Pangloss

These cases are also prosecuted based on transmitted imagery. AOL copies every transmitted image and does a comparative image analysis (much like a fingerprint comparison) with a database of known offending images (like 2-year-olds with... insertions). When a match is found, the account is shut down and authorities notified. A case here in Miami just like this resulted in a conviction last week. (I personally spoke with a juror in that case earlier this week.)

Exactly what I was wondering. I'm all for finding learning inspiration wherever one can, but this seems especially pointless.

Kudos to Severian and IMM for elevating this discussion.

I'm a late romantic era nut myself. Here's one most of you've probably never heard before: "Fantasia on a Theme of Thomas Tallis" by Ralph Vaughn Williams

It's important to keep in mind that the full story on the decision to use the bomb was not actually knowable until after 1995, when the full Ultra/Magic summaries and un-redacted intercepts became available. Great book: "Downfall" by Richard Frank.

Looks like a fun blog. Good luck!

These things are subject to opinion, of course, and "more difficult" is a reasonable point. The main concern I have (which isn't necessarily directed at you) is that airport security is not something we should view in a mission-accomplished manner. The key ingredients of passenger and baggage screening, and the air marshall program, are in poor condition and not only aren't improving, but are giving us a false sense of security. We're better-protected from madmen and irate businessmen, but terrorist are neither of those. I'm an optimist, though, and I think you have to take these things in steps. Continued focus can lead to improvement. This was, IMO, the primary benefit of the 9/11 Commission Report, more than the specific recommendations it made.

(TOO strange. I wonder why it wouldn't let me post all of that together?)

But frankly the main reason why they're probably not interested in that approach today is the increased passenger and flight staff awareness. That was, after all, the only reason Richard Reid was caught. He certainly had no problem waltzing past that "increased security" wearing shoes packed with PETN. And incidents of passengers and flight attendants "taking care of business" are on the increase. But increased airport security stopping terrorists? No, that's just not the case. We're not even close to where we need to be. Too much baggage still goes unchecked, terminals have gone back to more emphasis on passenger comfort/convenience than security, and the air marshall program, as has recently been reported on extensively, is a bad joke.

Well I'm not sure what the problem is, but it seems to be coughing on my reply. I'll break it into two parts. In fact I fly fairly often. As I said above, it's probably less appealing to terrorists than other avenues of achieving destruction. Changes in security procedures make it less convenient for both travellers and potential troublemakers. (continued below)

(hehe) I'm having a little trouble posting my reply. I think it's getting hung up on the way you single-quoted something earlier, i.e. when I include that single-quote text in my reply it's getting confused (or something). I'll figure it out in a sec. (Edit: It definitely wasn't getting hung up on your single-quotes, which I would have realized had I just looked at Mokele's post above. Oh well.)

test

Actually I follow the air industry pretty closely, and I can't think of a single reason why they "can't go after planes anymore". The approach has a little less appeal than it used to, a kind of passive discouragement, but that's about all you can really say that we've accomplished in that area.

Yeah it's pretty crummy. I'm just not sure what can be done about it. This is the flip side of the "sanctions don't work" card, after all. If these companies refuse to help, other companies, created by those states, do the job instead, and then we lose the cultural trump card. I don't know what the solution is, but it does seem to expose the hypocrisy of the naive "don't be evil" corporate culture.

Padren that was a nice post back there. At risk of sounding maudlin, I've thought along similar lines myself, wondering what I would have done had I been in that situation. It's easy to say that we would have done the same, and maybe we would have, but in their pre-9/11 world we can't help but be in awe of their efforts. It must have something to do with the confluence of the unifying experiences of both air travel and the 9/11 tragedy itself.

Kinda hard to judge a movie I haven't seen, ecoli, but it is interesting to note the differences between United 93 and WTC, which is already getting blasted by a few "insiders" who saw an early preview. One of the reasons U93 is so powerful is that it shuns the traditional Hollywood approach. There are no "name" stars in U93, no focus on dramatic personal stories, etc. It is not "Airport 2001". There's no elderly grandmother travelling with a sick child who desperately needs a heart transplant at the destination city. There's no newlywed couple in the next row, waiting to start their new life together, with the wife afraid to tell her new husband that she's pregnant. NONE of that nonsense. As Roger Ebert put it, "United 93 is exactly what we would know if we had been on the plane and sitting across from them: nothing, except for a few details of personal appearance." At least one ground control official actually plays himself. The plot follows the general outline provided by the 9/11 Commission Report, so while there is some dramatic license (particularly with regard to the presumed actions of the passengers), accuracy was clearly important to the filmmakers. Universal has done very little marketing, and NO "viral" marketing at all. Even more telling, the film contains NO POLITICS. There's nothing that anybody could point to and say "that's exploitative". Stone's WTC is exactly the opposite. Traditional Hollywood approach, done Oliver Stone style. It's really not hard to see the writing on this wall, is it?

I'd say that's a pretty good assessment. They're doing the best they can, and the political climate of the world right now is such that they probably couldn't show a lot of gratitude towards the US even if they did feel it.

I don't mean to nit-pick and I don't lump you in with the ravenous anti-Bush crowd. I just think it's worth noting that you made a comment that suggests that you can't appreciate the positive because you feel it's overshadowed by the negative. And make no bones about it -- that's opinion, not objective fact. That's the danger of partisanship -- it stops people from recognizing good things when they happen.

Well I can't deny that my centrist/bipartisan tendency is ideological in nature. I'm simply pointing out that you're casting aspersions on the value of this accomplishment because of a pre-existing judgement about the man. The point is that anti-Bush sentiment is, more often than not, pre-judicial, just as anti-Clinton sentiment was. There's nothing really rational, objective, or fair about it. It's just easier. You didn't raise a tobacco company for comparison because they're perceived as good guys. Just for a nice contrast, I'll point out that rabid anti-Bush sentiment is a bit like clubbing a baby seal -- it feels good when you do it, but at the end of the day you still know that you've done something horribly wrong. ;-)

The new Iraqi government is trying to find common ground with Iran as part of their ongoing effort to stop Iran's support of the insurgency. This is just politics. Kinda like when the government of Afghanistan condemns American attacks on the Taliban in rural areas. There's a certain "wink wink nod nod" aspect to it.

That's just wild, off-the cuff sentiment, though, which suggests that maybe you guys really *need* that to be the case. Another example of just how prejudicial a lot of anti-Bush sentiment can be. Consider, for a moment, the possibility that he's done some good here, full stop?

I don't think we need to worry about lack of motivation for honest, hard-working potential CEOs.

I loved this quote from Skilling today after the verdicts were read: "Some things work, some things don't." Can't you just picture an Arthur Andersen partner saying those exact same words to Skilling when they were caught five years ago? (chuckle)

Oh hell yeah. Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling have been convicted of fraud for the Enron fiasco. Each face 25 years in prison. Finally there is justice for the Enron employees. http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000006&sid=aUm5vViGkGwc&refer=home And even more interesting, it's yet another victory against corporate corruption by the Bush administration's Justice Department. A conviction that never would have happened under the Clinton/Reno Justice Department, given the level of Enron's political donations.

That's okay, so long as you continue to wonder if the ends justify the means when the White House changes hands from Republican to Democrat. (I think I know you well enough to know that you will, but I'm afraid that doesn't go for everyone around here.) I agree with Jim's first point (in Post #32), and I think there are some very amusing, misguided, almost infantile statements in this thread. It's sad the lengths people have to go to to support their ideologies sometimes.