In both cases it was not the passengers subduing the attackers which prevented the deaths of those onboard... but instead luck that neither device went off.
Of course this happened AFTER he got through TSA screening.
Is it really hard?
Prior to 9/11 there random searches and metal detectors with xrays. That didn't stop people. Why should a little more stop anyone? There are LOTS of ways to get into an airport. Supposedly the guys that planned 9/11 spent a long time planning it. They are going to let a little deterrence stop them?
TSA isn't about deterring anyone. It is about controlling the population and keeping them in fear.
You may be right, but since stopping such things is what they are supposed to do, there's no way to be certain, if only by their very presence, that they are not having some impact
They are having an impact all right. They cost us money and time. Anecdotal evidence suggests some tourists aren't coming to American because of them. And evidence suggests driving has gone up, and because driving is statistically less safe than flying, more people have died has a result.
So we can't tell if TSA has deterred anyone (would it really? What we did previously didn't stop anyone, why should the TSA) but evidence has suggested they failed to stop some terrorists, like the underwear guy and the show guy (well that one isn't on TSA, but still)
Because no terrorist would want to bring a grenade on a plane?
Uhm, pretty much. Just like you won't find many terrorists trying to bring a two handed long sword on a plane. A grenade isn't exactly the weapon to use in close quarters. And chances are wouldn't do significant damage to the plane itself.
I'm curious about a couple of things. Of course pretty much everyone here is screaming "source control" But how is that you have a programmer working on THIRTY projects at one time? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your use of "project" but I think I would go crazy if I was trying to juggle thirty different projects. Perhaps some sort of consolidation is in order.
You also mention if you sync the whole thing, navigation would be a problem with too many subfolders. A good source control will help alleviate this issue as a programmer could only checkout a portion of the system. But I think you have a bigger problem to solve if you have too many subfolders. Perhaps you need to solve your project hierarchy.
I'm a fairly earlier adopter. A good reason to upgrade my DLP HD TV would be to get some better connectors (like say HDMI). But the next gen is a 4K OLED. It has higher resolution (but no content) with real black blacks. But they cost an arm and a leg. When those TVs come down, it will be time to upgrade.
In the video in the article, Bill Wolters, president of the Texas Automotive Dealer Assoc claims "everyone wants an exception to the law" I'm thinking if it is true, that EVERYONE wants an exception, then perhaps there is something WRONG with the law?
Mr Wolters also claims that Tesla could do BETTER selling through a franchise dealer network. But shouldn't that be Tesla's decision? And if they COULD do better, wouldn't they actually do it?
Phillips said. “Mr. Dixon chose to enrich himself by teaching others how to convincingly lie, cheat and steal,” Phillips said.
So what's next, do we target gun safety instructors, who teach people to shoot, and thus teach them to murder people? Do we target driving instructors because you can commit DUI after learning to drive?
I'm in the process of watching the World Series of Poker. Top prize is millions of dollars. One big skill in poker is knowing how to convincingly lie.
I believe it was for propagating fraud. For telling one of his clients to lie, and say that he doesn't know what his cousin (who is supposedly a drug dealer) does if asked.
From one of the articles:
They sought a wire fraud charge against Dixon for a “scheme” that helped applicants get jobs by making “false and fraudulent statements.”
Of course posthumous copyrights encourages creation of new works. But life + 50, or a solid 120 years is too long. But imagine someone has a good story to tell. The person knows they will die soon. They decide to spend the last few months of their life creating the story so their kids might grow up out of poverty. But if there were no posthumous copyrights, that person might just decide to spend the last few months of his life doing nothing.
Of course you can, assuming you still own the copyright. Just like you can give away the rest of your estate to someone other than your children. But if you don't have a will, or you don't spell it out in the will...
Ignoring the fact that Happy Birthday should no longer be under copyright (and ignore the insane length of copyright's now a days, longer than a lifetime strikes me as unconstitutional), The point of copyright is to be an incentive for a creator to create MORE works. If a "popular" work automatically moved into the public domain (and what determines that?) then there is less of an incentive for someone to create a popular work.
I wondered how this speech could even be copyrighted, as apparently it wasn't registered. Mr wiki says there was a lawsuit a few years ago to determine whether the speech was copyrighted or not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Have_a_Dream
What I don't get is, Mr wiki also claims the speech is under copyright for 120 years, but shouldn't it have been death + 50 years?
The worst part about it, is I find it difficult to believe that someone who made a speech like that would not want it in the public domain. Not having it in the public domain sort of defeats the purpose of the speech.
This seems to be similar to asking the question "how many bank robbers families went hungry because the Fed's confiscated the money the bank robber stole." I'm not a big proponent on software patents, most of them aren't really novel. But company A invents something cool. Company B likes it, copies it, and sells it. Of course it was a cool invention, so company B's customer love it. And of course the B's customers are going to hate it, and complain when B can no longer provide the invention. That is kind of like the whole point behind patent protection. If B doesn't want to license the invention then they need to come up with some other solution, that might not be quite as cool.
“Properly understood, his crimes encompass inviting total strangers into a scheme to defraud and obstruct, and joining in their criminal enterprises,” prosecutors wrote. “Dixon adopted a mercenary-like attitude towards the nation’s border security and the security of the nation’s secrets. He also acted with callous disregard for the most vulnerable in society – our children. . . . Dixon’s misconduct was purposeful, dangerous and it requires punishment.”
Apparently if you tell someone who claims their brother or cousin is a drug dealer, to tell their potential LEO boss that you don't know what your brother does, is a crime against children!
If someone said their brother was a drug dealer, are you required to call the cops? You have no evidence, other than hearsay. If you knew that person was going to apply for a LEO position, would you tell them "I wouldn't mention that you know what your brother does?" Well there you go, you are a heinous criminal and should be locked away.
Reading the article, I 'think' he was aiding specific people that had committed crimes (gave methodology how to get around what they did)
Did you really read the article? From TFA:
However, the most incriminating evidence appears to have come from Dixon’s interactions with two undercover agents.
One agent was posing as a brother of a drug dealer, and apparently he told the agent to say "look I don't know what he does."
Of course the prosecutors brought up the fact that he supposedly taught 9 sex offenders. Although they offered no evidence that he taught them to hide crimes, and in fact in one instance he notified authorities.
Is everyone just ignoring the reasons given for a recall? From TFA:
Most infuriating was the commission's argument that a total recall was justified because Buckyballs have "low utility to consumers" and "are not necessary to consumers."
Quite a LOT of stuff is sold that is low utility to consumers, and not necessary. Should something, bought by consenting adults, for adults, be recalled because it might pose a danger, and is "low utility?"
Being PC is costing the US quite a bit, both in terms of effectiveness and monetarily.
You know what would be cheaper, AND better? Be PC, don't profile anyone, in fact just get rid of security. No lines, no wait, no wasted money on machines that don't work. And let us bring our water on the plane.
.. I mean that should catch any weapons of power enough to do anything, right?
Yeah... Right
A government agent isn't going to stop a suicide bomber, but neither is the TSA. About time to do away with the security theatre nonsense.
I'm not ok with plagiarism or commercial piracy, but I'm fine with file sharing.
So you are ok with sharing, as long as the person sharing doesn't make any money off of it? I guess your argument is "if they didn't pay for it, then they wouldn't have given me any money for it, but if they paid someone else, I want that money." This is fine, except for the fact that many people would pay for it. But free is cheaper.
They did not patent the concept of targeting ads based on content. They patented a particular method for doing that.
And their particular method is different from the other methods how? Reading the patent, about the only thing that is different is that they use the reply as the content.
The method involves using keywords from the content. Applying some sort of weighting that meets a threshold, and a few other things. How does this method differ from a method to introduce advertising based on other content?
Surely figuring out the reply isn't novel. Surely looking for keywords isn't novel. Surely weighting isn't novel. There is some stuff in there related to email and databases, but the only thing that really matters is keywords and weighting and replies. I don't see how this is novel, or different than any other content based syste,
How is this remotely patentable? It is just taking some content, and presenting an ad based on the content (and keywords in the content). What does it mater that the content is a reply vs a web page vs anything else?
Ohhh "determining reply content associated with the reply" If only three was some standard way to determine the content of an email. What is novel about this? Once you have a system to provide an ad based on keywords, what does it matter if you pull keywords from a reply, or from something else?
Slashdot Mirror
I would guess you want your new book to be fact checked BEFORE you published it.
In both cases it was not the passengers subduing the attackers which prevented the deaths of those onboard... but instead luck that neither device went off.
Of course this happened AFTER he got through TSA screening.
Is it really hard?
Prior to 9/11 there random searches and metal detectors with xrays. That didn't stop people. Why should a little more stop anyone? There are LOTS of ways to get into an airport. Supposedly the guys that planned 9/11 spent a long time planning it. They are going to let a little deterrence stop them?
TSA isn't about deterring anyone. It is about controlling the population and keeping them in fear.
You may be right, but since stopping such things is what they are supposed to do, there's no way to be certain, if only by their very presence, that they are not having some impact
They are having an impact all right. They cost us money and time. Anecdotal evidence suggests some tourists aren't coming to American because of them. And evidence suggests driving has gone up, and because driving is statistically less safe than flying, more people have died has a result.
So we can't tell if TSA has deterred anyone (would it really? What we did previously didn't stop anyone, why should the TSA) but evidence has suggested they failed to stop some terrorists, like the underwear guy and the show guy (well that one isn't on TSA, but still)
Because no terrorist would want to bring a grenade on a plane?
Uhm, pretty much. Just like you won't find many terrorists trying to bring a two handed long sword on a plane. A grenade isn't exactly the weapon to use in close quarters. And chances are wouldn't do significant damage to the plane itself.
I'm curious about a couple of things. Of course pretty much everyone here is screaming "source control" But how is that you have a programmer working on THIRTY projects at one time? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your use of "project" but I think I would go crazy if I was trying to juggle thirty different projects. Perhaps some sort of consolidation is in order.
You also mention if you sync the whole thing, navigation would be a problem with too many subfolders. A good source control will help alleviate this issue as a programmer could only checkout a portion of the system. But I think you have a bigger problem to solve if you have too many subfolders. Perhaps you need to solve your project hierarchy.
I'm a fairly earlier adopter. A good reason to upgrade my DLP HD TV would be to get some better connectors (like say HDMI). But the next gen is a 4K OLED. It has higher resolution (but no content) with real black blacks. But they cost an arm and a leg. When those TVs come down, it will be time to upgrade.
In the video in the article, Bill Wolters, president of the Texas Automotive Dealer Assoc claims "everyone wants an exception to the law" I'm thinking if it is true, that EVERYONE wants an exception, then perhaps there is something WRONG with the law?
Mr Wolters also claims that Tesla could do BETTER selling through a franchise dealer network. But shouldn't that be Tesla's decision? And if they COULD do better, wouldn't they actually do it?
Phillips said. “Mr. Dixon chose to enrich himself by teaching others how to convincingly lie, cheat and steal,” Phillips said.
So what's next, do we target gun safety instructors, who teach people to shoot, and thus teach them to murder people? Do we target driving instructors because you can commit DUI after learning to drive?
I'm in the process of watching the World Series of Poker. Top prize is millions of dollars. One big skill in poker is knowing how to convincingly lie.
They sought a wire fraud charge against Dixon for a “scheme” that helped applicants get jobs by making “false and fraudulent statements.”
Of course posthumous copyrights encourages creation of new works. But life + 50, or a solid 120 years is too long. But imagine someone has a good story to tell. The person knows they will die soon. They decide to spend the last few months of their life creating the story so their kids might grow up out of poverty. But if there were no posthumous copyrights, that person might just decide to spend the last few months of his life doing nothing.
Can you will it to a charity?
Of course you can, assuming you still own the copyright. Just like you can give away the rest of your estate to someone other than your children. But if you don't have a will, or you don't spell it out in the will...
Ignoring the fact that Happy Birthday should no longer be under copyright (and ignore the insane length of copyright's now a days, longer than a lifetime strikes me as unconstitutional), The point of copyright is to be an incentive for a creator to create MORE works. If a "popular" work automatically moved into the public domain (and what determines that?) then there is less of an incentive for someone to create a popular work.
I wondered how this speech could even be copyrighted, as apparently it wasn't registered. Mr wiki says there was a lawsuit a few years ago to determine whether the speech was copyrighted or not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Have_a_Dream
What I don't get is, Mr wiki also claims the speech is under copyright for 120 years, but shouldn't it have been death + 50 years?
The worst part about it, is I find it difficult to believe that someone who made a speech like that would not want it in the public domain. Not having it in the public domain sort of defeats the purpose of the speech.
every airline loses luggage and has rules on how much they will reimburse you
Yes, but some airlines/airports lose luggage more often than others. And some airlines are more helpful than others when they do lose the luggage.
This seems to be similar to asking the question "how many bank robbers families went hungry because the Fed's confiscated the money the bank robber stole." I'm not a big proponent on software patents, most of them aren't really novel. But company A invents something cool. Company B likes it, copies it, and sells it. Of course it was a cool invention, so company B's customer love it. And of course the B's customers are going to hate it, and complain when B can no longer provide the invention. That is kind of like the whole point behind patent protection. If B doesn't want to license the invention then they need to come up with some other solution, that might not be quite as cool.
“Properly understood, his crimes encompass inviting total strangers into a scheme to defraud and obstruct, and joining in their criminal enterprises,” prosecutors wrote. “Dixon adopted a mercenary-like attitude towards the nation’s border security and the security of the nation’s secrets. He also acted with callous disregard for the most vulnerable in society – our children. . . . Dixon’s misconduct was purposeful, dangerous and it requires punishment.”
Apparently if you tell someone who claims their brother or cousin is a drug dealer, to tell their potential LEO boss that you don't know what your brother does, is a crime against children!
If someone said their brother was a drug dealer, are you required to call the cops? You have no evidence, other than hearsay. If you knew that person was going to apply for a LEO position, would you tell them "I wouldn't mention that you know what your brother does?" Well there you go, you are a heinous criminal and should be locked away.
Reading the article, I 'think' he was aiding specific people that had committed crimes (gave methodology how to get around what they did)
Did you really read the article? From TFA:
However, the most incriminating evidence appears to have come from Dixon’s interactions with two undercover agents.
One agent was posing as a brother of a drug dealer, and apparently he told the agent to say "look I don't know what he does."
Of course the prosecutors brought up the fact that he supposedly taught 9 sex offenders. Although they offered no evidence that he taught them to hide crimes, and in fact in one instance he notified authorities.
Most infuriating was the commission's argument that a total recall was justified because Buckyballs have "low utility to consumers" and "are not necessary to consumers."
Quite a LOT of stuff is sold that is low utility to consumers, and not necessary. Should something, bought by consenting adults, for adults, be recalled because it might pose a danger, and is "low utility?"
Being PC is costing the US quite a bit, both in terms of effectiveness and monetarily.
You know what would be cheaper, AND better? Be PC, don't profile anyone, in fact just get rid of security. No lines, no wait, no wasted money on machines that don't work. And let us bring our water on the plane.
.. I mean that should catch any weapons of power enough to do anything, right?
Yeah... Right
A government agent isn't going to stop a suicide bomber, but neither is the TSA. About time to do away with the security theatre nonsense.
I'm not ok with piracy.
I'm not ok with plagiarism or commercial piracy, but I'm fine with file sharing.
So you are ok with sharing, as long as the person sharing doesn't make any money off of it? I guess your argument is "if they didn't pay for it, then they wouldn't have given me any money for it, but if they paid someone else, I want that money." This is fine, except for the fact that many people would pay for it. But free is cheaper.
They did not patent the concept of targeting ads based on content. They patented a particular method for doing that.
And their particular method is different from the other methods how? Reading the patent, about the only thing that is different is that they use the reply as the content.
The method involves using keywords from the content. Applying some sort of weighting that meets a threshold, and a few other things. How does this method differ from a method to introduce advertising based on other content?
Surely figuring out the reply isn't novel. Surely looking for keywords isn't novel. Surely weighting isn't novel. There is some stuff in there related to email and databases, but the only thing that really matters is keywords and weighting and replies. I don't see how this is novel, or different than any other content based syste,
How is this remotely patentable? It is just taking some content, and presenting an ad based on the content (and keywords in the content). What does it mater that the content is a reply vs a web page vs anything else?
Ohhh "determining reply content associated with the reply" If only three was some standard way to determine the content of an email. What is novel about this? Once you have a system to provide an ad based on keywords, what does it matter if you pull keywords from a reply, or from something else?