You imply the OP's claim that dogs are smarter than cats is wrong. To prove it, you describe how dog training works, go so far as to compare dogs to humans, offer no evidence that a cat can be trained, and
I don't follow.
I once had a teacher that assigned ridiculous amounts of homework, and whenever students complained he explained how they were learning to prioritize their time and work hard. I pointed out to him that it was a calculus class, but he didn't seem to agree his lessons weren't relevent.
If a membership card expires after a year, then if someone steals that card he can at most get a year's worth of benefit out of it. After that, it's useless."
Unless, you know, you log in and it prompts you to change the password. Now it's not only useful to the person who stole it, but useless to the person it actually belongs to.
I personally don't think password changes should be required unless there is a specific reason. Someone hacked your account? Change your password.
If you have passwords for a couple dozen systems (very easy) and each of them requires you to change your password every 3 months, you're going to start forgetting them. So you don't, you're going to start writing them down or storing them in some way. Or you're going to increment a number in your password, so it's still basically the same. Or you're going to use the same password for slashdot and faceboook.com (see that? it's a spoof site designed to steal passwords) and your bank account.
You can either respond by being a jerk about it (although you're holding aces backed with eights as a large middle man), you can attempt to become part of that distribution model (have you thought about selling steam gift cards?) or you can do nothing.
Wow, I can't believe these game retailers don't see it the same way you do. Try telling a mouse in the clenched teeth of a bull snake "you can either wriggle around in a nearly hopeless attempt to save your life or just submit." How do you think that would work?
well that's just some good old structural unemployment where the hostile market of capitalism violently guides you to better serve the consumer in a new and -- here's the scary word -- innovative ways
Seriously? I'm sure most businesses are founded with the idea that they exist because they can treat the customer better than the next guy, but it doesn't take long before dollars and cents speak louder than satisfied and dissatisfied customers. Do you work because you want to provide a service, or do you work because you like to be able to eat?
Tell that same mouse it's alright that it's about to get eaten because it's natural. Cycle of life. Fuck self preservation. Whatever.
didn't offer ANYTHING as proof; in fact, I didn't even argue the OP's point.
Your statement implied that evidence is required to show that the TSA is not improving things. I would argue that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and in the absence of evidence that they are actually improving things, the default assumption should be that they are not.
Huh uh. Read it again. As I said, I didn't claim the TSA had improved. Let me phrase it as simply as possible.
Without any incidents, you can't say the TSA is being ineffective.
Even ignoring the fact that you are just begging for a "correlation is not causation" lecture, when was the last time you heard about a successfully thwarted attempt? You offer lack of evidence to the contrary as proof, which is utterly absurd.
I didn't offer ANYTHING as proof; in fact, I didn't even argue the OP's point. What I DID do was question how anyone could possibly come up with his conclusion. He DIDN'T say "the end doesn't justify the means," he said "I don't like the means, and I claim the end is a failure even though nothing has happened."
I've never had someone do a full body X-ray when entering a concert or sporting event, nor have I been frisked.
Wonderful. I've never had someone do a full body X-ray at an airport, and you apparently don't go to any sporting events or concerts.
(which, due to changes in cockpit door construction, can no longer feasibly be used to do great harm unless the terrorist has a pilot's license)
that you think requires so much less personal freedom than any other location
What do you do when there is increased risk? You mitigate it.
comparable number of people
I'm not sure how you're figuring "comparable number of people." Unless someone is sneaking a nuclear fission weapon in to a football game, they aren't going to hurt nearly as many people as, say.. oh, you remember... that airplane thing with the World Trade Center. Whatever.
The TSA is likely made up of your standard government agency moron just like all the rest of them. But complaining that you can't bring your printer cartridges, and acting like no more wifi on planes is the end of the world is just plain stupid. In review: a guy made a bomb out of a printer cartridge. What would YOU do?
More importantly, in what way is it so painfully obvious to you that the TSA isn't effective? Which recent bombing or hijacking is the evidence?
What is it about entering a plane (which, as we've seen, could potentially be used to cause great harm) do you think entitles you to more personal freedom than entering a venue for a concert or a sporting event?
Why, again, are they pushing 3d?
and it would be unwise to underestimate the value of this costume.
What the fuck does that mean? Can you imagine if you thought this costume would sell for $200k and came in to work next week only to find out someone paid $280k?
'Imagine if two people were on a train and wanted to play a game in real time on their separate handhelds but had no cellular or Wi-Fi hot spot. They still could play with Wi-Fi Direct,' he said."
Pfft, old news.