Become the sole developer for Blackberry app!
Become the sole developer for Blackberry app!
According to Southwest's policy, people travelling together but with different boarding positions have the option to board together, provided the person higher up in line waits with the people further back. How this applies to families, I'm fuzzy on, but I would assume if you have a business select or other pass that allows boarding in the A1 through A15 group, it would make sense to have young children (say, under 10 years old) board with you. It seems like this is what the guy had done on several flights previously.
I have tried to find this regulation, recently, but I am fairly certain that that TSA regulations require the airline to honor any preferences and boarding assignments for all minors with the ticketed adult they traveling with, or else treat the minors as unaccompanied minors. A few times I have flow and received an automatic upgrade to first class, but not my minor travel companion. It's actually turned out to be a hassle, because they filled my old seat, there by stranding my child next to a random stranger. Obviously not acceptable. In both cases that it's happened, they ended up trading the stand-by person into my first class seat and putting me back into coach (which was fine). However, in both cases they told me that TSA regulation required them to board us together, and to use the adult traveler's cabin class, boarding priority, and seating preference. I travel for business quite a bit and I wouldn't wish my kids into 1st class with others who are traveling for business so I was happy to move back to coach, but both times the gate agent was quite adamant that they would bump a 1st class passenger to follow the reg if I wanted.
I sort of think this can't true. Someone from the TSA told me it had to with a terrorist screening database, that the children were not entered anyways, so it worked around a problem in the database with moving passengers between cabins. Could just be a myth.
I fly a lot, and pretty sure he was in the right. The version of the story I read was that he was a Southwest A+ member, which is their (crappy) version of a frequent flyer. You get free pre-boarding priority with that status. It is customary for it to extend to any minors traveling with you on the same itinerary.
On most 3-across, left-right configuration regional jets - like the 737 variants the Airbus 300, there is only enough overhead space for 2/3 of the passengers to bring on a rollerbag. This creates a problem where every 5-6 rows, or so, you lose 1/2 or 1/3 of an overhead bin to the preceding sections theoretical over seat compartment. By the time you get to the last rows, there is no longer any overhead space. People traveling without a rollerbag will typically get their bag or laptop bag or purse handed back to them and asked to put under the seat in front of them. Even then, it's not unusual for a full-flight to require a dozen or more rollerbags to be gate checked.
Basically all of the rollerbags now are FAA-size approved for a carry-on. A few have puff-out zippers that will add an extra inch or two but compress back down when forced.
This is basically the airlines overselling capacity and then having to do their best to accomodate. Personally, I don't mind gate checking a carry-on, but most of the time, traveling for business, I do not enjoy waiting for my luggage. It would be fine if after the 5-10 minute deplane and walk the luggage was waiting for me, but it never seems to work that way. It seems to take 30-60 minutes even in smaller airports with minimal traffic.
If you want to see my surgery from the surgeon's end of things, Here you go!
Yes, they gave me a DVD of it.
iLASIK is done with all lasers, one to make the flap that was previously done by blade, and the usual LASIK after that. Fewer reported complications than with the older blade style. At my six month checkup I was seeing 20/10 from my left eye and 20/15 from my right. I'm 48 and previously wore progressive lenses. They adjusted my right for a closer focal distance.
It all just works, I love it.
With one myth and conclusion:
"The Myth: Women should just laugh off online harassment and not take it personally. "
The problem is: there are never any police reports to go with this behavior. If anyone is reading this, especially women, and you are threatened online or in person, and the words have: the nature and content to cause or instill fear, have enough specificity to demonstrate actual malice and show intent, and from an anonymous source a crime has been committed. All of the reactions I hear about women doing are the wrong ones. You shouldn't post to Twitter to show you aren't afraid, you shouldn't pen an op-ed denouncing men or the industry or the culture or other women or whatever.
What you should do is preserve the digital evidence, go to your police station, file a police a report, and then take the police report, and go to or travel to the nearest FBI field office and ask them to open an investigation. Every time. If you get a lot of this type of activity, you should get to know the officers who will be taking your reports daily or weekly. You can usually setup a standing appointment.
Brianna Wu would do more to change the environment by retweeting a threatening post followed by a mug shot than writing a hundred shaming articles that only the people who already agree with her are going to read. Showing your solidarity, having catharsis, raising awareness among like minded people has it's value, but it pales in comparison to making them pay. Not metaphorically, by doxing them and giving them a dose of medicine, but you know, like, pay actual fines, do actual jail time, and pay actual damages. Please, women (and men, when the shoe fits) stop "fighting simultaneous urges to hurl my phone across the room in anger and cry" and take actual action.
There is a perception that these people are anonymous, that it's untraceable, but it's a lie. Whatever the medium was - email, blog post, Tumblr, tweet, etc, there are a big companies behind them. A prosecutor or even a cop can often make an automated request through the companies CALEA compliance tool to get identity data when the above criteria is met. It's not controversial or hard. The service providers all comply, and willingly, and fast. The investigators will get the IP information, and then go to the ISP, and get subscriber information. These people are not going through eight layers of tor proxies. They are home, on their Wifi, thinking that a throw-away reddit account is really anonymous. They are wrong.
But at the same time my experience within various organizations is that female programmers weren't treated any differently that I could see. It certainly wasn't ever a living episode of Mad Men.
This is my experience also, but it's somewhat limited because their just aren't that many women programmers out there as a sample size.
What I took from the article was that people in Silcon Valley are not nice, which is generally easily supported by the facts. Just go somewhere else, and you will find nice, non-bubble inflated, non-VC backed, stable businesses that will happily hire women programmers, and treat them as well as anyone else, which is to say, well. You can have a nice life filled with a good stable job doing something you love. You won't be making games, you'll be writing line of business, boring b2b business products, or backend systems that run mid and small sized businesses.
On the other hand you can go to Silicon Valley, or a few other tech spots, and live a life in an industry full of assholes. Gaming, fashion, gossip blogging, entertainment, etc. It's all assholes, all the way down. Your customers are assholes, your co-workers are assholes, the venture capitalists are assholes, the competitors are assholes.
Also, a corrupt leadership sets an example.
The House of Saud are anti-Wahhabists, al-Qaeda are Salafi's and Wahhabi's. There has been a deep split since the mid-1990's. It's why UBL was very angry with the Saud's.
Recommend "The War for Muslim Minds: Islam and the West" for more on this split.
Well for one, the AMA is a private organization, and they have tried, and failed to do what you are saying for another similar undertaking that sounds simple but is not.
The problem is that job descriptions are not uniform, and wages are not uniform. So the very thing you are trying to accomplish is technically challenging, and it will be prone to be difficult and challenging circumstances.
Plus, there is every incentive to cheat the system and a bad incentive structure to root out cheating. It's bound to fail, whether or not it's private or public.
I don't think you are going to find anyone saying that al Qaeda isn't a terrorist syndicate with aggressive goals and activities. It's pretty cut and dried.
The only thing you are going to find is people willing to go back further than the WTC. The primary grievance against the West was the co-operation between the Saudi's (who are a competing religious sect) and the West in stationing and occupying troops in the so-called holy land. It is clearly a reactionary movement. First reacting against the Soviets, and then reacting against the West and the US.
The World Trade center isn't a government site by any stretch of the imagination.
I agree with that generally. The 9/11 report went into motivations a bit, I think it's mostly as a symbol of economic power.
It is also believed the original intended targets were nuclear power plants which demonstrates these targets were picked to incite fear into Americans.
I don't think this is supported by facts. The facts indicate the last target (the one intended to be destroyed by United 93) was in Washington DC.
but the Pentagon and US Capitol attacks were strategic (foolish, but strategic) and could be classified as freedom fighters since they were fighting against their aggressors, but as soon as they also picked the WTC (along with their motive) and Bali Bombings that crossed the line into terrorism.
Pentagon and US Capitol, I think are fairly clear, are in fact legitimate military targets. It would be nice if you the other side raised a traditional army, landed an invasion force, and rolled up the the streets of Baltimore and into combat, but being asymmetric, legitimate targets.
The disagreement then is over WTC and the use of civilian hijacked planes?
For the planes issue, the collateral damage can't be the deciding factor for freedom fighter vs. terrorism. Otherwise, any military action that has civilian causalities is terrorism. For us Americans, we feel incredible empathy for the 44 Americans who died on United 93. It's a national tragedy and rightly so. Meanwhile, though, that many Iraqi's and Afghan's died every few days from simple mistakes, collateral damage, or accidents. So it's just not that clear how you decide which actions have acceptable civilian deaths and which civilian deaths are terror related.
I don't think you've clarified your position. Is the definition of terrorism only about motivations? Does that make shock & awe in general or Iraq, qualify as terrorism under that definition?