The target for Chrome OS seems to be Netbooks.

Most of the Linux vs. Windows discussion with respect to Netbooks tends to ignore how crummy the default Linux distros have been so far. The Eee PC as an example, it's distro is slow, ugly, and probably burned a lot of Asus' resources creating and maintaining it. More important, every non-system-management app could be implemented as an HTML5 application.

Savvy users would install their own distros, but they aren't the target audience for Chrome OS. The target audience is people wanting a simple internet machine, and the benefit for the rest of us is one more person independent of Microsoft.

The problem remains that - despite your rights - they still have the power to prevent you from boarding a flight. As in my case, you can call your lawyer, talk to them like cops, make them work for their fake show of security, but at the end of all that they can still deny you your seat.

Moreover there's nothing for them to learn. They know that what they're doing is shady. They know that it has very little impact on terrorism, drug trafficking, and other illegal activities. They know that the vast majority of people going through screening are perfectly innocent, and they pull people aside for additional screening with zero basis for suspicion. Hence the term "security theatre" and the term "airport security" as a pejorative in contrast to real security.

You'll have a bigger impact donating to appropriate lobby groups, writing your congressman, and avoiding flying altogether. The last is rarely optional, though.

The challenge would be motivating enough people to do so: By the time you're at TSA screening you have so much committed to the hassle-filled process of air travel that giving up your seat on the plane by exercising your rights becomes a hard sell.

Even if successful in convincing people to take a stand, I suspect they'd just find an alternative means of terrifying and hassling people but with less obvious rights trampling. For example, the carry-on fluid restrictions, or the laptop surrender rules.

He was detained by the TSA, not the police.

The worst the TSA will ever do to you is call the actual police. The second worst is attempt to confiscate your belongings. The third - and the one most innocent travelers are most wary of - is they'll prevent you from boarding your flight.

For people falling into that third scenario you aren't arguing just against being detained. You don't want to wait for a lawyer, and you don't want to escalate the issue to them calling the police over. You're trying to get through TSA screening as quickly as possible so you can make your flight.

I've flown on average once a month for the past six years, and have been detained in a back room half a dozen times myself. The first time it happened I treated it like a police encounter ("No sir, I'm not aware," "am I being detained, or am I free to go?" "I don't have anything to say without my lawyer present."). I ended up missing my flight, missing a job interview, wasting a few hours in a security checkpoint waiting room, and getting nothing back in return - even with my lawyer's involvement.

Since then I've just played nice. I'm more interested in getting to my destination than being a martyr. It's one of those "You'd be right, but you'd still lose" scenarios.

A small deposit almost always negates the need for a credit check already.

I moved to the US four years ago and thanks to a fubar with INS I wasn't able to get a SSN for three months. Each time I signed a new contract the respective company would insist on a SSN until I identified that I was a Canadian, didn't have one yet, and didn't have a US credit history. In every case I was given the option of paying a deposit equal to approximately 1-2 months worth of service on top of any initial charges, normally refunded after 12 months of service.

I managed to rent an apartment, sign up for home phone, internet, cable, cell and utility accounts, along with securing bank and Visa accounts, with no pieces of ID and a wad of cash.

Why not "novice," then, instead of "idiot?" Most of the same meaning, none of the insulting connotation or room for confusion.

Say what you will about self-censorship, but the wrong person finding out you called them an "idiot" - regardless of how you define the term - can really ruin a job. Meanwhile you can almost guarantee that you can use "novice" right to the subject's face without any confusion or offense.

Pretty much. I'm an H-1B in the process of moving back to Canada after four years spent in the US working for a fairly reputable tech company.

For those unfamiliar with H-1Bs, the biggest problem is a lack of grace period. You're expected to leave the country literally the day you're no longer employed, which is rough in the case of a sudden layoff.

In practice there's a 30 day unofficial grace period, but given the job market and typical turnaround time of a salary H-1B professional role, and need for visa sponsorship, you're basically out of luck. And if you're like me you spend any of that time in the US wondering when INS/DHS are going to beat down your door.

The other option - apart from leaving the country - is filing for a visa transfer (e.g. to a B-2). But the estimated processing time is about three months. Apparently they give you a break if you can prove you mailed out your transfer in a timely fashion... but it can also cause problems when you attempt to transfer back to a work visa.

In my case I left ASAP, leaving my entire apartment and its contents behind, paying my lease and bills remotely, and praying I can get a B-2 at the border when I hop down to package up my stuff.

H-1Bs are honestly designed to prevent skilled workers from finding new employment in the US.

(Disclaimer: Clearly IANAL - most of this comes second hand from my former immigration lawyer)

I've been outside of Canadian politics for a while now, so I can't comment on on Joe Volpe or how internet saavy he or his people are.. However, seems you've just discovered that the domain is owned by... Mike Hunt... Mike Hunt... say it out loud.

I mean, there's always the chance that the person registering the domain had a very unfortunate name. On the other hand this lends credibility to another poster's claim that perhaps the domain was nixed thanks to inaccurate contact info.