Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re: Conflict of interest is just what they do (Score 1) 80

by sociocapitalist (#48176379) Attached to: NSA CTO Patrick Dowd Moonlighting For Private Security Firm

Not just paid to install the spyware but PAID up to a million USD a month! That's unreal! No wonder he is moonlighting. He is getting paid many times over his yearly salary to kill two birds with one stone. I don't see how this can be legal, but then again it is the USA.

FTFY.

If you don't like it, get off your couch and go get arrested for civil disobedience somewhere.

Lazy Americans not standing up for their rights are going to be peons who can't afford even basic education or medical care before long.

Comment: Re:That's not the reason you're being ignored. (Score 1) 404

by sociocapitalist (#48174859) Attached to: Flight Attendants Want Stricter Gadget Rules Reinstated

But they are ok with the 2 lb book I'm carrying or the can of coke (or bottle of wine/whiskey) that the flight attendant just sold me knocking them in the head or the 300 lb beverage cart ending up in their lap? Airlines still let infants travel on their parent's lap, surely if they were worried about my Kindle hitting someone in the head, they'd be worried about the child becoming a projectile.

Sure, I understand that loose items are dangerous in a crash,but if that's a significant risk, the solution to that is to ban *all* of the items, not just the ones that happen to have a battery.

Beverage carts are stowed during takeoff, landing and turbulence.

Babies on laps are required to be secured by a special seatbelt during those times as well (including during turbulence).

And yes, I think that all objects with substantial mass should be stowed if there's any actual risk - not just your kindle but certainly including it.

Comment: Re:Simple solution: bring cookies. (Score 1) 404

by sociocapitalist (#48150689) Attached to: Flight Attendants Want Stricter Gadget Rules Reinstated

Seriously - bring a package of cookies for the flight crew. The flight attendants will leave you alone except to check on you, and will probably sneak you a non-alcoholic treat at some point during the flight. And it's not a job that's appreciated terribly much - look at the comments in this thread, just for starters - so it goes a long way.

Bring a package of space brownies and you'll get even more wonderful and interesting service.

Comment: Re:We're ignoring them... (Score 1) 404

by sociocapitalist (#48150651) Attached to: Flight Attendants Want Stricter Gadget Rules Reinstated

...because we've seen their act too many times, and pretty much everything except the location of the doors is common sense in the first place.

Anyone who can't figure that stuff out is probably traveling with an adult to handle the actual decisions.

There are people traveling from other countries who have never been in a plane before.
There are elderly people from your own country who have never been in a plane before.

For such people, it is not stupid to have a briefing.

Too bad for you that you have to endure it.

Comment: Re:That's not the reason you're being ignored. (Score 1) 404

by sociocapitalist (#48150541) Attached to: Flight Attendants Want Stricter Gadget Rules Reinstated

They don't want people looking at their devices with their headphones in when the captain says "brace for impact" a moment before you're supposed to land normally. It's not that hard to just be ready for an important announcement before takeoff and landing. And they're right that you want everything stowed away for those two phases of the flight.

I'll take my chances that even if I did brace for impact it wouldn't make a significant difference in my survival or chance of injury. And whether I'm looking at my kindle, staring out the window, even staring right at the flight attendant in the jump seat, I don't think it's going to affect my reaction time at all. Even with headphones on I can hear cabin announcements (I sure wish I couldn't, so I could sleep while the captain points out that we're crossing over the Rocky Mountains).

I don't remember ever being asked to stow a book, and my kindle is smaller and lighter than most hardcover books (even many paperbacks). Besides, I've seen the overhead compartments come unlatched during severe turbulence, so in the event of a real crash, a loose kindle is the least of anyone's worries.

The problem isn't whether you brace or not but if that kindle you're holding flies out of your hand and moves fast enough to hurt someone due to heavy turbulence, for example, or an actual crash. Not all crashes kill everyone on board and it would suck if someone who would have lived instead died from having your kindle halfway through their noggin.

Comment: Re:That's not the reason you're being ignored. (Score 1) 404

by sociocapitalist (#48150465) Attached to: Flight Attendants Want Stricter Gadget Rules Reinstated

This is a classic example of "mission creep". The decision to ban electronic devices originally had nothing to do with making people pay attention to flight attendants. Yet that is now being used as an excuse to keep the ban. The only reason for the ban was RF interference. That is no longer a problem with modern devices, so the ban should end.

Not the only reason.

Everything is supposed to be stowed on takeoff and landing so that said things don't become mini missiles flying about the cabin 'in the event of', which I don't think is stupid and should probably extend to any turbulence flying as well, for that matter.

Shouldn't apply to wearables, obviously enough.

Comment: Re:News at 11. (Score 1) 280

by sociocapitalist (#48129569) Attached to: Four Dutch Uberpop Taxi Drivers Arrested, Fined

How? You can't even buy normal tickets anymore in The Netherlands.

You can get a ChipCart (I think that's the name) at the airport or at Central Station, then use that to ride the trains. You check in at readers on the platform before you board, check out when you get wherever using the same technique and it deducts money from your card.

You can use that same card for buses, trams, trains, etc. You can keep it and use it again when you come back.

I've had trouble buying train tickets in NL - my memory said it was a combination of the train company not accepting bank cards without chips in them as well as refusing visa / mastercard.

Perhaps someone in NL can clarify.

Comment: Re: grow your own (Score 1) 236

by sociocapitalist (#48109297) Attached to: Outsourced Tech Jobs Are Increasingly Being Automated

For capitalism humans are required not only for labor but also as consumers. Therefore the elites require to find a way to distribute money to the rest otherwise their system will collapse. However, I have the distinct impression that they do not know that.

In a system without money, consumers would no longer be required.

Comment: Re:The Conservative Option (Score 1) 480

by sociocapitalist (#48100793) Attached to: Texas Ebola Patient Dies

And in the meantime, work globally to stop travel out of West Africa until their outbreak problem is under control.

You are no doubt aware that West Africa is connected to the rest of Africa and that the area where the current outbreak exists is large enough that it cannot just be surrounded by a 10 meter high fence and patrolled by armed guards. Blocking such roads as there are will not help where people travel off road as often as on.

Comment: Re:The Conservative Option (Score 1) 480

by sociocapitalist (#48100763) Attached to: Texas Ebola Patient Dies

We cannot help the west africans if the disease spreads in the US or infects south america.

Certainly not true. This means we would spend more resources on a cure.

..and said cure would not be available in unlimited quantities, just as existing 'experimental' medicines are not available in sufficient quantities to be of use in the larger scope of things and as such appear to be available only to Americans and Europeans at this point.

The OP is correct. If this spreads to the developed countries the rest of the world be be SOL.

Comment: Re:This is crime in many states (Score 1) 191

by sociocapitalist (#48092593) Attached to: DoJ: Law Enforcement Can Impersonate People On Facebook

Louisiana: http://www.criminaldefenselawy...
Unfortunately in New York http://www.criminaldefenselawy... the intent must be criminal.

From your link:
"A person commits the crime of criminal impersonation by: impersonating another or pretending to represent some person or organization with the intent to benefit the defendant.."

Arguably this was done to benefit those doing the impersonation.

Also, it's quite possible that while using her identity the agent performed illegal acts, which would seem to indicate criminal intent, if indirectly.

Comment: Re:And her child? (Score 1) 191

by sociocapitalist (#48092547) Attached to: DoJ: Law Enforcement Can Impersonate People On Facebook

So the DOJ also involved her child by posting his picture? As part of a drug investigation?

She should also be suing them on behalf of her child for endangerment. In drug transactions family members can be targets of violence. The DOJ was putting a minor in harms way.

That would go really well for the DOJ in court. I would love to be in the courtroom and watch some lawyer from the DOJ defend a practice that puts a child at risk. I'm sure that the jury would hear that testimony and decide there and then that the DOJ should loose the case very painfully.

Also, aren't their laws pertaining to the use of images of minors without parental consent? Even if the image was obtained legally (not likely in this case). Sounds like a potential criminal case to me. Of course, considering it's the DOJ, they could have used the image in a pedophilia sting and nothing would happen.

They'll buy her off in one way or another. She was on probation...how about a complete clearing of her record to drop the whole thing plus a few thousand 'for the kid's education'.

When you don't know what to do, walk fast and look worried.

Working...