2 billion-year-old African nuclear reactor - <AUTHOR> http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/181620-2-billion-year-old-african-nuclear-reactor-proves-that-mother-nature-still-has-a-few-tricks-up-her-sleeve

<comment><USER2> interesting topic, you'd perhaps do better reading the wikipedia article

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor)

they've found out about it because the uranium ore had smaller ratio of U235 than usual so they suspected that some of it might have been stolen for weapons.

The reactor worked because U235 was more abundant naturally 2 billion years ago, now it has decayed more, so it's no longer possible. The reactor was periodically flooded with water which moderated the reaction. After 30 minutes of reaction all water would boil away.

It is interesting for the study of nuclear waste disposal - this is 2 billion years old nuclear waste still sitting exactly in the place where it was created

<comment><USER3> To a modern physicist, perhaps the most interesting thing about the Oklo reactor is that it gives us one of the biggest levers on the question "Have the laws of physics changed over time?"

So far as anyone can tell, nuclear physics was the same back then as it is today.

<comment><USER4> > To a modern physicist, perhaps the most interesting thing about the Oklo > reactor is that it gives us one of the biggest levers on the question "Have > the laws of physics changed over time?"

I don't think it really does, because our interpretation of the causes that produced the effects that we can see now as something which supports the conclusion that the laws of physics were the same then itself rests on the assumption that the laws of physics were the same then.

<comment><USER5> It provides one more data point that constrains just how different the laws of physics could have been in the past -- no matter how different the laws of physics were, it must have still enabled an event which created the isotopic concentrations we see today.

Yes, that is a much looser constraint than the GP described, but it is still a significant data point.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This topic has been making the rounds the last few weeks around the various technical-oriented sites, with mentions on HN at [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7687948](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7687948) and [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7683888](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7683888) .

I don't believe the author of this Extreme Tech piece quite understands the deep time involved. The article says:

> This boil-seep-boil system would have made the area extremely volatile — > perhaps some remnant of that violence explains why the area features so > heavily in local lore and has even grown to prominence in modern day > religions such as Falun Gong.

It also points out that the natural reactor was 2 billion years ago.

That's long enough for a mountain chain to form and erode back down into a flat surface. Any physical remnants from that era should be much less interesting than innumerable more recent geological events.

<comment><USER7> I find it hard to believe ancient Falun Gong practitioners were operating geological nuclear reactors in Gabon 2 billion years ago. I wouldn't put it past a Pak Protector(1), but the timeline indicates the Tnuctipun(2) are more likely suspects ;)

1) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pak_Protector](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pak_Protector) 2) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tnuctipun](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tnuctipun)

<comment><USER8> Indeed. Spoilers here.

[http://www.larryniven.net/stories/downinflames.shtml](http://www.larryniven.net/stories/downinflames.shtml)

<comment><USER7> DIF is fun, but it changes too much established canon for my liking. I have my own grand unified Known Space theory, originally in two forum posts which a friend has compiled together:

[http://news.larryniven.net/concordance/content.asp?page=The%...](http://news.larryniven.net/concordance/content.asp?page=The%20Tnuctipun%20Plot)

<comment><USER9> Ooh, a fellow Niven fan!

I have a problem with your theory that the Outsiders built the ring as a doomsday Protector breeding ground: why would they create copies of Known Space worlds, and then seed them with the inhabitants of those worlds?

<comment><USER7> Cop out answer: The same reason anyone else would, i.e. that's not a particular reason to exclude them as against anyone else.

Best answer I can come up with: they are laboratories for experimenting with known space sentient species. After all these are species that evolved from programmed good yeast, so the outsiders may want to figure out how that works and if there are any nasty surprises hidden in their genomes.

Which is an interesting idea I think and I wouldn't have though of it if you hadn't asked, so thanks!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> > A huge, naked pile of nuclear waste has sat beneath Oklo for billions of > years; why not put a bit more under the Nevada desert, in shielded canisters > no less?

I think this is a bad case of survivorship bias.

<comment><USER11> I think you can't reasonably claim that without any evidence.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Regarding the comment toward the end of the article questioning why the west doesn't sell CANDU reactors to Iran; I would guess that's probably to do with the political situation in Canada with the ruling Conservative Party. Some parts of the party tend to be quite jingoistic, and I'm sure would never support building in Iran, despite there being CANDU reactors in India, Pakistan and China. Also, despite heavy water reactors not being a good source of enriched uranium, they still do produce tritium which can be used to do nasty things.

<comment><USER13> Could someone more knowledgeable about nuclear physics than I am comment on the safety aspects of the positive void coefficient of the CANDU design? If the water boils, the reaction could run away.

That said, the fact that a CANDU runs on unenriched natural uranium and the way it can be refuelled without shutting down power generation are seriously cool features. And they claim that the long time constant makes avoiding a Chernobyl-style excursion unlikely if the operators are awake. But I still worry about a design that isn't statically safe.

<comment><USER5> Chernobyl would have been safe if the operators were "awake" and doing their job.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> > A huge, naked pile of nuclear waste has sat beneath Oklo for billions of > years; why not put a bit more under the Nevada desert, in shielded canisters > no less?

Most of our nuclear waste is _nothing_ like the nuclear "waste" in Oklo [1]. The primary danger comes not from the reactor but from the enrichment process and uranium hexaflouride (UF6). During enrichment, fissile uranium atoms are extracted to make "enriched" uranium while the rest (over 90%!) of the UF6, which is very toxic and reacts with air and water to form extremely corrosive compounds, is stored in gas cylinders as "depleted" uranium.

Think about that again: we use metal gas canisters to store toxic waste, waste that reacts with some of the most abundant molecules to form more chemicals that slowly destroy the canister. Depending on how these containers are stored and maintained, the UF6 leaks into the air or, even worse, into our ground water reservoirs, taking the non-fissile but still radioactive uranium with it.

Injecting our nuclear waste into the Earth like we do carbon sequestration would be great, but we just don't have the millions of years to wait for the uranium to pass through the ground water system or the technology to figure how and where our reservoirs interconnect (or even how big most of them are). Until we do, storing waste like Oklo is just a step shy of giving everyone some old Fiesta Ware.

[1] [http://web.ead.anl.gov/uranium/](http://web.ead.anl.gov/uranium/)

<comment><USER15> [http://web.ead.anl.gov/uranium/faq/storage/faq22.cfm](http://web.ead.anl.gov/uranium/faq/storage/faq22.cfm)

It says they're busy converting the UF6 to uranium oxides as we speak. Uranium oxides are the primary uranium ore. So, what you're getting out is the same stuff that came in from the mine, but considerably _less_ radioactive (since the U235 and all the fission products (radium, etc.) have been removed).

"but we just don't have the millions of years to wait for the uranium to pass through the ground water system"

Those uranium oxides sat in the ore bodies for billions of years without causing trouble.

There are almost certainly gigantic uranium ore deposits underneath the ocean. No one is worrying about them.

<comment><USER14> That deconversion process will take another 15-20 years [1] _if_ the Paducah and Portsmouth plants are at the planned utilization, which AFAIK hasn't been true since at least the 2013 budget sequestration. Our UF6 isn't going away for another few decades.

> Those uranium oxides sat in the ore bodies for billions of years without > causing trouble.

We've found ground water that is contaminated not only by uranium from coal plant ash ponds [2], uranium mines [3], ore processing [4], and flooding [5] but from the untouched ores lining natural underground aquifers as well [6].

> There are almost certainly gigantic uranium ore deposits underneath the > ocean. No one is worrying about them.

Any ore deposit is compressed for eons under pressure that is hundreds, or thousands, of times greater than anything we experience on a day to day basis, or even at the extremes of our technology. There's a huge difference between nature's long term storage and our temporary tin cans.

[1] [http://www.nrc.gov/materials/fuel-cycle-fac/ur- deconversion....](http://www.nrc.gov/materials/fuel-cycle-fac/ur- deconversion.html)

[2] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_poisoning_in_Punjab](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_poisoning_in_Punjab)

[3] [http://www.denverpost.com/ci_14894696](http://www.denverpost.com/ci_14894696)

[4] [http://www.epa.gov/radiation/docs/tenorm/402-r-08-005-voli/4...](http://www.epa.gov/radiation/docs/tenorm/402-r-08-005-voli/402-r-08-005-v1-ch4.pdf)

[5] [http://energy.gov/lm/articles/doe-releases-data-summary- repo...](http://energy.gov/lm/articles/doe-releases-data-summary-report- groundwater-and-soil-tests-conducted)

[6] [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/08832927949...](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/088329279490037X)

<comment><USER15> "Any ore deposit is compressed for eons under pressure that is hundreds, or thousands, of times greater than anything we experience on a day to day basis"

Sorry, that's simply not true. Ore can be in any form from hard rock to sand. In fact a significant amount of uranium ore occurs as placer deposits.

Are you disputing that there are almost certainly very large uranium ore deposits on the sea floor, exposed directly to (uber corrosive!) saltwater? Why aren't you worried about those?

"There's a huge difference between nature's long term storage and our temporary tin cans."

Oh, please.

<comment><USER15> 1) There are about 4.5 _billion tons_ of uranium already in the ocean.

[http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/nuclear/nuclear-fuel-from- th...](http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/nuclear/nuclear-fuel-from-the-sea)

2\. This 4.5 _billion tons_ represents a concentration of 3.3 parts per billion.

3\. The U.S. has 470,000 tons of uranium (combined into 700,000 tons of UF6).

[http://web.ead.anl.gov/uranium/faq/storage/faq16.cfm](http://web.ead.anl.gov/uranium/faq/storage/faq16.cfm)

4\. As an exercise for the reader, figure out how much the ocean's concentration of uranium in ppb would change if we just dumped all 470,000 tons directly into the sea (i.e., the worst case scenario to end all worst case scenarios).

It's a non-issue, dude.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Would make for an interesting scify novel. What if humanity came on the scene hundreds of millions of years earlier and U235 was at 1%.

<comment><USER17> Hundreds of millions? It depends precisely what number. Terrestrial macroscopic life is barely 500mil years old and 100mil years earlier the atmosphere would have been too low in oxygen to breathe. Land animals with larger brains are rather recent too, just 250mil years or so. But that still leaves a large margin for sentient life to develop.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Steven Baxter wrote about this in his sci-fi novel Manifold:Origin. Terrific trilogy, I highly recommend them. And he's ex-NASA, so the sci (of which there's plenty) is above-par.</comment>


MagSpoof – "wireless" credit card/magstripe spoofer - <AUTHOR> http://samy.pl/magspoof/ <comment><AUTHOR> This is absolutely genius. What surprise me the most is the attitude from American Express (well, not so surprised) to say they won't fix the issue because they have other security systems in place ... without taking into consideration the fact that Samy Kamkar successfully paid with his system (spoofing his own credit card, so no harm).

(Note: I usually submit links suspecting I'm not the first one, that way I'll join the discussion, but I was surprised to not find the link, and even more surprised to see that it was not submitted yet).

<comment><USER2> My impression based on years of using credit cards is that the primary defenses against fraud are pattern matching of transactions rather than security built into the card...i.e. I get phone calls from my credit card providers when something weird happens.

My gut is that physical card features are analogous to client side validation on a web application. They solve user interface problems and reduce latency but everything still needs to be validated on the backend.</comment></comment>


For the First Time, the TSA Meets Resistance - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/10/for-the-first-time-the-tsa-meets-resistance/65390/ <comment><USER2> The pat-down is better than the machine. If my privacy is going to be invaded, I want to look the person doing it in the eyes. If I'm going to be embarassed, I want the agent embarassed too. The pat-downs are inconvenient. Systematized invasions of our most private things _should_ be inconvenient. TSA agents are going to face a torrent of complaints alleging abuse, molestation, &c. Good. The whole program is abusive.

What scares me is the faceless machine nobody cares about silently collecting naked pictures of every citizen, managed by people nobody will ever see who can never be held accountable for _anything_. You can't simply flip a switch and capture high fidelity copies of a pat-down search. You can with the machines.

Incidentally: contrary to popular opinion, security agents, law enforcement, border control, &c all very much _do_ care when complaints are filed on them. Their M.O. is that nobody takes the time to file those complaints. They're counting on people not bothering with the pat-down because the machine seems more convenient, _and_ they're counting on not dealing with a flood of complaints. I plan on filing a complaint at the first _hint_ of an off-color comment about what they're doing. "Better get new gloves, Fred!" --- "I'd like your name and your supervisor's name, now."

<comment><USER3> I feel like we need a script to recite when demanding a patdown that explains to all the people around us why the porno machines and the whole process is so objectionable. And request to have the patdown out in the open so people can see what you're willing to put up with to avoid going through the scanner.

<comment><USER4> most frequent flyers (on flyertalk) have been calling it the nude-o-scope

<comment><USER2> Why not just call it what it is? It's a strip search.

<comment><USER5> >Why not just call it what it is? It's a strip search.

Personally if they really want to see me naked they can. It's just a hunk of meat. But you're lying, it's not a strip search unless you take off your clothes, ie "strip".

It's a scan of your body. You're perfectly right to object if you don't like it but it's silly to lie about it IMO.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> So I'm just wondering, what if you're a parent flying with children? I don't have kids, so I don't know what the rules are for TSA screening of them.

To me, it sounds like as a parent you either have the choice of letting some anonymous person in another room take naked pictures of your kids, or you have to let some strange man/woman touch and grope your children until they meet 'resistance'.

In the meantime, metal detectors are in place but it seems like there's some move to phase these out. And when I have kids, if some government minimum wage flunky thinks they're going to grope my daughter or son, my wife will be posting bail for me soon thereafter.

<comment><USER2> I'm flying with my kids in a few months; my plan is to simply record the whole thing with my iPhone (you may see me in the news shortly thereafter).

If my son gets upset, I plan to tell him "this is why you're going to take trig seriously; do bad in school and you might end up with this crappy job".

The pat-down is better than the machine. Even for kids. Maybe especially for kids. If you're going to violate my kids privacy, you'd better believe I'm going to want to be in the actual room.

<comment><USER7> > If my son gets upset, I plan to tell him "this is why you're going to take > trig seriously; do bad in school and you might end up with this crappy job".

That is a horribly disrespectful thing to say in front of someone who is doing their job. Would you say something like that to a proctologist as they stuck a finger up your butt? I doubt the TSA people like this either, perhaps some will even resign over it. But that person has a job and they are doing it as they are instructed to do. That is the job they use to pay their rent and bills, so that they won't need to go on the dole and have their bills paid by your trig-savvy son.

Bitch about the policy all you want, and do what you think needs to be done to change it. But don't belittle the TSA worker, they can't change anything.

<comment><USER2> If you have the job that forces you to feel up the crotches of children in order to encourage their parents to send them through a machine that takes naked pictures of them without probable cause of having committed any crime, then I suggest you quit that job.

Are plenty of hardworking people going to have their feelings and self esteem hurt by this process? Good. Systemetized violations of our most private areas should cause all sorts of pain.

I might feel differently if these were sworn law enforcement officers we're talking about, for a number of reasons. I'm generally very respectful of law enforcement. Fortunately (or not), I'm not forced to confront that conundrum, since these aren't police officers, but low-skilled "security" contractors whose sole purpose is to harass citizens in order to create the illusion of control.

By the way, in the history of all-time worst rationalizations for behavior, do we even need to talk about "that person has a job and they are doing it as they are instructed to do"?

<comment><USER8> >If you have the job that forces you to feel up the crotches of children in order to encourage their parents to send them through a machine that takes naked pictures of them without probable cause of having committed any crime, then I suggest you quit that job.

 _Thank you for making my day._ That is all.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The situation with TSA is becoming more farcical by the week.

I keep waiting for some grownup to stand up and put some limits on what's acceptable for them to do, but then I realize that there basically is no limit. Nobody wants to be the person that stops this runaway train.

It's enough to make me seriously consider whether I want to use commercial air travel again.

<comment><USER10> I would love to stand up to it, but I'd really just rather get to my vacation place. If it didn't cost several hundred dollars for a plane ticket to get to that point, I would just drive down to the airport and do it. I guess we could all print fake boarding passes, though.

<comment><USER11> They came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me and by that time no one was left to speak up.

 _Martin Niemöller_

<comment><USER12> That's a quote about discrimination. I don't see how it applies; we are all being discriminated against equally in this case.

<comment><USER11> It's a quote about standing up to tyranny, and the fact that if you don't speak up when someone else is discriminated against you may be next in line.

I think it applies very well in this case.

<comment><USER13> It's a quote about slippery slopes that uses discrimination as an example. As is popular with that quote, we could adapt it into something a bit more applicable:

They first made us run our shoes through the X-Ray machine, and I complied because it wasn't that big a deal.

Then, they installed the full-body scanners, and I complied because I just wanted to get home for Christmas.

Then, they started requiring social security numbers when buying plane tickets.

Then, they began keeping all air travellers' fingerprints and retina scans on file...

The question is not against whom they're discriminating (clearly, that's not applicable in this case), it's to what length they (and, by extension, we) are willing to go.

<comment><USER14> While you're slippery slope description is entirely valid on it's own. It's not the gist of the quote.

This is about apathy towards injustices that don't directly impact you and a lack of foresight. I.e. Wow that's so wrong, I'd raise a stink if it happened to me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> The pat down vs. backscatter machine issue is interesting because it opens up so many avenues for nonviolent resistance (most of which would be far more effective if you got a bunch of people together to do it all at once at one major airport):

1\. If your kids go through the machine, loudly accuse the TSA of child pornography. If your kids go through the patdown, loudly accuse the TSA of child molestation. (If you have a suitably eccentric or sympathetic local law enforcement head, like a county sheriff, this might be the way to go, but there's probably some sort of federal immunity against actual prosecution.)

2\. Upon entering security, strip completely naked.

3\. Opt for the pat down and take a dive, claiming the screener hurt your testicles.

4\. Opt for the pat down; pretend to enjoy it.

Note that, like most forms of nonviolent resistance, many of these can get you arrested or at least stop you from making your flight. Getting arrested to make a point is a proud tradition, however. And unlike a mere protest, these kinds of actions can sabotage the TSA or potentially cripple air travel if you get a large enough coordinated protest.

<comment><USER16> Jesus, guys, this is supposed to be a startup forum. Just create and sell aluminum underwear, you'll make a killing and what are they going to do? Outlaw underwear, or force you to take it off?

<comment><USER17> Realistically? Once they see that the strip search machine isn't working on you, they'll go for a pat-down. What you really need is an aluminum codpiece. Preferably one with the phrase "What now, bitches?" engraved on it.

You'd probably be arrested out of sheer spite, but just think of all the blog pageviews you would get later! Add enough advertising and try to create secondary drama with some followup letters to the TSA, and you could make a fair amount of money with just audacity and a metal codpiece.

<comment><USER18> > You'd probably be arrested out of sheer spite

You're probably right, and this makes me very sad. For all the supposed rights US citizens fight to defend, both the TSA workers and air travelers are just rolling over at the threat of being called a "terrorist".

Keeping the public terrified makes for easy prey.

<comment><USER19> What we need, then, is a dedicated civil disobedience campaign against it. If just one person does it, it ruins their day, week, or even several months dealing with the court battles. If 100 people do an act of civil disobedience, it becomes a movement; it might make some more significant news, attract some more significant attention.

If a thousand, or ten thousand people engage in civil disobedience, it starts to put a real strain on the system. It overwhelms the TSA. The court costs become prohibitive.

Why do we have so many people going to a rally in DC that won't really do anything (rallys almost never do)? And most of them will likely meekly go through security, without a fuss, on their way there. Why don't we instead organize 10,000 people to take a flight on the same day, and all wear aluminum jock straps and bras, or strip nude as they go through security? This would demonstrate how ridiculous the system is; this would help overburden an already overly expensive system to the point of breaking.

But of course, it's easy to talk tough on the internet, and a lot harder to get people to actually do anything. We all have our jobs to do, families to support. We have rallies for "truthiness" to go to. Or some of us don't even know where to start; don't know how to assemble such a group, and get them to follow through with it.

But perhaps we should put all that aside for freedom's sake, and go out, and disobey authority in a civil manner; it's our country, and we need to take it back.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> It's hard to put into words how insane these are. Is the TSA merely a jobs program? Are the devices just corporate welfare? Is there an actual concerted effort by the inner party (who ride in carriages--private jets) to psychologically subjugate the middle class? Are policy makers _actually under the impression_ that these are good rather than evil/ridiculous/unAmerican/insane? (???) Really? I mean, what is the simplest way to prevent another 9/11? Steel cockpit doors and a communications shutoff between cockpit and everything outside. No physical threats possible = no terrorism. Problem solved.

But of course, terrorism isn't actually a problem and never was.

<comment><USER21> _I mean, what is the simplest way to prevent another 9/11? Steel cockpit doors and a communications shutoff between cockpit and everything outside._

Well you've still got the bomb-on-plane problem, which is what the latest three rounds of security increases have been in response to -- there was the shoe bomber, and then the liquid-mixture plot, and then the underpants bomber.

You'll note that none of these plots worked. Why? Because they were increasingly shitty bombs. Why were they increasingly shitty bombs? Because they've been progressively closing loopholes. The underpants bomber might have been successful if he were shoe bomber number two, but he wasn't, because the bomb-in-shoe loophole has been closed.

People like to use the words "security theater" a lot because it makes them feel clever, and yes, the TSA like any government department has its own particular forms of insanity. But there's _actual_ security accomplished there too. In the 1980s it was possible to sneak a 747-destroying bomb into a plane in a suitcase... now they're reduced to sticking dynamite up their butts.

Also, communications shutoff between the cockpit and outside is crazy. What happens when there's a medical emergency onboard? Let 'em die because the pilots aren't allowed to know about anything that happens in the passenger cabin?

<comment><USER22> > You'll note that none of these plots worked. Why? Because they were > increasingly shitty bombs.

At the risk of the FBI stashing a tracking beacon in my car (ha! I don't even have a car!) I'm going to take your bait.

Richard Reid's bomb didn't fail because he had to hide it in his shoe, rather than doing the ol' Ramzi Yousef "hide it in the life jacket routine." Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab didn't fail because he had explosives shoved down his shorts.

They failed because they were untrained. These guys displayed a Carlos the Jackal level of buffoonery in their conduct. The July 21nd attackers didn't fail because of the crack police work that went on to murder Jean Charles de Menezes. They failed because they were too stupid to build bombs. (Who would want to target Hackney anyway? It's just a bunch of tyre shops and fish & chips.)

For the most part, people who want to do us harm aren't particularly smart. Bright people tend to have more opportunities in life and are less to see that all go up in a puff of smoke. Of the 9/11 hijackers, only one had a girlfriend. Atta was a trained architect, but for the most part they were a bunch of college dropouts. We aren't faced with some "evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds," we're faced with a bunch of bumbling fools with nothing better to do than kill themselves.

Look at the Aum Shinrikyo sarin attack. They had a deadly neurotoxin that they saw fit to unleash with pointy umbrellas and newspaper rolls. Good job team, way to unleash your crazy new age apocalypse.

It isn't a matter of loopholes getting closed. Attackers are simply dumb. Really dumb.

<comment><USER23> At least there are enough security against dumb attackers.

<comment><USER22> No.

Did you notice the part where some idiot smuggled plastic explosives on board a plane in his underwear? Security failed in this situation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I am wondering how long it is before people who like to get felt up are using this as there way to get their jollies.

I'm also wondering how long it before someone sues the TSA for improperly touching them (too long, suggestively, etc.) or for injuring them (moving too fast and bumping the resistance).

Edit: I hadn't even considered that maybe people who like to feel others up with sign up to work for the TSA

</comment><comment><USER25> I just called my congressman and senators. If you disagree with what the TSA is doing, I suggest you do the same.

<comment><USER26> Senators are Congressmen. Did you mean your representatives?

<comment><USER27> Actually, by convention, Congressman or Congresswoman refers to the Representatives only.

<comment><USER26> Congressman, n. A man who is a member of the U.S. Congress, especially of the House of Representatives.

<http://www.thefreedictionary.com/congressman>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> On the plus side, you can finally (kind of) make a stand against all of this security theater by opting for the pat-down:

I'm not the one who has to touch some else's testicles. You want screen me? Then you have to do the dirty work.

</comment><comment><USER29> It has been nearly 12 years since I've visited the US. I was hoping to go there in 2003 but unfortunately the TSA and DHS put a stop to that. I've made a conscious decision that I do not want to go to the United States if I'm going to be treated that way. As beautiful and wonderful the country and it's people are, it boils down to a choice. Either you're happy being subject to what in anywhere else would qualify as sexual assault or taking pornographic pictures, or you don't go. I choose not to go.

Should all of this end I would love to go to New York, San Francisco, LA and the many other wonderful places in the USA, but until then I'm not happy to go. The only thing that would get me there would be specific unavoidable business.

However, I would like to thank the TSA and DHS for the opportunities I have had to visit all over Canada (another great North American country with great people) and I'm hoping to hit the Carribean and Mexico next year.

It's a definite loss for me that I may never return to the US, but I have to make a stand somewhere.

<comment><USER30> I pretty much feel the same as you, I would like to go to America but to me it's just not worth going through an American airport. The alternative ive come up with is to fly to Canada or Mexico and then drive into America where (as far as I know) there aren't these scanners.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> This isn't the kind of freedom I served my country for.

If this article is true, it's a highly-disturbing downfall for American civil liberties.

</comment><comment><USER32> For kicks, a little while ago, I refused one of these machines (you can't really cause a "ruckus" too often when flying for work).

The guy just shrugged, gave me a quick pat down and let me through. I'd say about 30% of the people took the same option and received the same treatment. Same every time since I've that I've been through.

But the last time one guy made a big deal of how invasive the machine was (not rude, just loud about his refusal) and got the works (well, a rough pat down and then taken to one side). Obviously, this is a different case, he was just joking around with them. But I imagine this could easily have been a different story if one of the TSA officers couldn't handle a bit of humour (all too common, sadly).

Just saying.

These machines are a real problem for our privacy/society. But all the "horror" stories (not so much this one) we are seeing are mostly the result of people making a fuss, and getting rough treatment.

We should just refuse these, politely and quietly, and at such a volume all they can do is what they have done previously; give us a pat down.

Fortunately it looks like the UK air services are "rebelling" somewhat against "draconian security measures". It's not 100% certain what they are talking about, but I got the impression this covered resisting the spread of these machines in the UK.

Which makes a change :)

<comment><USER2> I said the same thing a few weeks ago. Unfortunately, the story you're commenting on provides context that invalidates that point: the TSA has stepped up the intrusiveness of the "opt-out" pat-downs. According to Jeffrey Goldberg, who is _probably_ not making this up, they are deliberately touching people's crotches in an effort to discourage people from taking the pat-down.

<comment><USER33> Fortunately, this sort of thing tends to attract the wrong kind of attention after a while. When enough people find your behaviour offensive enough, they will stop using your service. That will hit your bottom line, and that will make it bad for business.

Maybe most people will tolerate this kind of abuse even if they don't like it, but even running 90% full planes instead of 100% is a serious dent in your profits in this sort of industry. Sadly, I suspect the comments by the various air industry executives in the UK over the past week or so are motivated more by falling profits than any ethical problem with these devices, but if the end result is the same in practice, I welcome their opposition anyway.

Also, as someone pointed out on (I think) the BBC News story about those comments, it is not exactly in the airlines' interests to have their planes blown up. If we assume that the executives at such businesses are at least reasonably aware of the real effectiveness of these security measures, the fact that they are still now openly saying things have gone too far is quite telling.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> The dangerous thing about security theatre is that it distracts resources and personnel away from the things that would actually improve security, in the interests of PR and cosmetics based on inconveniencing the non-terrorists.

As the author points out, detailed background checks would be far more effective than either looking at or touching people's privates.

<comment><USER35> But would it be less of an invasion of our privacy?

<comment><USER34> Yes. Simple background checks based on public records and customer history / credit checks are things that we already accept every time we deal with any financial institution or government agency. A programmatic check would exclude the vast majority of travellers as potential terrorists. And manual inspection by a junior intelligence analyst most of the rest, leaving senior analysts to evaluate more serious threat cases.

That would be far less intrusive and far less invasive a procedure than violating the physical privacy of very many and in some cases every traveller, which is where this is already heading at several major airports.

<comment><USER36> Hmm.. You mean like "Your dad is from Egypt, let's put a gps sender on your car and treat you 'special' at the airport from now on, since our background check thinks you're part of the target group"?

Seriously, how would a background check work? What are you looking for? Ethnic background obviously would be the biggest failure (although still done, see above). Credit history? Police records (international? Good luck with that)?

Either you disclose what you are looking at and "the bad guys" can trick your check. Or you don't and you're back on the security by obscurity road, doing "arbitrary" (to the public) things, annoying probably just as much.

I think this idea is just as flawed as the current procedure. And I surely hope no one is starting something like that, since this whole security BS seems like a race of arms to me lately..

<comment><USER34> You need to take an exclusion approach. Most passengers on US air flights have clearly established records. If you can take the majority of people out of the current overkill security theatre, that means they can go through standard- level security queues quickly (note no one is proposing dropping security here). I dread standing in the densely packed security lines at DIA. A single suicide bomber could kill several hundred people on a busy day there without ever passing a security checkpoint (as the author points out this is now the bigger risk). If you can reduce the number of people who need to remove shoes, liquids and have back-scatter and pat-downs to a small minority, then everyone will be safer. I'm a libertarian (in the Jefferson sense). But I agree to reasonable security checks voluntarily by choosing to fly. But invasion of privacy has gone too far when someone makes me walk through a Dick Measuring Machine or is "meeting resistance" for the sake of public relations theatre.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> _the coiled, closely packed lines at TSA screening sites are the most dangerous places in airports, completely unprotected from a terrorist attack -- a terrorist attack that would serve the same purpose (shutting down air travel) as an attack on board an aircraft._

I don't think this is true. The purpose of terrorism is to spread fear, the killing is only a byproduct. The reason hijackings and bombs on planes are so effective is that many people already fear planetrips. You're caught in a tin can that intuitively should drop to the ground instead of flying through the air ten kilometers above the ground with no way of getting out. The thought of a crazy guy with a bomb in his pants just waiting to detonate it makes the experience absolutely terrifying to a lot of people. They'll think about it every time the get on a plane even though the chance of dying in a terrorist attack is close to zero.

<comment><USER37> The IRA managed to cause plenty of fear by bombing shops and train stations. From Wikipedia:

The Troubles' impact on the ordinary people of Northern Ireland produced such psychological trauma that the city of Belfast had been compared to London during the Blitz. [104] The stress resulting from bomb attacks, street disturbances, security checkpoints, and the constant military presence had the strongest effect on children and young adults. [105] In addition to the violence and intimidation, there was chronic unemployment and a severe housing shortage. Vandalism was also a major problem. In the 1970s there were 10,000 vandalised empty houses in Belfast alone. Most of the vandals were aged between eight and thirteen. [106] Activities for young people were limited, with pubs fortified and cinemas closed. Just to go shopping in the city centre required passing through security gates and being subjected to body searches.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> How far out to sea does one have to be for the TSA to not have jurisdiction? Has anyone thought of an airline that ferrys passengers out to a ship off the coast and the airplanes take off from there?

How much does an aircraft carrier cost? It seems this would be extremely expensive, but then, airplanes themselves are extremely expensive so it kind of comes with the territory. But I wonder if we're talking orders of magnitude higher costs.

Not sure how crazy of an idea this is; it came to mind and I figured I'd throw it out there. :)

<comment><USER39> I think the length of runway required to get a 747 off the ground would make this prohibitive (as if the cost of an aircraft carrier didn't already). _Nimitz_ class carriers are just over 1,000 ft in length. A quick Google search reveals that a 747 needs about 6x that for safe takeoff/landing.

<comment><USER38> Yeah, turns out the cost is also more than an order of magnitude- an aircraft carrier is somewhere in the high single digit billions of dollars, where as your jumbo jet is in the hundreds of millions....

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> Now that the feds have the legal right to grope everyone's testicles and vagina without a warrant, this is a pretty good job for pedophiles and perverts to take. If you are a pedophile or pervert, where else do you have not just the legal right but the obligation to grope the sexual parts of the general public and be called a hero for doing so.

<comment><USER41> Not many people calling them heros here...

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> EPIC is fighting the machines in court and online.

They have an incident report page:

<http://epic.org/bodyscanner/incident_report/>

<comment><USER42> Check out their "Stop Whole Body Imaging" page as well:

<http://www.stopdigitalstripsearches.org/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> The whole thing seems highly creepy. I suspect that the advanced pat downs will eventually be removed and there will be no option but to go through the machine, because the prospect of some member of airport staff doing advanced pat downs on children has obviously dodgy implications which could attract lawsuits and some very unpleasant job applicants.

As the article says, a determined terrorist will get through either of these procedures anyhow.

</comment><comment><USER44> I was hoping this was going to be an article about backlash, or a new approach to security screening.

Instead, Resistance was literally a euphemism for the author's penis.

<comment><USER45> > Instead, Resistance was literally a euphemism for the author's penis.

I was under the impression it was his testicles.

From the article: 'That's funny," I said, "because 'The Resistance' is the actual name I've given to my testicles."

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> I always opt-out of the back-scatter machine, and none of the TSA officers at SFO or BOS have ever seemed to think it anything out of the ordinary. The impression I've gotten is that they see the two methods (pat-down and back- scatter) as relatively interchangeable, though the former is obviously more inconvenient for them.

<comment><USER2> They already have to do the pat-down for anyone who trips up the machines (or who can't, for instance because of implants or a wheelchair).

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> If you want to upset the guard and if your ego can handle it, flirt with the security. As he pats you down, a little grunt and a roll of the shoulders as if involuntary. If you can manage it, a big smile and a wink when he finishes it so that his colleagues can see.

Getting angry or offended will cause them to get aggressive in response, and they have procedures in place to deal with that. They almost certainly don't have a procedure in place for making them feel like they've just taken part in a little gay fondling.

</comment><comment><USER48> Cue fond personal memories of living in South Africa in the 80s...

Used to be so bad you made sure to not wear jeans&t-shirt if you were going to fly just so you didn't get pulled off the line by the Uzi wielding thugs and miss your flight.

Then they freed the great terrorist Nelson.

Yeah, that's right... Here in .za we felt exactly the same way about him as you yanks do about the great terrorist Osama.

Fast forward sixteen years later and guns are rarely visible in the airport, check-in is smooth as silk (though we seem to have inherited the idiocy with the water bottles from you) and the last time anything got blown up here was when I forgot an aubergine in the oven for too long.

They're having y'all on. The thing with tyranny is that until someone says "no thank you" it grinds on relentlessly becoming more and more expensive to stop with each passing year.

<comment><USER49> > Yeah, that's right... Here in .za we felt exactly the same way about him as > you yanks do about the great terrorist Osama.

"We" being who, exactly?

<comment><USER48> Us middle class white folk who didn't understand what all the fuss was really about till years later.

<comment><USER49> So... the folks who benefited from apartheid don't much like Nelson Mandela? That's /shocking/.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> According to ABC News [1], these new "pat-downs" will not likely prevent someone like the Underwear Bomber from boarding.

1: [http://abcnews.go.com/WN/tsa-pat-procedure- airports/story?id...](http://abcnews.go.com/WN/tsa-pat-procedure- airports/story?id=11998304&page=2)

</comment><comment><USER51> * ... because the coiled, closely packed lines at TSA screening sites are the most dangerous places in airports, completely unprotected from a terrorist attack -- a terrorist attack that would serve the same purpose (shutting down air travel) as an attack on board an aircraft.*

This is a good point, but I don't completely agree with it. If terrorists can smuggle a bomb on board an airplane, they can probably smuggle tools on board that will allow them to break into the cockpit. Then (as we've seen), the plane itself can be used as a very large bomb. (Note that I am not venturing an opinion on whether backscatter imagers are a solution to this problem or whether the invasion of privacy is worth it even if they are.)

<comment><USER2> In the history of air travel has anybody ever breached a secured airplane cockpit (of any sort?).

To the extent that we're concerned about the security of cockpits, maybe our efforts are best directed towards better cockpit doors instead of strip-search machines.

<comment><USER52> United Airlines Flight 93.

<comment><USER2> The cockpit doors on UA93 were not reinforced.

<comment><USER52> I'm assuming "in the history of air travel" means "ever" not "since we started reinforcing them."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> I have a prosthetic leg, so I've been getting the secondary screening (i.e. pat-downs, bomb wipes, and wanding) for years. It's invasive, but the TSA agents don't grope your genitals. They don't even touch them. In fact, they're usually shy about touching "sensitive areas" (most of the inner thigh remains unexplored), and sometimes bordering on apologetic.

I get that every single time I fly, and even so, I would never opt for a backscatter machine. It's far more invasive. Having been through dozens of patdowns, I feel pretty sure that someone looking at a naked picture of me is a worse option.

<comment><USER54> The point of the linked article is that this is changing, and the TSA agents are now instructed to grope your genitals.

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> _(Not-so-farfetched) conspiracy theory alert_

This has new policy hit a wall with the press and has gotten nothing by negative writeups. When it was announced, I made a statement, as did many others, that there would very soon be an "incident" that would let this cure. That appears to be happening right now with this worldwide blitz on Yemeni packages. One and done.

Two things here are very unfortunate:

1\. This is one of those huge media events that take all the front page space and interrupt network programming. It's going to instil fear in some population and give merit to the security theater.

2\. Interestingly, given that this is supposedly cargo, we're still not talking about systematically scrutinizing cargo. Even so, in a political context, I don't think anyone is going to sufficiently separate the two. Right now, the big lines are _Richard Reid_ and _Christmas Day Bomber_.

No matter what happens now--letters to Congress, TSA abuse reports, journalistic stunts--I fully expect to get my bread buttered at the airport.

One more thing: there's a good post on the front page about incentives. How about a tax break for fondling or photo shoot on has to endure? Let's provide disincentives for the Fed to keep this up.

<comment><USER2> That is a far-fetched conspiracy, especially compared to the direct, obvious, immediate tactical simplicity of "send crazy shit to the US to make them overreact at great cost to themselves" for terrorist groups.

<comment><USER55> Really? You don't think governments pull PR stunts too?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> I sometimes wonder: say we removed all of security controls at the airports - how many more terrorist attacks would we actually see?

</comment><comment><USER12> You know, I have a hard time caring much about this issue. I'm just not that attached to the privacy of my clothing. I'm no stripper/streaker, but so what if somebody sees me with my clothes off? They certainly won't be the first, or the last.

Hell, it's just a little extra incentive to keep myself healthy, so I look good when I go through ;)

<comment><USER57> You are missing the point. This debate is about freedom and dignity, and not having to cow naked before government agents to simply take a domestic flight.

With these machines, America is less free.

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> What about trans-gender passengers? Will they bar a women with a penis from boarding her flight because she "seems to have a fake explosive penis between her legs". SFO is going to go down with this ;-)

</comment><comment><USER59> Why not just opt out of TSA all together? Take a car, bus or train, and enjoy getting there. Or better yet for non-Americans, just don't visit the U.S.A. Problem solved.

<comment><USER60> I live in Hawaii.

<comment><USER59> Hm. Google maps suggests you take up kayaking.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> Just donated $100 to EPIC's <http://www.stopdigitalstripsearches.org/> . Especially motivated by tptacek and bugsy's comments. If you find the choice between having your children sexually assaulted or digitally strip searched repugnant, I strongly urge you to donate as well. How can we even say "land of the free, home of the brave" with a straight face anymore?

<comment><USER61> I am totally against this increase in security because it's unnecessary and gives a security agency the idea that it has undue power over the people. However, I honestly don't understand why so many people are so pissed off at getting touched or seen. I feel like I'm comfortable with my sexuality and the nature of the invasiveness is a nonissue, it's merely the fact that it's escalated _again_.

</comment></comment><comment><USER62> This article gets my up-vote just for his joke about calling his testicles "The Resistance" ala "The Situation" on Jersey Shore. I needed a good chuckle today.

</comment><comment><USER63> If I ever encounter a backscatter device, I'll ask for the frisk. Hey, I'm not the one who's gotta grope some stranger's junk.

</comment><comment><USER64> This will lead to the development of the testicular explosive, which goes off once the device is manhandled.

</comment><comment><USER65> I wonder what gandhi would have to say/do on this.

<comment><USER49> I suspect he'd just walk.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> As good as this article is, the reason I'm most glad I read it is for its link to his other article ([http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/11/the- thin...](http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/11/the-things-he- carried/7057/1/))

In my experience, one of the most illogical things is the difference in security in different countries. Back when I bought a Zippo lighter for the first time I flew from London to Paris. On the way out, I packed the Zippo in my suitcase, and just kept a disposable lighter in my pocket. As they let me keep it, on the way back I kept the Zippo in my pocket and was once again allowed to keep it. The following week, a return flight to Berlin, and on the way back the Germans confiscated the Zippo. It pissed me off, naturally, but just seems stupid - the same flight, with the same two cities at each end, and different rules for what you can take on depending on which direction you're going.

I've also noticed that security officers in America are much more friendly than pretty much any country I've been to in Europe or Asia. I was flying from London last year with a colleague, and while he was being patted down after the scanner beeped at him, I thought to myself that we had a few hours to kill, so decided to make a slightly stupid comment... "Is that a gun in your pocket or are you just pleased to see me?" Yeah, that cost us about an hour. Sure, they were probably right to double check after that, but for sure they were, after a short time, just delaying us to piss us off.

Flew out to LA a few weeks ago, and on arrival myself and three colleagues are waiting, having picked up are checked baggage, for the security screening. Three of us, a few places being our fourth in the line, look at each other and say "yeah, he's definitely going to get stopped." Sure enough, he was (he was wearing a black tshirt with a skull and crossbones on, a beanie hat, and carrying a sports holdall that looked, even to us, like it must surely contain drugs.) Being the idiot he is, when they pulled him over for a bag search he immediately said "I'm with them!" and pointed - we were immediately taken to one side, too.

However, the officer searching our bags was incredibly friendly. Asked about what we were doing in LA, but took in to a level beyond the "look for suspiciousness" concept, continuing a 15 minute conversation about various things from what we were doing to video games (related to our time there), what games he liked, etc. Having not found anything really problematic, he did tell me that I had twice the limit of cigarettes I was allowed to bring in to the country (I had 400 with me from the duty-free, for my two weeks out there) - just told me that he was supposed to confiscate and fine me, but would let me off. (This was pretty lucky - I had known the limit but decided to take the risk, given $3/pack duty-free or $12+/pack in NYC.) That kind of friendliness would never be shown (in my experience) by UK staff, or any other country I've visited.

<comment><USER47> One anecdote to counter yours: when I came into Glasgow about 6 years ago, I had a few bottles of vodka with me - you're only allowed one. I asked a member of staff about it and he just said don't do it again, and waved me through.

On the other hand, the only place that I've had trouble with my passport (it was kid of dog-eared at the end of its life) was also Glasgow. It depends which security officer you get.

<comment><USER41> <Insert typical English joke about Scottish people and alcohol>

<comment><USER47> You know, if you're going to play on stereotypes, you could actually amuse us with a real joke.

<comment><USER41> Something about deep-frying perhaps? (Sorry)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER66> For the problems discussed in this thread, we in the US and in this thread are failing to get a solution due heavily to our forgetting some crucial points.

In a little more detail, we already have plenty of _policy precedents_ to solve this whole problem of airport security, terrorism via airplanes, and terrorism in the US and against the US and to do so without the TSA or the DHS at all.

In particular, there is the issue in this thread of infinite or some finite but large number number of ways a terrorist can attack us so that blocking each way after an instance of that way is unpromising, even in the long run. Well, we can get the infinite or large number down to just a few, maybe just one or zero, right away.

So, with this background, we can get to the _policy_ we need in just two steps:

Step One. For a _policy precedent_ , we can remember the "Bush doctrine" as in

September 11, 2001

Statement by the President in His Address to the Nation

8:30 P.M. EDT

as at

[http://georgewbush- whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/200...](http://georgewbush- whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2001/09/print/20010911-16.html)

"We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them."

With more there is, also by President George W. Bush,

September 20, 2001

Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People

9:00 P.M. EDT

as at

[http://georgewbush- whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/200...](http://georgewbush- whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2001/09/print/20010920-8.html)

with

"And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (Applause.) From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."

Step Two. We need only to regard an act of terrorism against the US as an _act of war_ against the US. We have plenty of _policy precedents_ about war.

Then the policy we need is simple:

We don't defend against the attacks and, instead, retaliate against them and, thus, _deter_ future attacks.

With appropriate retaliation, we stand to need to retaliate against at most just a few, maybe just one or zero, attacks before all this nonsense of terrorism against the US just stops, at least for some decades.

So, here is how we "retaliate" and, thus, deter: After each attack, we find the countries the terrorists came from, much as in "The Bush Doctrine" say that each such country committed an act of war against the US, declare war against that country, and _win_ the war quickly. As soon as we discover an offending country, we make them "an offer they can't refuse": They pay horrendous reparations, e.g., that more than cover the current annual costs to the US of our present approach to airline security and of the DHS, etc. or we will level their government and most of their economic infrastructure within 24 hours, accepting _collateral damage_ as a necessary part of war. And we are not joking. And, yes, "All cards are on the table.". We still have the SSBNs, ICBMs, B2s, and aircraft carriers, and no Muslim country has anything like any of these or any means at all to defend against them.

We don't attempt to _build a democracy_ in their country, don't _occupy_ their country, and, really, don't even set foot in their country.

We will have to destroy at most only a few sh!tpit countries.

All the other relevant countries will make sure that anyone in their country, citizen or visitor, who even jokes about Jihad, gets a big crowd shouting "Death to America" (sounds like a declaration of war to me), etc. will be _effectively re-educated_ , jailed, or just killed, maybe with their families, villages, etc. Wackozerostan with the Taliban? Level it, nearly all of it. Now. Further problems with Pashtun and Taliban in Pukistan? Same treatment.

There are several pieces of good news for us here:

(A) This terrorism stuff is essentially ONLY Muslim Jihad nonsense. Our policy will have the effect of turning Islam back into just a peaceful religion instead of some international, take over the world, political and military effort. We won't have to have our HUMINT recording and reviewing Mullah speeches because the local government will eagerly, as in we made them "an offer they can't refuse", do that for us.

Just what is it about Islam actually being a "peaceful religion" the Muslim leaders won't be able to understand, e.g., after we level, really, take back to the Stone Age, Wackozerostan?

The story goes that recently Hamid Karzai gave to Pervez Musharraf names, titles, addresses, and phone numbers of the Jihader leaders in Wackozerostan. Of course, Musharraf did nothing. So, we know what, who, and where the Jihader leaders are. So, kill'em.

UBL? There are stories that he is still alive and in Pukistan near the border with China and, also, the main source of funds for the Taliban military efforts. So, find UBL and kill him. "That's what the bullets are for, you twit."

Some Jihaders in India blew up a train. Supposedly some Hindus went to a Muslim neighborhood and devastated it and then leveled about 200 mosques. We could learn a lesson about what such people regard as "effective". Pretty? No. Strong enough? Maybe. So, for the US, one neighborhood and 200 mosques would be 201 GPS coordinates and maybe 201 cruise missiles. Easy enough, but we could do MUCH more.

(B) The Muslim Jihaders have only really crude means of making war, which is NOT a reason for us not to retaliate, effectively.

(C) There only a few countries that want to entertain Muslim Jihaders and, thus, only a few countries we will have to level or deter.

(D) None of the Muslim countries can defend against being leveled by the US within 24 hours.

(E) Our main problem is just that we are too eager to _be nice_ , to mess up our own economy to _be nice_ , and to be reluctant to take the retaliation we are fully able to take.

As of just the last few days, near the top of the list is Yemen. Level it. Good riddance.

It's time to put a stop to this Jihad nonsense. Quickly. Period.

This Jihad terrorism is just war by another means. We in the US know a LOT about war; we're the unchallenged world champions at both offensive and defensive means of war; we are fully able to defend ourselves against the Jihad variety of war also.

What we need to do is just a matter of defending ourselves. I'm sorry about war, but the Jihaders are making war against us; so, we need to defend ourselves.

"Collateral damage"? That's what the Jihaders are doing to us. Collateral damage is part of war, certainly part of theirs, and now has to be part of ours. Otherwise we are back into letting Imams and Mullahs "hijack" a religion and turn it into an international political and military effort, mess up the US economy, kill Americans, and grow the international and military power of Islam. That the Jihaders are making war against us is their fault. If we let them continue without effectively defending ourselves, then that's our fault. We should not continue to let our suffering be our fault.

"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

It's time for the US to stop being fooled. Being so nice to them is NOT making them be nice to us. The Imams and Mullahs sending out Jihaders want POWER and are quite willing not to be nice about it.

War is ugly. The only good response to war is to win it, and the usual way is by killing the enemy. Sorry 'bout that, but it's better that we win than lose.

Net, the Imams, Mullahs, and their Jihaders will just continue on with their outrageous nonsense until they are stopped by some sufficiently effective means. Since they have been declaring and making war on us for some years, we need to stop them and to do so better now than later.

If none of the above _policy precedents_ convinces you, then we can return to some of the content of this thread: You will have to have your daughters groped by strangers, photographed in the nude and studied by strangers, and eventually _cavity searched_ by strangers and where there is no effective guarantee of any _clinical_ professionalism or privacy and no effective means of defense or retribution. Yes, the groper might have just gotten HIV on their glove and then given the virus to your daughter. Are you ready to defend the US now?

</comment><comment><USER67> one doesn't need to be a psychologist to see author's fixation on "something up the ass"

<comment><USER15> He seemed a little more interested in something up the vagina, if that makes you feel any better.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> _the coiled, closely packed lines at TSA screening sites are the most dangerous places in airports, completely unprotected from a terrorist attack -- a terrorist attack that would serve the same purpose (shutting down air travel) as an attack on board an aircraft._

I really wish people would stop pointing this out. Yes, it's probably true, the TSA screening site is a soft juicy target. Yes, you're very clever for pointing it out. Now pipe down about it before you give someone some ideas.

<comment><USER68> But that's the point, it's not clever. It's blindingly obvious, virtually impossible to stop, and it hasn't happened. So terrorists are either incredibly stupid or extremely rare. Either case suggests that we are spending way too much in both money and freedom defending against the alleged threat.

<comment><USER69> I guess we'll have to start screening people before they get in the line, then.</comment></comment></comment>


Standalone Free Chapter from "Tensorflow for Machine Intelligence" - <AUTHOR> https://gumroad.com/l/ORjB <comment><AUTHOR> I had the opportunity to review it early and it was exactly what I was looking for to get started with Tensorflow.

</comment><comment><USER2> One of the authors here- let me know if you have any questions about the book (or TensorFlow in general)!

<comment><USER3> With someone that has little knowledge of Machine learning and TensorFlow will this book help me learn about them?</comment></comment>


'I write fake news that gets shared on Facebook'beat - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/37992793/i-write-fake-news-that-gets-shared-on-facebook <comment><AUTHOR> tl;dr Facebook seems to want to ban The Onion

I don't get it</comment>


Google search results listings can be manipulated for propaganda - <AUTHOR> https://www.zdnet.com/article/google-search-results-listings-can-be-manipulated-for-propaganda/ <comment><USER2> this sort of approach would be my choice, too bad we cant downvote google now right off the net, it seems to work for "other things"

[https://www.knowyourmobile.com/apps/google-now/22800/how- you...](https://www.knowyourmobile.com/apps/google-now/22800/how-you-disable- google-now)</comment>


Statistics of the Universe: Exa-Calculations and Cosmology's Data Deluge [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://on-demand.gputechconf.com/gtc/2015/presentation/S5509-Deborah-Bard-Matthew-Bellis.pdf <comment><USER2> Url changed from [http://on-demand-gtc.gputechconf.com/gtc- quicklink/7lMw30#st...](http://on-demand-gtc.gputechconf.com/gtc- quicklink/7lMw30#sthash.QiIgvkcE.dpuf), which points to this.</comment>


Randy Pausch Last Lecture: Achieving Your Childhood Dreams (2007) - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ji5_MqicxSo <comment><USER2> As an EE undergrad at UVa in the early 90s, I was fascinated by all things virtual reality. Someone suggested I go meet with this rising star prof, Randy Pausch, who was doing some very interesting work in the field. I was fortunate to hang out with him and his grad students for about a semester, getting exposed to 3D graphics and 3D paint programs, 3D spaces, the VPL glove, SGI machines. It was, for lack of a better word, magical. Many years later, I heard about the last lecture and was sad to hear it was the very same prof I knew. I realized how many of the ideas and technologies I was exposed to back then had become very real many years later.

</comment><comment><USER3> If you like the lecture or/and the book, you'll probably want to read the transcript for the session he did on time management [http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/Randy/TMenglishTranscript...](http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/Randy/TMenglishTranscript.pdf)

<comment><USER4> There is also a video of that lecture too - [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTugjssqOT0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTugjssqOT0)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Still one of my favorite lectures I've watched online of all time. Highly recommend the book as well for those that haven't read it.

<comment><AUTHOR> I found The Last Lecture while looking for a motivational book to gift my brother. Do you think a 14yo could appreciate Randy's writings? I'd like to instill him with a sense of perseverance, responsibility and long-term vision.

<comment><USER6> Similiar to other posters, I read this book in middle school and found it a great inspiration then.

I actually at the time got really big in to Alice[1] a gui based programming environment Pausch pioneered and it led to a lot of my earlier computing experiences.

I'd highly recommend the book for any young teen as it paints an incredibly optimistic picture of the world, which is something to be said when you consider Pausch had terminal cancer.

In all honesty to this day Pausch remains one of my greatest inspirations.

[1]: [http://www.alice.org/index.php](http://www.alice.org/index.php)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Here is my summary of his book on the same lecture: [https://ashishb.net/book- summary/book-summary-the-last-lectu...](https://ashishb.net/book-summary/book- summary-the-last-lecture-by-randy-pausch/)

<comment><USER8> Thanks for your many book summaries. Love those. Here's another good list: [https://sivers.org/book](https://sivers.org/book)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Definitely one of my favorite talks of all time.

Thanks for reminding me to rewatch this again...</comment>


Ask HN: What do do with an Apple IIGS - <AUTHOR> I inherited an old Apple IIGS and got it running this weekend. It's got all the necessary system disks along with a slew of HyperCard stacks. After reliving my childhood with some old Atari and Accolade games, I'm at a loss what to do with it. Any suggestions? <comment><USER2> I remember reading somewhere[0] that they were used in the early days of Super Nintendo development due to similar chipsets.

[0] [http://www.patpend.net/articles/ar/sil10.html](http://www.patpend.net/articles/ar/sil10.html)

</comment><comment><USER3> Good thing you inherited some software with it, and that it works.

I would suggest applying some Google Fu to find a user group that you can trade with.

If you are a Linux user, you can probably use it as a terminal - connected via serial.</comment>


The New Startup Arms Race - <AUTHOR> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-ries/the-new-startup-arms-race_b_507510.html?view=print

<comment><USER2> I think this article ignores the fact that the US school system is failing to prepare todays youth to take on the jobs that these entrepreneurs would create in the future.

America has many cultural differences which lead and promote the entrepreneurial spirit, but in many cases, it is easier to transplant the entrepreneur to where the educated work force is.

</comment><comment><USER3> Too many scare tactics and not enough meat. An article like this comes out every other month about America losing its edge in some sector and these articles never have enough backup evidence and just push some political policy. Ya, I get it, a start-up visa is a good idea so just say that and move along.</comment>


The 'McConnell Rule' is law (2018) - <AUTHOR> https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/395696-the-mcconnell-rule-is-law-and-senate-democrats-should-sue-to-enforce-it <comment><USER2> > The issue — whether the McConnell Rule is now binding precedent

The rule might be law.

> Whether McConnell likes it or not, the McConnell Rule is law.

The rule is law.

> if McConnell still were to maintain that the McConnell Rule is not law,

The rule might not be law.

> McConnell's claim on March 16, 2016, to be bound by it [...] was a lie

Yep.

> This is obviously too great a cost for McConnell to risk.

Nope.

</comment><comment><USER3> Politics is calvinball. Whatever 5 supreme court justices agree on is constitutional. 51 senators get to decide who that justice is. RBG was brilliant, and fierce and her hubris will be historical.

<comment><AUTHOR> Had to look it up - thanks for that:

Calvinball is a game invented by Calvin and Hobbes. Calvinball has no rules; the players make up their own rules as they go along, making it so that no Calvinball game is like another.

Rules cannot be used twice (except for the rule that rules cannot be used twice), and any plays made in one game may not be made again in any future games. The game may involve wickets, mallets, volleyballs, and additional sports-related equipment.

There is only one permanent rule in Calvinball: players cannot play it the same way twice. For example, in one game of Calvinball, the goal was to capture the opponent's flag, whereas in a different game of Calvinball, the goal was to score points by hitting badminton shuttlecocks against trees using a croquet mallet. Masks must be worn at all times in Calvinball; these are not allowed to be questioned.

[https://calvinandhobbes.fandom.com/wiki/Calvinball](https://calvinandhobbes.fandom.com/wiki/Calvinball)</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Any successful startups that is founded by a designer? - <AUTHOR>

I am curious to ask this because looking at most of the startups, the founders are usually with very strong technical background, so I am wondering as a non-technical person (designer) like me, is it just a dream that I can create and manage a successful startup? <comment><USER2> Let's answer the real question, which is about you. Yes, you can build a successful startup as a designer. Someone else will be coding of course. But the CEO is really the person with 1) the vision and 2) the drive to make things happen. Do you have both? Then you can start your startup.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, I know what you mean - deep inside I truly believe I have both, but yeah, haven't been tested so far.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> To be frank, in order to maintain a business, you can't just do all the things alone. So it's really common to have more than one person as the founders of a company. The idea is, it's better to have at least one partner who is growing the same direction as yours. So a technical person would be the best candidate, i would say.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's what I thought too - that's why I am just curious if there is any great example that founded only by one designer founder, though I totally understand the importance of having a co-founder with strong technical background.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Don't let yourself fall victim to the false dichotomy of designer XOR developer; especially these days, there's no reason why you can't grind for a while and learn enough to make probably whatever you'd hope to make.

Plenty of great resources, and I can lend a hand if you need some help along the way. Just let me know.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the offer! Appreciate that :)

Indeed, with the resources available online, it's totally possible to learn new skills if I spend some time on them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Envato.com is highly successful and was founded by a designer.

Here's a clip of the founder discussing his founding story: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwvzF6Umvjk](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwvzF6Umvjk)

</comment><comment><USER6> Ello, the popular social network, was founded by designers: [https://ello.co/wtf/post/founders](https://ello.co/wtf/post/founders)

</comment><comment><USER7> [https://prezi.com/about/](https://prezi.com/about/)

</comment><comment><USER8> [http://designerfund.com/](http://designerfund.com/)

</comment><comment><USER9> Not sure if she was only a designer, but the founder of Poptip had a design background.

</comment><comment><USER10> Airbnb

<comment><USER11> nope, he had a technical cofounder, Nathan Blecharczyk

<comment><USER4> Are you sure it was such a clear-cut separation of responsibility?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Apple

</comment><comment><USER13> Sunrise Calendar

</comment><comment><USER14> Teespring</comment>


Puff the Magic Dragnet - <AUTHOR> http://www.popehat.com/2013/12/15/puff-the-magic-dragnet/

<comment><USER2> thanks for sharing this is really amazing</comment>


Uber Is Rolling Out Designated Public Pickup and Dropoff Areas - tefo-mohapi http://www.iafrikan.com/2016/10/18/uber-south-africa-is-rolling-out-public-pickup-2/ <comment><AUTHOR> What a neat idea! You could call it a taxi, sorry, Uber stand.

<comment> tefo-mohapi Hahahaha</comment></comment>


Apple Pay Gives Glimpse of Mainstream Appeal for Mobile Payments - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/15/technology/apple-pay-gives-glimpse-of-mainstream-appeal-for-mobile-payments.html?ref=technology

<comment><USER2> "The research firm Gartner estimated that worldwide, people spent $235.4 billion through mobile payments in 2013, compared with $163.1 billion in 2012. But that number is much smaller in North America"

hm.. I would have thought that the number in North America would be bigger than or at least equal the world wide number. Thank God NYT made this clear.

Maybe they'd made a better point, stating that mobile payments were growing slightly faster in North America than worldwide or that mobile payments were increasing by 50% even before the introduction of Apple Pay?</comment>


Show HN: Just a cool looking bash prompt - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/KeizerDev/.bashrc

<comment><USER2> Or you could just install zsh and Prezto/Oh-my-zsh

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm a linux user and not a fan of zsh.</comment></comment>


OpenStack and Ceph integration - <AUTHOR> http://www.techbar.me/2013/05/openstack-ceph-integration/

<comment><USER2> It's also worth noting that Ceph can also be integrated in OpenStack as an object store. The RADOS Gateway present both Swift and S3 APIs.

<comment><USER3> Dreamhost uses Ceph as an object store named Dreamobjects. I'm not sure if it is one of the larger deployments or not but should be up there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> did you benchmark it? I'm always concerned about Ceph's performance especially at high throughput(e.g. 10G).</comment>