around when you do that. It quickly becomes absurd, how do you even recruit? Shit I look pretty dimly on the military and, as I like to call it, signing up to murder at the whims of congress, but, there is a fair distance between signing up to go do big morally questionable things on foreign soil while being lied to about the reasons, and mounting a massive murderous false flag attack on civilians in your own country.
Nope, I don't believe for a minute that they could hope to pull that off. Its too complex and involves too many people. Complexity is for money laundering the payments for the conspiracies, the real conspiracies themselves tend to be quite simple.
Bombs can be made to look like anything. He could hold up an empty handbag and say its a bomb.
The problem here, as much as anything, comes down to base rate fallacy. Yes a grenade CAN be used to hijack a plane or blow it up. However, as is clearly shown by these numbers, the presence of a genade or its replica, has a piss poor true-positive rate for stopping terrorists. Compared to its false positive rate which, at this point, is at 100%, and even if it happens once, will not even bring the false positive rate down to 99%.
This means it is: An ineffective measure.
If you proposed a screening of this effectiveness to a doctor, he would happily lecture you about the real and life threatening consequences of those false positives.... which is exactly what should be happening here.
Which, as much as I think terrorism is a complete and utter non-issue, actually makes sense. Yes, you want the people in charge of flying the massive passenger toting missile to be protected against the actions of random passengers in the back. The ONLY change that actually made sense.
a whole 29 attempts per year wow.... thats so staggeringly.... oh wait, thats nothing compared to the size of our population or amount of travel people do. I yawn at your statistics.
You should continue your research to determine what the trend was before and after they starting taking more serious security measures. A raw count isn't going to do that. I think it is likely that you will find some inflection points as various nations took more effective airport security measures, usually as a result of an incident, or a string of incidents.
Lol the trend! The trend here is easy to see.... the trend is people not blowing up planes or hijacking them...that is, and always was the overwhelming trend.
I can see how this functionality can work well with school-agers/teenagers. But with adults/married couples? Maybe if you know other couples who like to game or something. ----- This is better than nothing, I suppose.
Actually, this will save me a small amount of money each year, because at least a couple of times a year either my wife or I gets a game and its "cheap enough" to get for both of us because the other shows interest, and then quickly looses it.
Few games (like fallout 3) we both have played the shit out of and it made sense to buy for each of us, however, for many games, its kind of silly...and if each of us could just try out games while the other isn't playing, it would likely save us a few bucks... admittedly, we are talking a total of maybe $50 a year, but, we will definitely use this.
Hmmm good point, I had it backwards, and thought the Persians and Azerbaijani's were both Semitic, but I think you are right, its mostly the Arabs, who are a minority there.
He mentioned isreal, a national country, not jews . He said nothing of Iran, who are also semitic peoples. Hell, most jews are not even semitic; after their religion has traveled the world and induced imigration the world over into Isreal... whereas the Iranians have been there since the land was called Persia.... they are way more semitic than Isrealis.
That too is a possibility. I guess the next question is, which rebels were holding those people; if any at all, and what groups are they aligned with?
Rebel on rebel, and leaving the regime holding the bag would be a pretty interesting move. Multiparty conflicts can make your head spin. Then you have to wonder, did they directly get chemical weapons and stockpile them, or do they have agents within the Syrian army with access to them?
Dude the weapons were used against rebel held areas.
The allegation is not just that the rebels (not that they are a single group, there are a few) used chemical weapons, but that they used them on civilians in areas that they held to make it look like the regime did it.
If they want eventual US or other western nation backing (or at least good relations) then not using the chemical weapons while winning is very smart and makes perfect sense. (We also wouldn't know when they were aquired)
However, while losing, and in need of international aid, a false flag attack like this does, after a fashion, make perfect sense. This doesn't mean it was, I am skeptical too, but, its not an impossible scenario.
Recently released hostages (reportedly) of the rebels claim to have overheard skype conversations where rebels talk about the attacks as a false flag provocation tactic.
Is it true? Dunno, did they really overhear conversations? If so, were they really held by the rebels or is this some sort of disinfo aimed at creating the perception of a false flag?
Beats me, anything is possible. The regime did it is a very simple answer but, we have no way yet to know if it is the right one.
> Instead, it reveals that officials have little clue about what foreign intelligence is really doing on German soil.
You really think the german government doesn't have drones? You think they couldn't buy a freaking off the shelf hexacopter with a camera and get the same intel? Do you really think they don't already have detailed photographs of that building?
1. No it requires, at most, a jury to decide they have no reasonable doubt that you lied and knew. That is not the same as you having lied and known, you could have told the truth and believed it was the truth. If what they say can be used against them, then they are in jeopardy.
2. The whole point of a perjury trial is to make the determination as to whether they lied and knew it. To have such a trial, you have to use their statement against them; which means, they are in jeopardy for making any statement which contradicts what the prosecutor wants them to say.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.now-zen.com/
That is what this reminds me of. A friend of mine bought me one many years back. It was just a normal lock, but with a metal bar strapped on the front and the alarm mechanism was a striker that would make a gentle "ding".
It starts out with one ding, then another 3 minutes later, and increases in frequency over the next 10 minutes until it is making a ding every 3 seconds.
I really liked it until it made for a very gentle wake up....that is...it did until it fell off a table and broke. Oddly my cell phone has taken a lot more drops, maybe this isn't such a bad development?
Well yes, exactly, and I guess what I would say is, they are absolutely right. While exposure to the internet doesn't make everyone lazy, doesn't diffuse all disagreements and redirect all anger, and certainly, not by any means, does it correct all ignorance.... but exposure to it does increase the likelyhood of spending more time in front of the glowing nipple and less down at their cut rate magic show (seriously, most of those guys don't even bother to learn any tricks anymore, they just claim some other dude did them when you weren't there...at least the snake dancers still put on a show)
Actually, it could be the answer to violence. How many militants go off to fight for the lack of a keyboard to sit in front of and be a tough guy on the internet? How many bombs will sit, half built, while the builder deftly slays the infidels on the internet with his clever trolling? How many will lose the will to fight today when they rail over injustice only to find themselves pointed at snopes?
Assuming that you think China's garauntees are rock solid sure. However, I suspect they are more to prevent war and thumb their nose at the US than a real desire to defend the DPRK.
Frankly, I think if it really comes down to them crossing too many lines and war is looking inevitable, China will find a reason to ditch their annoying little buddy.
It is, sure. Humans are very inventive and if they really want to solve that problem, they probably can.
However they can't fake the source of the bomb, and they can't deliver enough to preclude a response, and it is doubtful that China really wants WWIII so, its unlikely the Chineese alliance really extends to protecting them in the event of their own nuclear provocation of the US, or anywhere else for that matter.
Lots of things could happen, I could go down to the airport with my sword and start registering my displeasure at the TSA directly. Among the many reasons I will not be going to Logan airport tomorrow at noon to deliver death to the infidels (NSA: Made you look. Why are you reading this and not leaking documents?) is that it would be a suicide attack and I am not into glorious death for myself.
If by "end of life as we know it" you mean "another round of them being provocative to get attention and remain in the news" or "more talks of sanctions and deals" then.... yes, life as we know it is going to totally end...and by end, I mean not change one bit.
> The issue in this case is "where can you have them," not "why not have them."
Actually I think "why not have them" is more appropriate because the onus should always be on those advocating in favour of restriction to justify why their restriction is needed and will work to address that need.
All those people grenades can't be a new situation, I suspect that many and more travelled with passengers in the past, I mean, its not like the grenade is even remotely new technology. Its not like some guy in 2005 suddenly thought "I can pack explosives into a hand-held shell with a simple pull pin and lever to activate the fuse" and now poof, we have grenades everywhere.
Those grenades were always there. So why the change? If people have been travelling with their grenades without incident for all these decades now, what is the issue? Because somebody imagined that a grenade might be used to hijack a plane? Why should real people be inconvenienced because of the actions of imaginary ones?
Only on the outside, the inside is still cool and a bit purple, which is quite rare. Well done is when the meat is cooked all the way through, which takes more of the heat, and less of the shock wave.
This right here.
Look at real conspiracies, people at the top shaking hands in back rooms. They make deals to move arms around, or sell political support. Things that can be hard to prove, or can be easily brushed under a rug.
Having a team of people, enter buildings, and place precision explosives over so many floors, not only would it take months or years, which is months or years of not being discovered, but it would take several operatives.
There are just too many smoking guns laying around when you do that. It quickly becomes absurd, how do you even recruit? Shit I look pretty dimly on the military and, as I like to call it, signing up to murder at the whims of congress, but, there is a fair distance between signing up to go do big morally questionable things on foreign soil while being lied to about the reasons, and mounting a massive murderous false flag attack on civilians in your own country.
Nope, I don't believe for a minute that they could hope to pull that off. Its too complex and involves too many people. Complexity is for money laundering the payments for the conspiracies, the real conspiracies themselves tend to be quite simple.
Bombs can be made to look like anything. He could hold up an empty handbag and say its a bomb.
The problem here, as much as anything, comes down to base rate fallacy. Yes a grenade CAN be used to hijack a plane or blow it up. However, as is clearly shown by these numbers, the presence of a genade or its replica, has a piss poor true-positive rate for stopping terrorists. Compared to its false positive rate which, at this point, is at 100%, and even if it happens once, will not even bring the false positive rate down to 99%.
This means it is: An ineffective measure.
If you proposed a screening of this effectiveness to a doctor, he would happily lecture you about the real and life threatening consequences of those false positives.... which is exactly what should be happening here.
Which, as much as I think terrorism is a complete and utter non-issue, actually makes sense. Yes, you want the people in charge of flying the massive passenger toting missile to be protected against the actions of random passengers in the back. The ONLY change that actually made sense.
a whole 29 attempts per year wow.... thats so staggeringly.... oh wait, thats nothing compared to the size of our population or amount of travel people do. I yawn at your statistics.
Lol the trend! The trend here is easy to see.... the trend is people not blowing up planes or hijacking them...that is, and always was the overwhelming trend.
Because terrorists are so rare that they are not even worth worrying about, and never were.
Why not have them? Why have bunny slippers? Since when should people have to justify why they want to have their own personal items?
And yet, it still then didn't add up to a statistically significant enough threat to bother with additional security.
Simple.... all those grenades....0 of them in the hands of terrorists. That should tell you this is a stupid issue.
Actually, this will save me a small amount of money each year, because at least a couple of times a year either my wife or I gets a game and its "cheap enough" to get for both of us because the other shows interest, and then quickly looses it.
Few games (like fallout 3) we both have played the shit out of and it made sense to buy for each of us, however, for many games, its kind of silly...and if each of us could just try out games while the other isn't playing, it would likely save us a few bucks... admittedly, we are talking a total of maybe $50 a year, but, we will definitely use this.
Hmmm good point, I had it backwards, and thought the Persians and Azerbaijani's were both Semitic, but I think you are right, its mostly the Arabs, who are a minority there.
He mentioned isreal, a national country, not jews . He said nothing of Iran, who are also semitic peoples. Hell, most jews are not even semitic; after their religion has traveled the world and induced imigration the world over into Isreal... whereas the Iranians have been there since the land was called Persia.... they are way more semitic than Isrealis.
That too is a possibility. I guess the next question is, which rebels were holding those people; if any at all, and what groups are they aligned with?
Rebel on rebel, and leaving the regime holding the bag would be a pretty interesting move. Multiparty conflicts can make your head spin. Then you have to wonder, did they directly get chemical weapons and stockpile them, or do they have agents within the Syrian army with access to them?
There really are more questions than answers.
that is where they got the name,... it runs down your platter like shingles down your torso. What you pictured a roof?
Dude the weapons were used against rebel held areas.
The allegation is not just that the rebels (not that they are a single group, there are a few) used chemical weapons, but that they used them on civilians in areas that they held to make it look like the regime did it.
If they want eventual US or other western nation backing (or at least good relations) then not using the chemical weapons while winning is very smart and makes perfect sense. (We also wouldn't know when they were aquired)
However, while losing, and in need of international aid, a false flag attack like this does, after a fashion, make perfect sense. This doesn't mean it was, I am skeptical too, but, its not an impossible scenario.
> As far as I know, they have vehemently denied it. Which doesn't mean much, but then again
> the rebels seem a pretty nasty bunch as well
There is now even another report: http://rt.com/news/chemical-weapons-rebels-captives-632/?utm_source=browser&utm_medium=aplication_chrome&utm_campaign=chrome
Recently released hostages (reportedly) of the rebels claim to have overheard skype conversations where rebels talk about the attacks as a false flag provocation tactic.
Is it true? Dunno, did they really overhear conversations? If so, were they really held by the rebels or is this some sort of disinfo aimed at creating the perception of a false flag?
Beats me, anything is possible. The regime did it is a very simple answer but, we have no way yet to know if it is the right one.
> Instead, it reveals that officials have little clue about what foreign intelligence is really doing on German soil.
You really think the german government doesn't have drones? You think they couldn't buy a freaking off the shelf hexacopter with a camera and get the same intel? Do you really think they don't already have detailed photographs of that building?
This was a stunt to make a point.
1. No it requires, at most, a jury to decide they have no reasonable doubt that you lied and knew. That is not the same as you having lied and known, you could have told the truth and believed it was the truth. If what they say can be used against them, then they are in jeopardy.
2. The whole point of a perjury trial is to make the determination as to whether they lied and knew it. To have such a trial, you have to use their statement against them; which means, they are in jeopardy for making any statement which contradicts what the prosecutor wants them to say.