The reality is that RIM is not building hardware that people actually want. Further, they are not able to develop on a competitive cycle. You mention two features which are nice (sturdiness and battery life). However, in my opinion, these two hardware features alone do not make a company competitive in this marketplace. This is not what made Apple a commercial success, and is not what caused HP to fail; I do not find these to be analogous. I guess that we'll find out soon enough if what you suggest is a competitive market strategy. I know where my money is.

Out of curiosity, what motivates you to post with such a snarky tone? Do you feel that this will help you "win" the internets? Do you actually talk to people like this? If so, do you have any friends?

They are disappearing, but IMO, this is mostly due to user demand moving toward other devices. The BES is now the last vestige for RIM - IT managers and administrators still like the centralized management and security that BES provides. You're right that the BES is kind of a whore, but why can't this be fixed (so it works like Good does) - or fixed and licensed and/or integrated into an MTA (like how Microsoft has been slowly been rolling these services into their MTA)? It's only a matter of time until the market completely surpasses Blackberry. No need to throw the baby out with the bathwater on this one.

Ugh - this will do nothing to help RIM.

The only thing that I can imagine RIM doing to stay competitive is to license their Blackberry software while they still can. Dump (or severely reduce) the hardware and OS business, it's clear to everyone (and it should be to RIM) they can no longer compete with manufacturers offering Apple, Microsoft, and Android-based devices.

While RIM still has some foothold in the corporate managed mobile messaging arena, take that software and port it to Apple, Microsoft, and Android devices; allowing those devices to connect to BES servers. This will allow IT to have the manageability and security offered with Blackberry devices. It will allow RIM to survive as a company. However - if they do not make this move soon, it will be too late. The same manageability will become ubiquitous among competing devices, and any competitive advantage that RIM might have had will disappear forever.

Right, but those who receive more basic screening have already been vetted. In order to qualify for PreCheck, one must agree to (and pay for) a federal background check. This perceived flaw in the system lets a traveller (who has presumably already been qualified for the PreCheck program) know when they are flagged for random additional screening. However, they have already been identified as a lower security priority. Also, given that many analysts believe that additional post 9/11/2001 security screening measures are no more than what they call security theater, and the PreCheck screening measures are nearly identical to pre 9/11/2001; is there really an additional threat? Magnetometers in the TSA PreCheck lines will find box-cutters, or any other items prohibited for travel. Finally, screening for drugs and microfilm is outside the scope of the TSA's enforcement. They are in place for safety, not to enforce state, federal, or customs laws. The article and much of the commentary is misleading, and the AC GPP is one of the few to add real information to the discussion. There is little or no vulnerability, and nothing to see here. Move along please.

The rest of the world also has due process of law. In America, we do tend to take parts of it more seriously than some other countries; so much so that we have constitutional protections form the government (e.g. forth amendment to the constitution banning illegal search and seizure). This is not unique to the US, but the way that it is implemented, it is a little bit unusual.

It sounds like what you may be talking about is known colloquially as 'fruit of the poisonous tree'. The linked wiki article has a really nice example:

This is part of what is known as the exclusionary rule, and is largely how the fourth amendment to the US constitution is enforced, protecting citizens from the government, and helping to provide due process of law to citizens. It does not throw out all evidence - just evidence that was gathered as a result of illegally gathered evidence.

No system of justice is perfect, and America's is certainly no exception...but I do firmly believe in a certain level of protection from the government. When we talk about excluding evidence, often, it is not over a small mistake from the police (e.g. mishandling chain of evidence custody). Rather, it often involves flagrant violations of the civil rights that help define us as a people. As others have suggested, how else would we incentivize the government to follow the rules of the road (or disincentivize it from breaking its own laws)?

This case is a simple argument of what constitutes probable cause to issue a legal warrant for a search. When arguing constitutional law, interpretation is pretty important...otherwise, the Supreme Court would be pretty bored. Personally, I think that the question has merit. This video was made by a person who claims that his car was illegally searched without consent based on the behavior of a drug sniffing dog. It seems reasonable that the result may be a false positive, triggered by the searching officer. If drug dog behavior is used for probable cause for searches based upon subjective, abusive (or easily abused) results, why shouldn't these be scrutinized by our highest legal authority?

IANAL

Yes - take the safest, most experienced drivers off of the road. Great idea. Question: How does the freight get from the trains stations and river barge depots to its destination with trucks off of the road?

In any case, car crash standards aren't written to save cars from trucks. They're to save occupants who crash with other cars and stationary objects.

Right, so as long as whatever object being thrown or swung at the camera-watching camera does not exceed the posted speed limit, the perpetrator will not be recorded. ;)

...and Germany has a lower fatality rate than the US by any measure. Speed limits do not save lives. There is absolutely no scientific or statistical basis for this.

It's not speed that kills. It's rapid deceleration that kills. What is more appropriate for your argument would be the wrong speed at the wrong time that kills - and really, we're talking about poor judgment, not just speed.

In any case, NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) made this argument when the national 55 MPH speed limit was lifted by congress in 1988. NHTSA released a statement that said something along the lines of "history will never forgive congress for their disregard of the sanctity of human life" (I'm not making this up). Know what happened? Highway fatalities continued to fall by any measure: total fatalities, total per registered vehicle, and (this is the most important statistic, IMO) fatalities per million vehicle miles travelled. Speed limits are going up and fatalities are going down in the US. I wrote a research paper about this in college way back in the 90's (which this ./ post isn't), but I've been knee deep in the statistics on this. Raising speed limits does not increase highway fatalities.

It has been shown over and over again that people drive at the speed that they are comfortable at. Raising or lowering speed limits by 10 MPH has little effect on the average speeds travelled (we're talking 1-2 mph average speed, not really statistically significant). Of course, we're safer at zero MPH, but I still want to get to where I'm going. Get into a collision at 20 MPH - and the forces involved are quite serious. The solution is not to set a maximum speed of 19 MPH. Modern interstate highways were originally designed for speeds of 85 MPH. The highway speed limits were introduced in the early 70's as a fuel efficiency measure in response to the Arab oil embargo. There was a correlation of reduced highway deaths, so the speed limits remained until the late 80's. Again, when the federally mandated speed limit was lifted, fatalities continued to fall. This attitude is a relic of the 70's.

It's pretty easy when you use your Jump to Conclusions Mat.

So how are unreasonably low speed limits going to resolve the issue of your grandmother driving when she shouldn't be? Why is it that countries with no speed limits on highways through unpopulated areas have significantly lower highway fatalities than the United States? The facts don't support the argument that lower speed limits equal lower highway fatalities by any measure.

A massive rail system...great! Who pays for it?

Very good points that I hadn't considered. Certainly, highway funding is how the federal government is able to apply political pressure and force state's hands on creating certain laws outside the scope of what the federal government is allowed to do. However, our road infrastructure is vast. Isn't maintenance outside the scope of what state and local governments can afford at current tax rates? Would it not take a monumental effort to change the balance of taxation from federal to state to account for this?

They were very polite in Vancouver, and even apologetic. They were just backed up, and horribly slow. I remember watching the officer x-ray my bag and scratch her head. She got someone else to come over and look at the screen as it was x-rayed again. Then, her supervisor came over (x-ray again). Finally, their shift manager (x-ray again), all were scratching their heads while looking at it. Each time, I suggested that they manually examine the bag. After the forth x-ray, they apologized again and suggested that they manually search the bag. To their credit, each piece of clothing that was removed was carefully folded better than I had originally done so.

I do quite a bit of domestic air travel in the US, and the TSA is usually impolite in large airports. I don't care much for the people who complain in line, and/or in front of TSA officers. It's not their policy. However, when they are impolite or unprofessional, it bothers me. I do not like having commands repeatedly yelled in my direction. One time, I actually did forget to remove my belt. A TSA officer gave me a stern look and said "remove the belt, now." It was a weak moment for me, I must have been having a really bad day. I returned his stern look with a similar dominance and suggested "I believe that you meant to add the words 'sir' and 'please' to that". He straightened up, apologized, and added the suggested words.