Twice a week. Every week.

Did I mention I refuse to go through the full-body scanners? I do NOT agree that they are safe. I always chose to opt-out.

None of my pat-downs have been that bad. But, prior to October 2010, there was a STRONG push by TSA for pat-downs - they hoped it would get people to accept the Full-Body Scanners their bosses got kickerbacks er... bought with tax payer dollars.

For the record - most TSA agents hate this as much as you do.....but they don't set policy. Most of them recognize that when I choose to opt-out of full body scan, I'm helping to keep more of them employed. :-)

I'm currently working in the field - in particular with a group of people from India. I have also worked with numerous Indians in the past. I *HAVE* seen Indian groups give preference to other indians. It wasn't uncommon at all with the major recruiting jobs competing for jobs. (Sidenote: that's starting to change - they used to not care which Inidian group got the contract as long as one of them did....but this recession is hitting everyone) I've worked with Indians who, frankly, knew way more than me. I've worked with ones that didn't know how to restart a deamon in RedHat. (And have been lectured about deamons from the same individual - sigh)

Or you could just moan loudly. -nt

But does it solve the problem?

--But I can TALK to the car

That's nice. But the problem was getting the car to talk to you. A light that says ENGINE or CAR isn't informing the driver of anything. A light that say ENGINE or CAR with a button that then says "3rd cylinder O2 sensor is outside of boundaries. This is not a critical problem but get this looked at the next time you service your car." DOES provide information.

--But I wanted to talk to the car!!

Then get OnStar.

During my time as secretary of homeland security, the Transportation Security Administration began working to replace the 1970s-era metal detectors used at airports across America with modern technology able to detect non-metal weapons concealed by terrorists on their bodies -- even in their underwear, where Abdulmutallab allegedly hid his bomb. The latest versions of these machines -- sometimes called whole-body imagers -- are deployed at 19 airports, and the TSA is attempting to place them throughout the nation.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/31/AR2009123101746.html

What's curious about this: at the time - there was only one company that made full body scanners - Rapiscan.

Well, I don't know about YOUR definition of "representing", but when someone hires my company (me), I am most certainly "representing" them.

LOL, as for his "lobbying", go do some research - Chertoff advocated heavily and repeated for the full body scanners (such as those made by Rapidscan) after the underwear bombing claiming they would have detected the explosives.

He made no mention that this was an international flight and that the explosive would NOT have been detected - the full body scanners are deployed to the US, not internationally.

To draw an analogy, this would be as if Microsoft hired me to do penetration testing for them, I lobbied a local politician to buy more computers for the local school, and then you came along and started whining that the reason the school board didn't buy Macs is because I was shilling for Microsoft. It's retarded.

If you were a penetration testing expert and you claimed schools should buy them because they can't be hacked into...then yes I could claim you were shilling.

In fact, I have claimed that multiple testing organizations have shilled for Microsoft both now and in the past because they received cash and then "claimed" that Microsoft systems provided a clear advantage over their competitors. Where do you think FUD comes from? (Or do you think FUD is purely fiction?)

Moreover, even if what's claimed in that article were 100% true, it wouldn't support the original statement, which was:

"the purpose of these body scanners was NEVER to increase security, it was a gigantic kickback to former homeland security chief Michael Chertoff who received very well documented "consulting" positions with the company that makes those scanners"

You'd have to show that their purpose wasn't to increase security, AND that Chertoff got kickbacks based on actual sales, AND you'd have to justify the quotation marks around the word "consulting". Failing that, the statement remains an idiotic conspiracy theory, based on the delusional interpretations of a paranoid mind.

1. I claim their purpose was to enrich the pockets of company that make the scanners (what, you think they're giving them away?)
2. I claim Chertoff got kickbacks (no, the kickback do NOT have to relate to actual sales) - and he did, his firm was "hired", meaning money exchanged hands
3. And finally I don't have to justify the word "consulting". At this point, I have enough of a case to question his judgement, or the judgement of any politician, by showing that money has exchanged hands -- if Chertoff wants to clear his name, he can explain in detail what consulting he provided and what cash he received.

If you don't want to connect the dots - that's your business, but Chertoff was hired by Rapidscan and Rapidscan is doing business with the Government.

with Michael Chertoff scanners.

4th item:

A few days later the Washington Post revealed that Chertoff represents Rapiscan - a maker of full body scanners drawing criticism of groups who oppose full body scanners "Mr. Chertoff should not be allowed to abuse the trust the public has placed in him as a former public servant to privately gain from the sale of full-body scanners under the pretense that the scanners would have detected this particular type of explosive," said Kate Hanni, founder of FlyersRights.org, which opposes the use of the scanners.

Continue reading at NowPublic.com: Full Body Scanner Lobby: Michael Chertoff & Rapiscan | NowPublic News Coverage http://www.nowpublic.com/world/full-body-scanner-lobby-michael-chertoff-rapiscan-2552674.html#ixzz1SkZjxX2P

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/full-body-scanner-lobby-michael-chertoff-rapiscan-2552674.html

Frankly, it's common knowledge.

the worse problem. It's hard to hire a 60k a year programmer when you can hire 10 6K a year programmers.

But H1B's don't help either. Ideally they should be paid market rates, but employers bring them in as junior programmer (lower cost) and once here, the H1B acts like a straight-jacket, making more difficult for the employee to quit/change jobs.

I'm better than an H1B - by a long shot - but financially it's hard to argue with an H1B and offshoring.

The solution for me is to open my own business. Provide the contracting/consulting/marketing that H1Bs and offshoring don't provide. Then when I get a contract, I can hire those guys cheap, verify the work, and rake in the difference as profit.

The long term solution is for this recession/depression to continue...as the dollar keeps falling against the rupie - those 6K programmer are suddenly 30k...and offshore...and everything else that makes offshoring and H1B difficult.

No wonder Indian officials are screaming to exempt their workers from Social Security.

The current law stipulates that no more than 65,000 H1-B visas be issued each fiscal year. As of July 18, only 20,500 of these are filled. Of those, around 12,800 hold a Master's degrees. Are you suggesting that stopping the H1-B program is going to improve employment in US? No. What you'll be doing is reducing the quality of workers in American workplaces.

Ahem.

1. I have a master's degree. Meh.
2. Currently I'm employeed...but ask me about March 2009.
3. Yes - I'm serious suggesting that stopping the H1-B program WILL improve my chances of employment in the US.

YMMV.

But they can't prove I'm obstructing justice...nor can they prove I haven't "forgotten" the password - I can remember Presidents who have forgotten lots of things.

Hell, if "I can't recall" wasn't valid, a lot of people would be in jail...including Dick (72 times) Cheney.

The second is likely to get you a obstruction of justice charge, tamping with evidence, etc. But I am assuming that those are lesser crimes compared to whatever is on your laptop. (After all, if there wasn't anything there, other than the privacy issue, it's would be in your favor to say - "Sure, here you go. BTW: since there is no evidence, I'm suing the state for false arrest")

And let's face it....any state that offers you a "well, you can get an obstruction of justice charge" vs. "really, really, really nasty charges" and you'd be a fool not to take it.

All they have to do is offer "feature" and states would NEVER ask you for the password again.

As several people have pointed out - it is perfectly reasonable for someone to forget a password/combination or lose a key. (Sorry, yer honor, I can't remember it/find it)

As an aside - the obvious next step is to include in the software a destroy password. This would be akin to a safe having an incinerate button. Then the police *WILL* ask you for the password and not just have you type it in.

Finally, most safes, even if you don't have the key/combo can eventually be opened. Police have that option...same as they do in this case.

Come on...read the Computerworld article. No he didn't.

He's worked on the legal side. And, there, I'll listen to him. But arguing that "TECHNICALLY" he knows what he's talking about - well, that's like me arguing I know what law is about. (Hint: it's a bad idea)

But I will listen to what Alex Lanstein has to say.

People want to believe KSC is on Cape Canaveral...don't believe 'em. Take SR3 North and you'll run right to the 39A & B.

Grew up on Merritt Island...everyone was involved in KSC in some way. Went to Merritt Island High, eventually worked at KSC for a while (left in '97').

I'm flying into Orlando tonight....so if it's not scrubbed, I won't see this launch. This program shutdown is going to hit MI hard. It'll come back, just like it did after Apollo ended...but things are going to get tight over there for a while.

about Technical stuff?

Microsoft lawyer involved with the Rustock take-down said Tuesday, countering claims that another botnet was 'practically indestructible.' Richard Boscovich, a senior attorney with Microsoft's Digital Crime Unit said, 'If someone says that a botnet is indestructible, they are not being very creative legally or technically. Nothing is impossible

No offense there Boscovich, but um, do you know programming/computer science? Why are we listening to you?

Sigh, I gave up Moderator points for this?

-- but anal cavity bombers are a genuine threat to high profile targets The problem is that we're NOT talking high profile targets. High profile targets should fly on private planes - NOT public aircraft (Got that Boehner? All of Congress should fly on private aircraft....or you go through security like the rest of us...right now you're putting us in danger) Any time you talk about security, it's a risk vs reward type thing. We've made flying more difficult....spent billions (trillions?), and haven't caught anybody....demanded diapers....and allowed people with fake boarding passes to get onto planes.