The security theatre isn't limited to US airports. While it may be more lax around the globe, this same stupid security theatre is everywhere.
In Peru I had a tag heur timing system as a carry on. They were worried about the plastic tripod (the legs were kind of pointed) US security didn't question it
In Ukraine I was able to bring a large skateboard on board, while another girl had to lose her 2 inch swiss army knife
A few years ago in London, you used to go through the XRay machine. Get your bags, walk across the room, take your shoes off, and send the shoes through another xray machine (no I couldn't have removed the item in my shoe, and stick it in my already xrayed bag)
In Paris I had to throw away the sealed bottle of water I was given on the plane from the US
So apparently what you are saying is you don't fly anywhere?
This is one of the best comments I've read. And while it will take more than 5 minutes (have you seen how long it takes to board the airplane AFTER you are at the gate?) you shouldn't have to get there 2-3 hours early.
I once read a blog post about how someone used a stolen boarding pass to get on a plane. And how TSA needs to have computers to verify the ID matches the ticket. Well why? It shouldn't be the governents job to make sure the "right" person gets on the plane. That is the airlines job to make sure the passenger is a ticketed passenger.
All that said, though, the question remains: if the TSA were to vanish overnight, what would take its place? What SHOULD take its place? These are not easy questions to answer-i
NOTHING
Wow, that was a pretty easy question to answer. When I get on a city bus, I don't go through security. When I board a cruise ship, I don't go through security. When I get on a train I don't go through security. When I get in my car I don't go through security. When I go to the mall I don't go through security. When I go to a sporting event security checks to make sure I'm not bring cheap food in. So explain to me why I need to go through security to get on a plane?
The thing is... "The bomber will always get through" And honestly I don't see any reason to waste money trying to stop the inevitable.
The goal of the TSA isn't to catch terrorists. Only the most egregiously stupid terrorists would be caught by the TSA.
The goal of the TSA is to discourage terrorists from even trying. The TSA's effectiveness could be measured not by "how many terrorists are caught" (zero) but by "how many terrorists have succeed" (also zero).
What an interesting contradiction. "only stupid terrorists" would be caught, yet it is there job to deter what, "smart" terrorists? You know I agree with you, that only stupid terrorists would be caught (and fortunately history has shown that most are stupid). But it would be trivial for a smart terrorist to not get caught. So what is TSA's job again?
If anyone wanted to cause megadeaths in the US, I can roll off the top of my head dozens of ways not involving airplanes or airports.
Which wouldn't be TSA's responsibility, the subject of this conversation. Stay focused.
Yet there hasn't been anything like that, nothing even hinting at that.
There have in fact been multiple plots thwarted involving bombing bridges, dirty bombs, and other non-airport related attacks.
You say it isn't responsibility and then the first example you give is bombings involving bridges. You do know that bridges ARE TSA's responsibility? The T in TSA doesn't stand for airport (and neither does the A)
Al Qaeda's attacks have only escalated over the years.
What attacks? How have they escalated?
According to Mr. Wiki 9/11 left 3000 dead. Since then 10/02 Bali 202 dead, 11/03 Istanbul 57 dead, 02/04 Ferry bombing 116 dead. 03/11 Marid train 191 dead, 07/05 London 56 dead. And so on. I'm not trying to belittle the deaths, but none of these attacks were in the shape, or size, or caused as much damage as 9/11.
I think that's worth at least an attempt at preventing.
Death and destruction is worth an attempt at preventing. But not at the expense of everyone's rights.
The question should be, how many of those guns, and sharp objects, and explosive water bottles, were going to be used by "terrorists?"
ZERO? Yeah I thought so
Why do we have to prevent someone from bringing something on board? You do know that if someone want to bring something "BAD" on board, they can easily do it?
Followed shortly by my second order, which is to quit hiding / moving the fricking control panel every time we release a new version of Windows.
So, Start/ Control Panel is too complicated to find. Its been there since the start menu has been introduced. Or perhaps you were talking about the difference between Win95/98 and the other Window's OSs?
Except malls, while public spaces, are private property*. Malls enforce all types of rules and are free to make anyone leave if they choose to.
*At least around here. For all I know there may be publicly owned malls somewhere else.
Just because they enforce it, doesn't mean it is legal. And they aren't "free to make someone leave." While they can ask you to leave, and perhaps have you arrested for trespassing, if they MAKE you leave, you could have a decent lawsuit on your hands.
You have an odd idea of what constitutes profit, if you think any one unit of one game generates $50 in profit for the whole supply chain let alone for Sony itself.
If a game sells for $50, then guess what? The entire supply chain will earn a net profit of $50. Or do you think some of that money goes into the garbage bin? Sure the store that sells it pockets a chunk, Sony pockets a chunk, the company that burned the DVD makes some money. The company that sells the label to the DVD company makes a few cents, and so on.
Thats a kind-of where you're wrong, as much as I hate to admit Sony has a point.
If you want to connect the hardware to their networks, they should be allowed to stop you running custom code.
Also, although probably not the case now, but perhaps when it was first released they would have sold the hardware at a loss based on the fact that barring any illegal activity, the only way you can use the hardware is to purchase their 99% profit margin games.)
While I agree with you about accessing Sony's networks, I disagree on your other point. If Sony wants to sell product A at a loss, with the hope that you'll purchase product B, and you purchase A but not B. That is Sony's problem, not yours. Just because you bought A doesn't mean you will buy B. Perhaps you want product A for ONE game, or perhaps you buy used games only. Or maybe you'll just set the product A on a shelf and look at it. I don't think Sony (or the government) has a right to tell you how to use product A. Of course they have a right to not allow you on their network, but they don't have the right to tell you you can't turn your product into a fishbowl (how many macs were made into fishbowls?) or use it to do something else product A wasn't intended for.
1. Is it a correct thing to allow interpretation of Constitution?
What else do we do with it? Throw it in the trash bin? If you can't interpret it, then you can't read it and follow it. You know, words have different meanings. And terms aren't black and white.
The law that applies to the private citizens is not interpreted - you kill somebody - there is no 'interpretation' of the law. The question is only of your guilt.
Actually there is. The law that applies to the private citizens is MOST DEFINITELY interpreted. This is what the courts do. Laws are not black and white, and it is up to the judges to interpret the laws. Whether this is a law ratified by congress, or the consititution.
but the copyright holders won't suffer because of it, since people eventually spend the money saved on entertainment products.
So its ok not to pay for one thing, because the money might be spent on something else? Just because someone creates something, and publishes it doesn't mean you have the right to it for free.
In fact people do not want to program. That is why Siri and mint.com are popular. People want to get things done, but they want someone else to do the hard work.
That is why so many people had blinking clocks on their VCRs
but the author's concern is what stops people from illegally distributing it electronically?... and yes, my response is "You can't stop it, sorry"... but I am still getting push back and I get the sense that author WANTS DRM... and to me.. well.
Tell him that DRM costs money, AND it won't stop people from illegally distributing it electronically.
Perhaps we need a car analogy. DRM is like locking the car door and leaving the convertible top down.
There is no "more protection." Sell the product. If people want to steal it, they'll steal it. DRM isn't going to stop them. So why waste your money on DRM?
Sell the product at a decent price. And most people will pay it. Some idiots (including half the readers here) will steal it, because they think they are entitled to getting anything digital for free. They don't care that someone worked hard to make the product, and they won't care that it has DRM.
DRM doesn't really protect you, and it only frustrates your legal clients. If companies like Baen can release their product in a half dozen different formats, you can as well.
On the other hand, the mass market paperback pocket books are usually cheaper than the kindle books, but the quality of those books pales in comparison to the service you get on the kindle.
It doesn't pale in comparison. It is easier to browse a bookstore than to browse Amazon's website, well for stuff I don't know about. I don't need batteries to read a paperback. The stewardess won't tell me to shut off my paperback (otherwise the kindle might crash the plane) If I accidentally leave my paperback, or I drop it. I'm not out an expensive ereader
I like my kindle. It was nice to be able to download a new book for free, while waiting at the airport in Lima. It is nice not to carry a half dozen paperbacks with me on a trip. But I paid for that convenience when I bought the kindle. I don't need to spend more money to purchase each ebook. If they can sell them for more, good for them. I'll find something else to read.
The actual costs of paper, printing and binding are less than 10% of the production costs.
Great, thats awesome, so why is that I can purchase a mass market for 10% cheaper than an ebook (or sometimes for half the cost of an ebook?)
Explain to my why 30+ year old books, where they've already paid the editors and the like, are still 7.99 and up?
There are a lot of new books I want to read. But I refuse to pay MORE for them just because they are on an ebook. But because an ebook reader is convenient I am not even bothering with the mass market books anymore either. So they lose.
The cost of the ebooks is the problem more than DRM.
When the cost is the same or more than the mass market version, I have little incentive to purchase the ebook. And right now I am not even buying the mass market versions, instead I am finding cheaper alternatives. Like Baen's, or independents.
The publishers are screaming bloody murder, claiming they need to recoup their costs (and trying to claim that formatting an ebook costs more than formatting a normal book) yet look at some old books. Books the publisher should have recouped their investments years ago. And they are still the same price, or more, than mass market paperbacks.
Slashdot Mirror
I have traveled a lot over the years. And the ONLY time I am afraid is when I am in line at security.
I am made to stand next to a garbage can full of liquid explosives.
I have to remove my shoes and walk across a dirty floor
I get the choice of walking through a deadly machine, or have some guy stick his hands down my pants.
I get threatened by TSA agents (I'm told "the threat is real" and "you may not be able to fly")
It is the only time my expensive camera and expensive laptop is out of my sight and out of my possession.
I am told this is all for "my safety"
The security theatre isn't limited to US airports. While it may be more lax around the globe, this same stupid security theatre is everywhere.
In Peru I had a tag heur timing system as a carry on. They were worried about the plastic tripod (the legs were kind of pointed) US security didn't question it
In Ukraine I was able to bring a large skateboard on board, while another girl had to lose her 2 inch swiss army knife
A few years ago in London, you used to go through the XRay machine. Get your bags, walk across the room, take your shoes off, and send the shoes through another xray machine (no I couldn't have removed the item in my shoe, and stick it in my already xrayed bag)
In Paris I had to throw away the sealed bottle of water I was given on the plane from the US
So apparently what you are saying is you don't fly anywhere?
This is one of the best comments I've read. And while it will take more than 5 minutes (have you seen how long it takes to board the airplane AFTER you are at the gate?) you shouldn't have to get there 2-3 hours early.
I once read a blog post about how someone used a stolen boarding pass to get on a plane. And how TSA needs to have computers to verify the ID matches the ticket. Well why? It shouldn't be the governents job to make sure the "right" person gets on the plane. That is the airlines job to make sure the passenger is a ticketed passenger.
no. We need screeners.
You might want to research why we got screeners in the first place.
Hint : KA-BOOM!!!
And why do we have screeners in the first place? People don't run around blowing stuff up. Why would they fly around blowing stuff up?
Don't forget about the garbage can full of explosives they make you stand next to, before you go through the xray machine.
All that said, though, the question remains: if the TSA were to vanish overnight, what would take its place? What SHOULD take its place? These are not easy questions to answer-i
NOTHING
Wow, that was a pretty easy question to answer. When I get on a city bus, I don't go through security. When I board a cruise ship, I don't go through security. When I get on a train I don't go through security. When I get in my car I don't go through security. When I go to the mall I don't go through security. When I go to a sporting event security checks to make sure I'm not bring cheap food in. So explain to me why I need to go through security to get on a plane?
The thing is... "The bomber will always get through" And honestly I don't see any reason to waste money trying to stop the inevitable.
The goal of the TSA isn't to catch terrorists. Only the most egregiously stupid terrorists would be caught by the TSA.
The goal of the TSA is to discourage terrorists from even trying. The TSA's effectiveness could be measured not by "how many terrorists are caught" (zero) but by "how many terrorists have succeed" (also zero).
What an interesting contradiction. "only stupid terrorists" would be caught, yet it is there job to deter what, "smart" terrorists? You know I agree with you, that only stupid terrorists would be caught (and fortunately history has shown that most are stupid). But it would be trivial for a smart terrorist to not get caught. So what is TSA's job again?
If anyone wanted to cause megadeaths in the US, I can roll off the top of my head dozens of ways not involving airplanes or airports.
Which wouldn't be TSA's responsibility, the subject of this conversation. Stay focused.
Yet there hasn't been anything like that, nothing even hinting at that.
There have in fact been multiple plots thwarted involving bombing bridges, dirty bombs, and other non-airport related attacks.
You say it isn't responsibility and then the first example you give is bombings involving bridges. You do know that bridges ARE TSA's responsibility? The T in TSA doesn't stand for airport (and neither does the A)
Al Qaeda's attacks have only escalated over the years.
What attacks? How have they escalated?
According to Mr. Wiki 9/11 left 3000 dead. Since then 10/02 Bali 202 dead, 11/03 Istanbul 57 dead, 02/04 Ferry bombing 116 dead. 03/11 Marid train 191 dead, 07/05 London 56 dead. And so on. I'm not trying to belittle the deaths, but none of these attacks were in the shape, or size, or caused as much damage as 9/11.
I think that's worth at least an attempt at preventing.
Death and destruction is worth an attempt at preventing. But not at the expense of everyone's rights.
You are all asking the wrong question.
The question should be, how many of those guns, and sharp objects, and explosive water bottles, were going to be used by "terrorists?"
ZERO? Yeah I thought so
Why do we have to prevent someone from bringing something on board? You do know that if someone want to bring something "BAD" on board, they can easily do it?
Followed shortly by my second order, which is to quit hiding / moving the fricking control panel every time we release a new version of Windows.
So, Start/ Control Panel is too complicated to find. Its been there since the start menu has been introduced. Or perhaps you were talking about the difference between Win95/98 and the other Window's OSs?
Except malls, while public spaces, are private property*. Malls enforce all types of rules and are free to make anyone leave if they choose to.
*At least around here. For all I know there may be publicly owned malls somewhere else.
Just because they enforce it, doesn't mean it is legal. And they aren't "free to make someone leave." While they can ask you to leave, and perhaps have you arrested for trespassing, if they MAKE you leave, you could have a decent lawsuit on your hands.
You have an odd idea of what constitutes profit, if you think any one unit of one game generates $50 in profit for the whole supply chain let alone for Sony itself.
If a game sells for $50, then guess what? The entire supply chain will earn a net profit of $50. Or do you think some of that money goes into the garbage bin? Sure the store that sells it pockets a chunk, Sony pockets a chunk, the company that burned the DVD makes some money. The company that sells the label to the DVD company makes a few cents, and so on.
Thats a kind-of where you're wrong, as much as I hate to admit Sony has a point. If you want to connect the hardware to their networks, they should be allowed to stop you running custom code. Also, although probably not the case now, but perhaps when it was first released they would have sold the hardware at a loss based on the fact that barring any illegal activity, the only way you can use the hardware is to purchase their 99% profit margin games.)
While I agree with you about accessing Sony's networks, I disagree on your other point. If Sony wants to sell product A at a loss, with the hope that you'll purchase product B, and you purchase A but not B. That is Sony's problem, not yours. Just because you bought A doesn't mean you will buy B. Perhaps you want product A for ONE game, or perhaps you buy used games only. Or maybe you'll just set the product A on a shelf and look at it. I don't think Sony (or the government) has a right to tell you how to use product A. Of course they have a right to not allow you on their network, but they don't have the right to tell you you can't turn your product into a fishbowl (how many macs were made into fishbowls?) or use it to do something else product A wasn't intended for.
1. Is it a correct thing to allow interpretation of Constitution?
What else do we do with it? Throw it in the trash bin? If you can't interpret it, then you can't read it and follow it. You know, words have different meanings. And terms aren't black and white.
The law that applies to the private citizens is not interpreted - you kill somebody - there is no 'interpretation' of the law. The question is only of your guilt.
Actually there is. The law that applies to the private citizens is MOST DEFINITELY interpreted. This is what the courts do. Laws are not black and white, and it is up to the judges to interpret the laws. Whether this is a law ratified by congress, or the consititution.
but the copyright holders won't suffer because of it, since people eventually spend the money saved on entertainment products.
So its ok not to pay for one thing, because the money might be spent on something else? Just because someone creates something, and publishes it doesn't mean you have the right to it for free.
In fact, they absolutely do want to program.
No.
In fact people do not want to program. That is why Siri and mint.com are popular. People want to get things done, but they want someone else to do the hard work.
That is why so many people had blinking clocks on their VCRs
So the US wants to physically attack the internet? The same one that they designed to sustain a nuclear attack?
but the author's concern is what stops people from illegally distributing it electronically? ... and yes, my response is "You can't stop it, sorry"... but I am still getting push back and I get the sense that author WANTS DRM... and to me.. well.
Tell him that DRM costs money, AND it won't stop people from illegally distributing it electronically.
Perhaps we need a car analogy. DRM is like locking the car door and leaving the convertible top down.
There is no "more protection." Sell the product. If people want to steal it, they'll steal it. DRM isn't going to stop them. So why waste your money on DRM?
Sell the product at a decent price. And most people will pay it. Some idiots (including half the readers here) will steal it, because they think they are entitled to getting anything digital for free. They don't care that someone worked hard to make the product, and they won't care that it has DRM.
DRM doesn't really protect you, and it only frustrates your legal clients. If companies like Baen can release their product in a half dozen different formats, you can as well.
On the other hand, the mass market paperback pocket books are usually cheaper than the kindle books, but the quality of those books pales in comparison to the service you get on the kindle.
It doesn't pale in comparison. It is easier to browse a bookstore than to browse Amazon's website, well for stuff I don't know about. I don't need batteries to read a paperback. The stewardess won't tell me to shut off my paperback (otherwise the kindle might crash the plane) If I accidentally leave my paperback, or I drop it. I'm not out an expensive ereader
I like my kindle. It was nice to be able to download a new book for free, while waiting at the airport in Lima. It is nice not to carry a half dozen paperbacks with me on a trip. But I paid for that convenience when I bought the kindle. I don't need to spend more money to purchase each ebook. If they can sell them for more, good for them. I'll find something else to read.
The actual costs of paper, printing and binding are less than 10% of the production costs.
Great, thats awesome, so why is that I can purchase a mass market for 10% cheaper than an ebook (or sometimes for half the cost of an ebook?)
Explain to my why 30+ year old books, where they've already paid the editors and the like, are still 7.99 and up?
There are a lot of new books I want to read. But I refuse to pay MORE for them just because they are on an ebook. But because an ebook reader is convenient I am not even bothering with the mass market books anymore either. So they lose.
The cost of the ebooks is the problem more than DRM.
When the cost is the same or more than the mass market version, I have little incentive to purchase the ebook. And right now I am not even buying the mass market versions, instead I am finding cheaper alternatives. Like Baen's, or independents.
The publishers are screaming bloody murder, claiming they need to recoup their costs (and trying to claim that formatting an ebook costs more than formatting a normal book) yet look at some old books. Books the publisher should have recouped their investments years ago. And they are still the same price, or more, than mass market paperbacks.
No where in TFA does it says Merck G is suing Merck A, only Facebook. Once again TFS screws up the headline on TFA.
No where in TFA does it says Merck KGaA is suing Facebook.