So? The only sure way not having any terrorist on board is not having anyone boarding the plane, problem solved case closed. Anything less is the TSA or whatever alphabet-soup.org not doing it's job protecting American people.
A compromise will be prohibiting anyone carrying anything on his/her person. ANYTHING. So passengers will board the plane buck naked. There's ton of advantages of this rule:
1. Flying still an option for travel (see above) 2. The cost of security theater can be significantly reduced, as 3. Search & grope can be minimized 4. Scanner use can be minimized 5. Entertainment value all round, esp when boarding along with supermodels and/or various beautiful people
I'm amazed why this solution still hasn't enforced yet.
The 1st 2 arguments I can understand, though not necessarily agree with, but the last, wow. I hope you're trolling. Torturing for vengeance is morally right? Now I have to wonder what background are you coming from. If you're the one charged for the safety of society, I don't want to be safe anymore. Better face a 1000 jihadist screaming for my blood than face a single person with such conviction.
The next question will be how much do you trust the encrypter and the system. To what level the NSA successfully weaken them, either by weakening the algorithm used by the encrypter, or installed malware on the system, or some other ways not known by us at the present.
To do a binary search, or any other search more advanced than brute force 1 to 1 comparison, the data/records must 1st sorted, or arranged into some format. That sorting will require an entire database records comparison, at least initially. Later records can then be inserted efficiently without doing that initial brute force comparison.
One can argue if that constitute entire database search. If you argue that search is only done at the time an analyst type in a query, for one record and receive the immediate result (0 hop), you're most likely right, algorithms are devised to minimize entire database search. But then again there are threshold number of seeds and hops that can make the search look at the entire database.
However, if one is to consider the entire lifetime of a database, then it can be said that the entire database is queried. A search is nothing more than comparing a myriad number of items against a sample item to get a match. Wouldn't the initial construction of the data structure of a database satisfy that definition?
In where I come from, it is known for a fact that if your name sounds arabic and/or islamic, you can kiss visa to US goodbye. The rejection rate for those people is 99.99%. Even if you fight for it, and lucky enough, you'll have to wait at least 43 days for your papers to be shipped, reviewed, and considered at US homeland.
It doesn't matter who you are, unless you have some pull to make it a diplomatic disaster for the US.
Wow, IDK if you're just pulling my leg or if it's truly your ideal. Can't bring myself to trust 100% even my closest/best friend let alone some nebulous people who are doing the monitoring, cos that's one of the things required for your "ideal" to come true. That much power means great temptations to resist.
If you're true to your ideal, why don't gather others who share it and build a walled garden where you have total surveillance and 0 privacy. That way you get to live your dream.
Yes, what you've said are true, from the standpoint of most/sane people. However, there are other ways to look at the matter. For people dabbling with classified information, things are not as simple as that. I think Jeremy has eloquently explain how people managing classified information see things, and I found it entirely plausible. Please remember, these people are paid to be paranoid and want all things covered. What they want with these kind of policies are not dumbing down down their employees, nor forcing them to live in a fantasy land, but to stop further leaks.
I imagine these policies only enforced on workplace network. Those people can still access the said information as long as they're not using something which can be traced back to the workplace network. Rather than including those caveats in the policy, thus further complicating things for the morons-in-a-hurry masses, the policy writer just be done with it and made it like it's all encompassing.
So, you're right, from the standpoint of most people, it's a dumb move. But Jeremy is also right, from the standpoint of an information manager, it's a smart move.
And how about the original post? Point 1, 2, and 4 fits perfectly. Argument can be made for point 3. But to say that anyone without credentials cannot make any critics on a "complex" subject is dumb if not outright offensive. Yeah, patents are complex subject, so does that mean Mike, or anyone beside you, cannot have an opinion or critic about it?
I for one always interested on the "dimmest bulb in the whole universe"'s opinions and critics on a complex subject cos I found them usually sincere and where insights lie, not from the "omnipotent god-like" scientists/experts (the insights, I mean).
If the kids adapt their play to using fingers, enforce a mandatory mitten policy.
Instead of making things complex by having separate rules (ban pencils, but mittens for fingers) why not simplify the rules: either ban everything including fingers (meaning cut off the fingers at childbirth), or enforce covering rules for all (pencils needs to be covered). However, only the former is in tune with "zero tolerance" policies.
Will this file note that the two boys "pointed pencils at each other and made shooting noises?" Or will it state something to the effect that the boys broke the school's policy on violence and threatening behavior? My guess is the latter, which will allow anyone perusing the record to imagine the worst.
It depends on what actually written on those records.
Then call it for what it is, i.e. "revenue theft", "benefit theft", etc. Copyright, patents, and trademarks are forms of monopoly. The word "theft" is ill suited to describe actions breaking that monopoly, while "infringement" is more suited.
Then SHOW IT. Just crying that others don't show theirs won't make you right or give you some kind of highground. It only shows that you have nothing and fear the writer (Mike in this case) for the message s/he brings.
So, on one hand, no patents leads to locked up and hence lost knowledge that no one has access to. OTOH, patents leads to only the privileged has access to those knowledge. Dunno, no one has access to something seems rather fair/egalitarian to me rather than having a select few chosen by artificial means having access to something while others don't. And I'm saying this while a loved one lay hapless in the ICU.
Well, in the case of guns, it's relatively easier to determine who the criminal is. With digital "piracy", things are much more muddier, cos everyone can be labeled a pirate for doing what would otherwise normal things to do with physical properties but suddenly criminal if it's a digital property.
I'm not familiar with those 2 games. But if your argument is because someone coded a game themselves then it's not a ripoff, well, I must disagree. What makes a game ultimately is not the codes, but the game design. Coding is a largely mechanical part of game dev, but most creativity is in the game design.
So platform (16/32/64/128/512bit Windows/MacOS/Linux/Android/iOS/FireFoxOS etc) doesn't matter. As long as people perceive 2 games have their design alike, they will call it one ripoff another, and I tend to agree (though I don't care about it too much).
There's a layer of security called "security by obfuscation" which IMO still have a lion's share in many security firm's deployment strategy.
Have a friend in that business. I know well he worked hard to build good systems, and has many satisfied clients. However he still regard "security by obfuscation" as a major plus.
So, the reasons of those firms may not be nefarious. Misguided maybe, but the way they try to achieve/maintain it is certainly wrong. Even if it's not an abuse of the law, if obfuscation they want, they sure have to meet/get acquainted with ms. Streisand.