<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;training&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2012 17:00:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>DailyDirt: Caring For Our Pets</title>
<dc:creator>Michael Ho</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101104/03571611721/dailydirt-caring-our-pets.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101104/03571611721/dailydirt-caring-our-pets.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ People with pets sometimes go a bit overboard when it comes to spoiling their animals. There's nothing really wrong with that, but non-pet people might question how the treatment of animals can trump the treatment of people. Here are just a few pet-related stories to ponder.

<ul>

<li> <a title="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-20614593" href="http://bbc.in/QUxdue">An organization in New Zealand is teaching dogs how to drive cars.</a> Imagine the traffic problems if someone shouts, "Squirrel!" [<a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-20614593">url</a>]</li>

<li> <a title="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/discoblog/2012/04/28/dogs-are-manipulable-cats-are-manipulative-and-both-act-like-babies/#.UMfj0xRGJ5Q" href="http://bit.ly/T6wwwk">Cats and dogs are training their owners to respond to their wishes, just like human babies do.</a> Can you resist a cat's <a href="http://www.improbable.com/2012/04/26/are-humans-hardwired-for-feline-servitude/">solicitation purr</a>? [<a href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/discoblog/2012/04/28/dogs-are-manipulable-cats-are-manipulative-and-both-act-like-babies/#.UMfj0xRGJ5Q">url</a>]</li>

<li> <a title="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324020804578149662961901842.html" href="http://on.wsj.com/UgJFBM">The technology for turning departed loved ones (humans) into diamonds has been around for several years, but pet diamondification is where the synthetic diamond memorialization market is heading.</a> A diamond really isn't forever, but nobody wants to hear about the actual thermodynamic stability of diamonds. [<a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324020804578149662961901842.html">url</a>]</li>

</ul>

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) <a title="http://www.stumbleupon.com/to/stumble/stumblethru:www.techdirt.com" href="http://bit.ly/fagV8c">Techdirt post</a>.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101104/03571611721/dailydirt-caring-our-pets.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101104/03571611721/dailydirt-caring-our-pets.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101104/03571611721/dailydirt-caring-our-pets.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>urls-we-dig-up</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101104/03571611721</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 31 Jan 2011 10:46:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Chinese TV Station Tried Passing Off Top Gun Footage As Training Exercises</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110130/01170412887/chinese-tv-station-tried-passing-off-top-gun-footage-as-training-exercises.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110130/01170412887/chinese-tv-station-tried-passing-off-top-gun-footage-as-training-exercises.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Via <a href="http://gizmodo.com/5745307/did-china-try-to-pass-off-top-gun-as-air-force-footage" target="_blank">Gizmodo</a> we learn of the hilarious claim that China Central Television's news broadcast recently showed some imagery purported to show Chinese military training exercises.  The only problem is that some folks recognized the footage <a href="http://blog.minitofu.com/2011/01/cctv-news-suspected-stolen-scenes-top-gun-fighter-jet-news/" target="_blank">as coming from the Hollywood movie <i>Top Gun</i></a>, starring Tom Cruise.  You can see the screenshots below, comparing the CCTV news footage (on the left) with the identical frame captures from <i>Top Gun</i>:
<center>
<img src="http://i.imgur.com/gYaqT.jpg"  /><br />
<img src="http://i.imgur.com/HekHx.jpg" />
</center>
Of course, I can only assume that China Central Television did not have a license to show <i>Top Gun</i> on TV.  What are the chances that someone in Hollywood decides to sue?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110130/01170412887/chinese-tv-station-tried-passing-off-top-gun-footage-as-training-exercises.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110130/01170412887/chinese-tv-station-tried-passing-off-top-gun-footage-as-training-exercises.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110130/01170412887/chinese-tv-station-tried-passing-off-top-gun-footage-as-training-exercises.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>now-when-will-the-infringement-suit-hit?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110130/01170412887</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 23 Nov 2010 13:32:02 PST</pubDate>
<title>TSA Agents Have 'Limited Ability' To Spot Prohibited Items In New Naked Scanners</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101122/23510311980/tsa-agents-have-limited-ability-to-spot-prohibited-items-new-naked-scanners.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101122/23510311980/tsa-agents-have-limited-ability-to-spot-prohibited-items-new-naked-scanners.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ This probably won't come as a surprise after hearing about the massively botched TSA screening that resulted in a guy <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101122/16310211977/botched-tsa-pat-down-leaves-traveler-covered-urine.shtml">covered in urine</a>, but a new report out by Homeland Security investigators found that <a href="http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/11/tsa-training/?utm_source=feedburner&#038;utm_medium=feed&#038;utm_campaign=Feed%3A wired27b %28Blog - 27B Stroke 6 %28Threat Level%29%29" target="_blank">training of TSA agents is rushed, poorly supervised, and not up to the necessary level</a> for the new security screening procedures.
<br /><br />
For example, given all the talk about just how important these new naked scanners are, you would think that the TSA agents operating them would be properly trained to use them to see the stuff those machines are supposed to spot.  Not so, apparently.  According to the report, due to a "software problem," TSA agents were trained on images from an older generation of machines which did not adequately prepare them to use the new machines:
<blockquote><i>
TSOs must complete both new hire and recurrent training on screening technologies; however, airport training equipment is sometimes different from the devices used at screening checkpoints. According to an OTT official, when TSA deployed a new generation of x-ray machines to 81 airports, the updated recurrent training for TSOs with these machines had not been implemented because of software problems. TSOs were still training with x-ray images from older generation equipment, <b>which limits their ability to identify prohibited items using the current checkpoint equipment</b>.
</i></blockquote>
So, we're using these naked scanners even though the people operating them haven't been properly trained on them, and they're not really able to spot the prohibited items that we're told can only be spotted using these machines or a grope.  Once again, I'm trying to figure out how this makes us any safer.  You can see the full Homeland Security report, which is pretty damning, after the jump.  It highlights how the agents are often rushed through all aspects of training, and how ill prepared airports are to handle such training.  It does not suggest an organization on top of any security threat.  It suggests security theater in the extreme.  I would think that making sure security is properly trained is somewhat more important than insisting that we must see everyone naked.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101122/23510311980/tsa-agents-have-limited-ability-to-spot-prohibited-items-new-naked-scanners.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101122/23510311980/tsa-agents-have-limited-ability-to-spot-prohibited-items-new-naked-scanners.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101122/23510311980/tsa-agents-have-limited-ability-to-spot-prohibited-items-new-naked-scanners.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>comforting</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101122/23510311980</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>