What country's first ammendment guarantees you the right to intimidate or harass people online?

What country equates complaining about rudeness with intimidation and harassment? Probably, not even North Korea...

"bitch"? really? there's no need to call anyone that.

Yes, there is, of course. As described in TFA, the woman certainly qualifies for the term. Anybody abusing their power over others is a bad person ("bitch", "asshole" — pick your gender-specific name). And, in addition, malicious prosecution — which she threatened to bring upon him — is a felony, you know...

and perhaps that is the reason: the flight crew considered the tweet intimidation or threatening.

If complaining on Tweeter about rudeness can be considered either "intimidating" or "threatening" — or, indeed, "interfering" — then the First Amendment is null and void. Is that, what you are telling us?

"No person may assault, threaten, intimidate, or interfere with a crewmember in the performance of the crewmember's duties aboard an aircraft [emphasis mine -mi]] being operated under this part."

The gate-agent being talked about was not aboard the aircraft (nor part of the crew). In other words, your citation is invalid and inapplicable even if it were appropriate for a stewardess or a pilot on board.

the tweet identified someone by name.

Her name is publicly displayed. There is nothing "intimidating" about repeating it — or even taking pictures.

there are more reasonable ways to lodge a complaint, and that ain't one of them.

Whether the victim was "reasonable" or not is not being discussed. The agent threatened him with arrest over his accusing her of rudeness. What else would you blame a victim for? How about posting a negative review of a restaurant? Maybe, we "should be more like Europe" and punish people for that too?

NOT mean that the passenger doesn't have to follow crewmember instructions. if the passenger was being particularly difficult because he had his two snowflakes in tow and did not want to abide by Southwest's procedures, he should not be allowed on the plane.

But he did follow all instructions — and was allowed to board. What the bitch didn't like was him tweeting about the encounter afterwards.

Personally, I found out the hard way, what these assholes mean. I once pointed out to a New Jersey Transit conductor, that he is closing the doors one minute too early. He demanded, I leave the train in reply... I kid you not, he called police, who ordered me out and interrogated me on the platform (three uniformed bums plus one plain-clothed "detective"). They found nothing to arrest me for, but said (sternly): "You'll have to wait for the next train" (and left me on the empty platform as the train closed its doors — again — and left). It was all "legal": the rules, which you wish all of us to obey, are posted in every car. And they require passengers to "cooperate" with the conductors. Whether or not a particular passenger cooperates, is entirely up to each conductor. And, yes, he still works there — despite my complaining several times.

No flight-attendant — nor a train conductor, for that matter — should have the power to evict a passenger from a plane (or train). Other than for an offense, that's, indeed, subject to arrest.

given what's happened recently in aviation, one would think safety is important.

What has recently happened in aviation, that makes you think, safety is important?

Chicken. It looks like chicken.

virtually any other country? Read on...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...

During the Second World War, unlike some other allies of Nazi Germany and most German-occupied countries, apart from Denmark and Finland, Bulgaria managed to save its entire 48,000-strong Jewish population from deportation to concentration camps, with Dimitar Peshev, leaders of the Bulgarian Church, Tsar Boris, and ordinary citizens all playing a crucial role in preventing such deportations. The story of the Bulgarian Jews during the War has been told in "Beyond Hitler's Grasp: The Heroic Rescue of Bulgaria's Jews"[7] by Michael Bar-Zohar, an Israeli historian, politician and former Knesset member who was born in Bulgaria.

I found out from some local members of the Amish community that the reason they reject grid power is that it would put them in ongoing debt - which is very much against their religious beliefs. This is also partially why they reject the use of automobiles (some communities are more permissive and allow the hiring of vehicles to drive them long distances) - purchasing one can A) put you into debt which is against religious beliefs and B) goes against their beliefs of being good stewards of the earth (ongoing greenhouse gas emissions and other pollution).

They don't reject use of things like some modern power tools, etc for use in their outside work for the 'English', especially when it comes to roofing contracts, building RVs, sheds, furniture, etc.

What's interesting to note - the debate is still ongoing in Amish communities about solar power panels and if they will be formally allowed - on the one hand it will give them electricity and whatnot in a 'clean' manner in compliance with their beliefs, on the other, there is objection to some of the materials used in those devices and how those materials are resourced.

I remember reading about flaws, exploits, etc that broke Tor anonymous browsing/data transfer as far back as 2005 or so. Some of these issues are still there because they honestly can't be fixed without a complete overhaul of how the entire thing is coded and works. Instead they have fixed what they could, and coded in mitigations for the rest.

It goes without saying though, that Tor, like many other things online, is, was, and always will be vulnerable to MITM attacks.

So, he says, you should make sure you buy new hardware only when necessary, not just because of the "Ooh... shiny!" factor"

What's new about this advice? Was it not as useful and applicable 50, 100, and 1000 years ago?

Employing a Marxist theory of capitalism to refute socialism? Fascinating.

Yes, employing an opponent's own theory to prove him wrong is, usually, the most reliable way to deliver defeat in detail to him. Because, although all of us may have different views on life, the views must be self-consistent to be respectable.