Laptop Travel Damage - Who's at Fault? 100
Denagoth asks: "Due to increased security measures, airport personnel are now directly handling everyone's laptop, PDA, and other electronic gizmos. Who is at fault when (not if - but I've been lucky) an airport employee drops, damages, (or even worse) loses one of these devices? Has anyone had any experience in this area and are there any legal precedents to fall back on?"
Dude, you gotta get a Dell! (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Dude, you gotta get a Dell! (Score:2)
however, the hinges on these laptops leaves a lot to be desired. mine, after only a month, became loose & felt like it was about to break. I had it replaced with a nice new hinge, and one month later it was feeling fragile & sloppy again. now, this laptop is less than a year old, mind you, the cables in the hinge are going. when i move the hinge, i lose display. i have to wiggle it to get it to come back. this laptop is 11 months old this month.
My Thinkpad (which is almost 4 years old) still has a nice, stiff hinge. Why can't dell get nice hinges?
Re:Dude, you gotta get a Dell! (Score:1)
They wrote a $2500 no-deductible policy for $43/year. Cheaper than Dell Completecare, and available in my state.
Check with your favorite homeowner's insurance agent. You might be pleasantly surprised.
Re:Dude, you gotta get a Dell! (Score:1)
Receipt (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Receipt (Score:5, Insightful)
Security Guy #1: Sir, hand me the laptop. You're causing a scene.
Average Joe: No I'm not. I just want to ensure that my laptop is handled safely.
Security Guy #1: Don't contradict me. I'm in charge here, and you're causing a scene.
Average Joe: I really wasn't trying to contradi--
Security Guy #1: All right, we've got a live one here. Bob, come over and help me out.
Bob removes his security wand out from under the skirt of a nine-year-old girl. The girl's mother is against the wall being "patted down" by a couple of other guards.
Security Guy #2 (Bob): What seems to be the problem?
Security Guy #1: We've got a non-cooperative.
Security Guy #2: Close the concourse. [Then speaking to our Average Joe, who tried to make a break for it, but has since been been detained by a couple of men in dark sunglasses.] Looks like we've found ourselves an enemy combatant.
Meanwhile a pair of dark complexioned men in turbans walk past the ruckus. Average Joe hears the one whisper to the other: "Hey Mohammad, do you think we're winning?"
talk to a laywer (Score:5, Funny)
Probably them (Score:3, Informative)
Now, there are probably all sorts of signs and regulations that disavow their responsibility. This is bullshit. Chances are that even a complete laptop replacement will fall under the statute of limitations on small claims where you are. A suit filed there, against the company, the airline, the employee (all at the same time. Important) should be taken care of quickly. If it even gets that far.
If something happens, I suggest asking to speak to a manager, and asking what kind of 'incident report form' they have to fill out.
You are, of course, having your computer shit hand checked, not run through the x-ray, right? If you put stuff on the x-ray belt, you're going to be liable, most likely. Yet another reason to request a hand check in the unlikely chance you don't get one.
Re:Probably them (Score:2)
Re:Probably them (Score:2)
This isn't always an option, at least not without causing yourself a *lot* of grief. The last time I requested a laptop be hand-searched they flat-out refused, and said that I *MUST* put it on the x-ray conveyor. And this was months BEFORE 9/11.
My thoughts (Score:1)
Re:My thoughts (Score:2)
BZZT. Sorry, the security people have NEVER (as long has I've been flying- 15 years) been owned and run by the airlines.
They have always been federally forced and the airlines forced to pay for it without any choice of who gets hired or not (so the airlines can't ensure that decent reasonable people who won't abuse their employees are hired.)
Now its even worse- they are all federal employees.
US Constitution (Score:5, Insightful)
The argument "we must search you because you might have a bomb/gun/dildo" is a valid statement for any person, anywhere, any time, under any circumstances. It was also true at the time the constitution was written. Nonetheless, we have the 4th Ammendment.
Perhaps the solution is not in searching every person, everwhere, all the time, under all circumstances, but to address why we have created an entire subcontinent that wants us dead.
-- Bob
Re:US Constitution (Score:2)
Now, if you walked up to the security checkpoint, decided it wasn't worth it, walked away, and then got detained, that would be another story.
Re:US Constitution (Score:4, Insightful)
However, the searches are done by federal employees working for a federal agency, under mandate by the federal government. In my view, this directly violates the 4th ammendment, which does not allow the government to do this.
To turn your argument around, YOU make the choice to leave the house every day. Before you leave the house you must inform your local sherrif so he can come over, pat you down, and ensure that you won't be walking the streets carrying a firearm. Would you consider that a volation of your rights? After all, you don't have to leave the house.
Today to have access to most (all?) federal buildings you must also submit to a search, again by the government, without warrant, in violation of the 4th ammendment.
Read the ammendment again. It says nothing about your choice to do diddly squat. The government simply is not granted the power to search you at its whim. The only arguing point about it is the definition of "unreasonable".
-- Bob
Re:US Constitution (Score:2)
In the first place, that's a completely horrible analogy that doesn't even make any sense. Of course it would be a violation of my rights if I couldn't leave my house without being searched. But that's nothing at all like being searched at an airport checkpoint.
I also don't know where you got the idea that federal employees can never search you whether you give your consent or not. For example, if you get pulled over for speeding and the cop asks if he can search your car, he is asking for your consent, because he doesn't yet have probable cause. If you say yes, then you are waiving your 4th amendment right and it is perfectly legal for him to search your car. If you say no, you retain that right, and he can't search. The exact same thing applies at airports. By walking through that gate, you are consenting to be searched. If you don't want to be searched, go home.
Yes, if you want to board a plane, the search is mandatory. But it is not mandatory that you board the plane, and nobody's stopping you from driving to your destination.
Read the ammendment again. It says nothing about your choice to do diddly squat. The government simply is not granted the power to search you at its whim. The only arguing point about it is the definition of "unreasonable".
If you'd ever taken a high school government class, you'd know that you're completely wrong. The constitution guarantees us certain rights, yes, but it does not make those rights mandatory. This means that I am perfectly free to choose to waive my rights, and if I do so, the government and anybody else is perfectly free to take advantage of that. They can't legally force me to waive my rights, but they can ask me to.
Re:US Constitution (Score:1)
The principles of this once grand republic have been long lost.
I can't wait until all these various violations are challenged in court. The cop-pulling-over-for-speeding example has been tested in court many times, and the circumstances under which a cop may search your car are clearly delineated, and you are given the opportunity to refuse.
If you refused at an airport you would be detained against your will. There have been numerous examples of this over the last year.
BTW you are not reading (or understanding) my arguments. Your arguments have been correct. (Except for me being wrong ;-) But do not address my arguments. I end this here. I made my point, re-read my original post.
-- Bob
Re:US Constitution (Score:2, Interesting)
You're not thinking very clearly. If you were right, then you could choose to go to the gate without going thru the security.
You could choose to just say no to the unwarranted search.
Of course, if you did that, you'd be hauled in and questioned by the FBI.
In no way are you waiving your rights to go thru the security-- being forced to go thru the security checkpoint *AS A COURSE OF YOUR DAILY BUSINESS* without probably cause is a flat out violation of the fourth amendment.
IF it were a private company and those were the terms of your agreement with them, then you would be right.
But the federal government does not have the right to interfere with your business with the airline in this way.
IT is violating the fourth amendment.
Hell, the second amendment gives you the right to carry a gun into a court room, in a federal building.
The reason they get away with dismantling the bill of rights is so many wimps want the bill of rights dismantled and say nothing when they do.
Re:US Constitution (Score:1)
Re:US Constitution (Score:2)
Re:US Constitution (Score:2)
The Constitution also guarantees us the right to the pursuit of happiness, but that doesn't mean it guarantees that we'll be happy.
Re:US Constitution (Score:2)
What exactly is the LEGAL difference between a plane and a car?
Re:US Constitution (Score:2)
The point here is not whether it's a plane or a car. The point is that you are being given a choice whether or not you want to walk through the security checkpoint. If you want to board a commercial plane, then you've gotta do it, but you're perfectly free to turn back at any point up until you step over that line. Since nobody is forcing you to step over the line, there is no Constitutional violation.
That said, there's nothing stopping you from buying your own plane and flying it around unimpeded (except by FAA regulations, that is).
Re:US Constitution (Score:2)
Your "point" would make sense if you could board the commercial plane without going thru the security checkpoint.
Since attempting to do so will be met with *FORCE* you a ARE BEING FORCED.
In the car example, if you don't consent to be searched you can still drive.
The constitution is pretty clear on this. I don't see why you can't get it.
Re:US Constitution (Score:2)
Re:US Constitution (Score:2)
Maybe not YET. But if this situation were to hold, I'd be happy that there was at least some freedom.
But not surprised at the blatant hypocrisy of it. Its a lot easier to learn to fly a small jet than a jumbo jet. A lot easier to charter said jet than a hijack a jumbo jet, etc. etc.
Would be typical misguided bullshit "Security" to hassle people and maybe make some drug busts in the interests of perceived, rather than actual, security.
Re:US Constitution (Score:2)
Re:US Constitution (Score:2)
I think it's the getting into a 500 mph flying fuel container with a bunch of other nervous people part that the security folk are thinking about , not the crossing state lines part.
Of course the security you see around is seems like someone who never heard of the Maginot Line implemented it. The WTC had excellent security every time I went there as a contractor. After Sept 11 the 58-floor building I work in set up very tight security in the lobby. I kept thinking that what they really needed was a sign saying "absolutely no airliners will be allowed into this building"
Re:US Constitution (Score:1)
Re:US Constitution (Score:1)
Re:US Constitution (Score:2)
Now that's just plane pathetic.
The fourth amendment applies because there is no probable cause simply by taking a plane.
It doesn't matter that you choose to buy a ticket-- hell, the fourth amendment is enforcing that you not only have the right to buy a ticket, but to fly without being searched.
Re:US Constitution (Score:2)
I never said that boarding an airplane was probable cause. I said that by boarding an airplane, you waive your fourth amendment right and it is therefore perfectly legal for airport security personnel to search you.
It doesn't matter that you choose to buy a ticket-- hell, the fourth amendment is enforcing that you not only have the right to buy a ticket, but to fly without being searched.
No, that's completely wrong. The fourth amendment does not specify that I have the right not to be searched. It says that I have the right not to be searched without probable cause, and furthermore it does not specify that I cannot waive that right. By choosing to cross a security checkpoint, you waive that right.
Ask any lawyer. This is simple stuff that you should have been taught in high school.
Re:US Constitution (Score:2)
You have made this claim many times, but you have given us no reason to believe it.
How is walking to the gate giving up your fourth amendment rights? Nowhere are you saying "yes you can search me"....
When you have a gun pointed at you it is not consent. When you cannot go around the security checkpoint without a gun being pointed at you, it is not consent. you have not waived your rights.
Your rights have been impeded.
By your argument, there is no possible situation where the fourth amendment applies-- whenever the feds decide to search you, you have given up your rights by doing whatever it was you were doing when they searched you.
This isn't high school stuff, its logic. Any human should understand it.
Re:US Constitution (Score:2)
First of all, I belive if you read the text of the conditions you agree to when you buy a ticket, you'd find that you are, in fact, saying "yes you can search me."
When you have a gun pointed at you it is not consent. When you cannot go around the security checkpoint without a gun being pointed at you, it is not consent. you have not waived your rights.
Wrong. Because you have no right to walk around that checkpoint. Commercial air travel is 100% federally-regulated, and the airplanes and airports themselves are owned by private companies. Therefore, if you want to fly, you not only must abide by federal regulations, you must also abide by the rules set forth by the companies operating the airport and airlines. The airline, which is a private company, requires you to submit to a screening by federal employees before you can board their airplane. This is legal, and they are under no obligation whatsoever to provide you service if you refuse these terms.
Furthermore, and I'm getting sick of repeating this: since you can refuse those terms at any point up until you actually walk through the security checkpoint, it is wholly within the rights of the federal screeners to search you and your luggage. You are not being forced to do anything, because boarding a commercial jet is not a Constitutional right.
Now, I'm getting sick of trying to explain this to you, and arguing with me will get you nowhere because you are wrong. If this issue is really so important to you that you feel you absolutely must have closure, I strongly recommend that you talk to a lawyer. In fact, if you feel so strongly that you're right and I'm wrong, then threaten to sue next time someone tries to search you at an airport and watch as every lawyer you approach to represent you laughs in your face and throws you out of their office.
Re:US Constitution (Score:2)
You're getting sick of repeating this but you just won't get it thru your thick head.
Airports are not privately owned.
Your ticket doesn't give up your fourth amendments rights.
Since you don't have the choice NOT to consent, your 4th ammendment rights are being violated.
IF the airports were privately owned, and the security checkpoint was run by a private company, what you say would be true. You seem to think it is.
But you are wrong. They are not, they are the federal government, and the feds have to follow the constitution.
Until you can decide to get on a plane without being searched, your 4th amendment rights are being violated whenever they search you. You seem to think that if the airline didn't mind you could get on the plane without being searched--- that you are consenting as part of your contract with the airline-- but YOU ARE WRONG. Airlines want their pilots to be able to get to the planes without being searched, but the FEDS SEARCH THEM ANYWAY. IF what you say is true, then the airlines could send their personnel thru.
Being searched is NOT a condition of flying because the airlines make it one (the disclaimer you keep talking about doesn't even say that. It says they reserve the right to search you-- which THEY Do, not the feds, THEM. The checkpoint is not the airline searching you. Sheesh.)..... being searched is a federal rule, and it violates the 4th ammendment.
I'm getting sick and tired of arguing with stupid sheep who just want to give up the constitution because they don't really believe in human rights at all. Fine. You be a sheep, just stop trying to tell me I don't have the rights guaranteed there.
The reason a lawyer will not take the case is not because it isn't a right, but because idiots like you have so much sway that human rights are not defensible in this country anymore. The feds have made themselves above the law... and one day, probably very soon, you are going to live to regret that fact. And painfully.
Re:US Constitution (Score:2)
Airports are not privately owned.
Actually, Mr. Bitgeek sir, they are privately owned, unless you're talking about an Air Force base or other military airfield. Cities often provide incentives and funding to get airports built, since they're good for commerce, but commercial airports are privately owned. If they weren't, they wouldn't be called commercial airports, dumbass.
Furthermore, you apparently wanked your way through your high school Government class. Or perhaps you dropped out of high school so you could fuck your uncle's sheep while all the other kids were away. In any case, YOU HAVE NO GODDAMN RIGHT TO GET ON A PLANE. It's a commercial service that you're paying for, you wang-gobbling jackass. Since it's a commercial service, you have a right to exactly jack and shit.
You seem to think I'm saying you don't have the right to refuse a search. I'm not. You have every right to refuse a search. But if you refuse a search, you have no right to board a commercial airliner.
And, by the way, the reason a lawyer wouldn't take the case is because good lawyers don't take cases where they'll be fighting a losing battle with the law on the other guy's side. It's simple fucking elementary logic, but I guess a noxious pustule like you wouldn't understand such things.
You'll get no more responses from me, I'm obviously wasting my time. I just wanted to let you know what a thrill it's been, and also what a complete asshat you are. Thank you sir.
Re:US Constitution (Score:2)
Aw, days of insults from you and when I return in kind you just can handle it. Sheesh.
Don't dish it out if you can't take it.
AIRPORTS ARE NOT PRIVATE. Get at least that thru your thick head, dipshit.
SEA- seattle port authority http://www.portseattle.org/seatac/default.htm
One of the largest airports in the country, Ohare, owned by the city of chicago: http://www.ohare.com/
Denver international airport:
http://www.flydenver.com/guide/facility
City and County of Denver, Department of Aviation
First three airports I tried to find the homepage for, all three owned by the local municipality.
I can handle that you didn't know this. So many bedwetters don't. They think companies own everything.
But three days of insisting that I'm an ignorant fool when its so fucking easy to check it out... sheesh.
Nevermind that your contract is with the airline, not the fucking airport. Nevermidn that the airlines want their pilots to be able to go thru without going thu security BUT ARE PREVENTED BY THE FEDS.
Nevermind that this information is at your fingertips and I pointed it out to you-- - you just ignore it and insist that the only airports owned by government are air force bases.
What a stupid ignorant fool you are.
No wonder you oppose the bill of rights.
Re:US Constitution (Score:1, Redundant)
And if that's not an option, consider leaving your notebook at home...maybe take a Palm Pilot (these go through X-Rays with no problem and security has seen these enough to know how to check one...I've even had them ask me to turn it on and show it to them if they are concerned about breaking it).
But, if it's a business trip and you must take it with you...you will know when something happens/might happen to it. If you suspect something, you should simply check your notebook at the other end of the X-Ray machine (there's always a table close to security for collecting your things). Then, after you have confirmed a problem, is when you should ask for some sort of voucher/note/etc...
As for being intrusive, this isn't covered in the 4th amendment this is a special situation...an airport is a private (not open to the general public) place.
Re:US Constitution (Score:2)
BZZZT Wrong.
Every airport I've been to has been a public place, owned by a municipality. Not a company.
There are no private airports that land 737s and larger in the US, AFAIK. All private airports are small airports for non-jet aircraft.
Furthermore, if the airport WAS private property
Re:US Constitution (Score:2)
Re:US Constitution (Score:1)
Re:US Constitution (Score:2)
--Dan
Re:US Constitution (Score:2)
Yes, it would be really nice to have the Bill of Rights back.
But since the stated party positions of both the Democrat and Republican parties flat out oppose the bill of rights, I wouldn't hold my breath.
I don't see how "we must search you because you might have a weapon" was ever valid, let alone when the constitution was written and people DID walk around with weapons.
Hell, having a weapon isn't even probable cause. When did we become such a nation of bedwetters that someone owning a gun makes us scared?
"The nation that disarms itself will fall to the first thug who comes by." That thug may very well be a politician who siezes control of the army.
We shouldn't be arguing about whether pilots can have guns, we should be requesting that every trained person with a concealed carry license be carrying when they board the plane.
You want to stop thugs, disarming yourself is not exactly a bright idea.
Re:US Constitution (Score:1)
Everyone wants to quibble about how they think it's ok to be searched or technicalities of legal interpretation without even reading the fucking ammendment.
I think it's quite simple. Put air marshals (with guns) on the plane. Block off the cockpit from passenger access. Have walk-through, non-invasive bomb sniffers at airports (i.e. detect trace airborn quantities of explosive chemicals -- this can be done). If you detect explosives non-invasively, only then do you have probable cause to search that person. And most importantly, stop devastating entire regions of the world in the name of our economic imperialism. Would it really be that bad to pay $5/gallon for gas? Is that extra few dollars a gallon worth millions of lives?
Our leaders realize the oil supply is running out. The situation in obtaining oil is only going to get uglier. It's better to face the music now and put serious effort into alternatives.
-- Bob
Re:US Constitution (Score:2)
Well, except for one thing. The oil in question isn't being "Acquired by imperialism". It was bought many years ago by free consent.
At least in Saudi Arabia, and I'm pretty sure in Iraq and Iran, in the early 1900s american comapanies signed agreements with those countries to co-develop their oil resources. They had oil but no money to develop them. We had the money to drill and export. They split profits.
This worked great for awhile, the countries standard of living went up, the americans made money and everyone was happy.
Then, the Saudis (and the other countries as well) executed imperialism by nationalizing the oil fields.
They broke their agreement.
The americans, being wimps, did not go to war with them then.
Therefore, anything we do to insure the flow of oil is justified-- that oil was stolen from us in the first place.
Like most all free enterprise, US businesses raise the standard of living in the regions they do business, and like most cases where liberals accuse us of "economic imperialism" (an oxymoron if I ever heard one-- imperialism is by force, all economics are done by free consent)-- the person who actually devestated the region is the brutal dictator who came to power there.
Or do you think people shouldn't be held to the contracts they agree to and benefit from?
But I agree with you completely on the passive sniffing. Maybe even a passive metal detector.
Re:US Constitution (Score:2)
Think again, my friend. This may be the case for some of the oil we acquire, but our need for oil is much stronger than that...
For instance, our attempt to force a coup in Venezuela [commondreams.org] earlier this year, over oil. And most visibly, our attempt to construct a pipeline through Afghanistan, which required that we first dismantle its government. (There is evidince that a war in Afghanistan was planned long before 9/11/2001 -- we've wanted to get oil out of Turkmenistan for at least a decade)
Now whatever our disagreement with the Taliban, it is not our business to overthrow governments. (Admittedly, I would have cheered to see them fall, if they had fallen by the action of the Afghani people and not our imperialism) In Venezuela it was purely economic. They were planning an embargo that would have hurt the US economically. In Afghanistan we had a more convenient political excuse involving some airplanes or something. But it appears that the war was successful [bbc.co.uk] in its true goals.
Secondly, we should not be enforcing our contracts militarily. It is always in the best interest of small nations to control their resources. "Free trade" generally only helps the larger nation, and keeps the poorer one poor. So I cannot blame the Saudis for nationalizing their oil fields (though I do not know the situation that well). I will not defend the Saudi's too far though because a handful of Saudi princes have become absurdly wealthy off selling US oil, while oppressing the rest of the country. Since this is a situation that benefits the US we let it continue. Do not let the rhetoric about "spreading democracy" or the horrible things the Taliban did sway you, because Saudi Arabia is no better, yet we continue to support them.
-- Bob
Re:US Constitution (Score:2)
Those are not unrelated situations. IF the country wanted control of its resources (which it had without nationalizing them) then it didn't need to enter into the agreements.
What it wanted-- what all liberals who support this type of crime want-- is something for nothing. IT wanted them developed by others so they could benefit from it.
And in one breath you applaud this behaviour and then in the other you point out that the despots get all the money while their populace gets nothing.
Funny, if it were a free trade situation the poor people would have jobs, and a better life. But you oppose free trade so we get the Saudi situation, the Iraq situation, etc.
BTW- the US didn't create the coup in venezuala, it just didn't condemn it *FAST ENOUGH*. Sheesh, what a misrepresentation.
Re:US Constitution (Score:2)
If Mexican tomato farmers and Colombian coffee farmers wanted to fix this situation and actually send their kids to school, they would be forced to break agreements. I think they would be right to do so.
For the Saudis nationalizing their oil was clearly a power play by the rich to get richer. Their situation is quite different, and I don't condone the Saudi's actions. But protecting a country's resources and breaking trade agreements is not, by definition, bad. (For instance, Brazil decided to "nationalize" some AIDS drugs in violation of IP agreements with the US...and I applaud them for doing so.)
And read the article I linked on Venezuela...clearly you're talking about the first coup...I'm talking about the second (third?) one where the OPEC chief warned the president of Venezuela that the US had set up the coup, after Venezuela started making noises about an oil embargo...
And you keep using "liberal" like it's a bad word...it's meaningless. Debate the issues, not the labels. ;)
-- Bob
Re:US Constitution (Score:2)
Yeah, but the problem debating the issues is most of the people put forth explanations that are meaningless-- and they debate them with the ferocity of someone repeating what they heard, rather than what they know.
For instance, pointing out that the government of Mexico does not allow foriegn entities to own land in Mexico pretty much destroys your argument about how US companies own all the farm land in Mexico. But I suspect you will just ignore that fact and continue to believe what you've been told.
Bottom line is this: Mexico has benefited greatly economically from its relationship with the US, especially since NAFTA with all the jobs that have been created just on the other side of the border.
You complain about subsistance salaries, but you neglect to admit that the previous salaries were lower.
Protectionism causes poverty, it doesn't prevent it.
Re:US Constitution (Score:1)
Of course you just as guilty as I. No references or links! Bad boy. Anyway, I'll have to do some research on the subject.
Free trade supporters say things that are in direct conflict with what free trade opponents say. Clearly they cannot both be right.
-- Bob
Re:US Constitution (Score:2)
Let me put it this way. There is free trade, which you oppose.
But the only alternative (by definition of the word free) is unfree trade.
Unfree trade means that you are forced to do something that you may or may not want to do. Unfree trade is coercive trade.
Now if you have a free trade situation and you don't like the outcome there are two possibilities:
1) You were a party to the trade and you choose to conduct your business differently later.
2) You are not a party to the trade and you seek to force it to be different the next time.
In the second case, you are an oppressor. You are attempting to force your will on other people who are otherwise free to reach a mutually beneficial agreement.
Where is the moral justification for a third party to interfere with the freely chosen dealings of others?
Also, by definition if guns are involved, that's not free trade, thats coerced trade.
I don't think you can find any examples of "economic imperialism" that are the result of free trade.
Re:US Constitution (Score:2)
Getting back to repeating what you've heard...or assuming the definition by picking apart the words...Free trade means "International business not restrained by government interference or regulation".
I have never heard of the "coercive" trade you talk about.
All countries have an interest and a duty to protect the industries and agriculture in their country. Free trade agreements make this impossible.
For countries of similar economic standing, free trade is without question beneficial to both parties. However when one country has a vastly richer economy than the other, it has the power to flood markets with goods, drive down prices, increase the smaller country's dependence on foreign goods, and make it impossible for them to recover.
We can help third world countries by removing our tariffs (allowing americans to buy foreign goods) but not meddling with their ability to erect tariffs. Otherwise they will never be able to crawl out of their trade deficit.
The fair trade organizations, while very hippie, seem to be trying to establish equitable trade situations with the third world (seems like coffee only...)
-- Bob
Re:US Constitution (Score:2)
Government regulation IS coercive. It is using force to interfere with the free exercise of human rights between individuals.
Fair trade organizations, just like other socialists, want to use violence to interfere with people exercising their human rights.
Now, if they are advocating BOYCOTTS, then that is fine-- you are free to choose who you do business with.
But when governments impose regulations, backed by their army, that is coercive trade.
You don't like the word coercive, but when you use force, that is what you are doing.
Re:US Constitution (Score:1)
This is a nation which believes in religious, intellectual, and personal freedom, and grants its citizens the right to do pretty much whatever they want as long as they don't infringe too seriously on the rights of others. This has resulted in amazing technical capabilities, as well as a very broad and eclectic popular culture.
The "entire subcontinent" you mentioned is NOT free, nor do its leaders believe in personal freedom. Personal freedom is terrifying to them, because it strips them of the power they're currently wielding: they use their fundamentalist religious beliefs to completely control the behavior of their citizens.
They hate us because with every television broadcast, newspaper, magazine, and foreign national their people are exposed to, their people see a little more clearly how badly their system (not to put too fine a point on it) sucks.
Outside of ruining our system to make them feel better, there's nothing we can do to prevent them from wanting to kill us. Get over it. They'll want to kill us as long as we are free, and as long as we have better lives than they do.
All we can do is keep spanking them when they get out of hand, and do whatever we can to prevent them from being able to hurt us when they're not acting up overtly.
I hope that answers the question for you...
Re:US Constitution (Score:2)
How silly of me to think that.
Surely you are right, it is because we are Good(tm) and they are Bad(tm).
Your self-righteousness appalls me. People like you make me ashamed to call myself an American.
-- Bob
Re:US Constitution (Score:1)
Actually, your point, that we are good and they are bad is pretty damn accurate. Our system is based around personal and intellectual freedom, and I'll take it over their "stone her to death for cheating on her spouse, cut his hands off for stealing a gumball" system any day. But if you feel the need, go ahead and join up with the bastards if you feel the need. I won't miss you -- and neither will the jarhead who puts a bullet in your ass. But I digress...
The Saudis are in power because they control Oil, and because they are the least militant, least evil group in the region. Sorry you don't like it dude, but that's life. During the cold war, we propped up several oppressive governments so that the soviets couldn't use them to their advantage -- and as a result, we ended up winning the cold war. Again, that's life.
And, maybe we support Israel because they're the only democratic government in the entire region, and the only people in the region who actually LIKE us. Not to mention the fact that if we didn't prop up Israel, every arab within a thousand miles would be lining up to invade it. Of course, someone like you would be very pleased to see every last Israeli murdered in their beds. It would fit your little politically-correct worldview, and probably make you eternally grateful.
Well, I'm glad I made you ashamed at least. Because you have no sense of shame of your own, posting this ridiculous little piece of fluff. But, hey, no hard feelings. People like me have it all over people like you, so we can afford to be generous.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!
Re:US Constitution (Score:1)
If, by "self-righteousness" you mean that I'm not ashamed to be an American, I'm proud of my country and I love my culture and people, well, Thanks! I accept your poorly-worded semiliterate compliment.
In all seriousness, though, you really ought to get a grip. The United States is a great place to live, with a great culture and a great people. You should be proud of who you are, instead of constantly hunting for things to get pissy about. I mean, really. The whole hippie thing died off twenty years ago. Catch the clue train, kid.
Re:US Constitution (Score:2)
And in response to this ignorant post, I have two things to say:
Last thing, did you notice that I quoted THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION? I am proud of that ammendment and all it stands for. I am ashamed that this country was so willing to sweep it away.
By "self-righteousness" I mean that you assert the rightness of your cause without considering the possibility that your opposition could have a point.
-- Bob
Re:US Constitution (Score:1)
One major problem with spending your entire life in college (as you seem to be determined to do) is that you start falling for the idea that you are somehow more intelligent and more wise than all of us "regular guys" out here in the working world. So, of course, everything everyone else says in disagreement with you is branded as "ignorant" as you pour ad-hominem upon ad-hominem in defense of your indefensible views. Hey, I'm not above a little ad-hominem, myself, obviously -- I gave you a little crap earlier (couldn't resist). But at least I don't confuse a flame with an actual ARGUMENT.
So, in hopes of knocking you out of your physics department ivory tower, here are a few salient points:
1. You said you have two things to say, then you said three. Either you can't count, in which case you shouldn't be allowed near any laboratory gear, or you're just basically not paying attention. I favor the latter.
2. Everyone quotes the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION -- and there are so many interperetations of that document that whatever you did with it, it doesn't prove anything you've been saying. Jeez, get over yourself. What a pretentious ass!
3. It's so ironic that your definition of self-righteousness applies equally well to you and all of your PC, college-bound, US hating ilk. Why don't you all move to France? At least then you can sit around cafes and grouse about the US to your heart's content without having arguments (like this one) you're obviously unprepared to wage effectively. And, none of us (who love the US) will be around to bother you, since we figured out years ago that it's no fun to hang around people who hate us for no good reason.
BY THE WAY, I'd wager I know far more about the "history of the region" than you do. You physics types are well known for ditching your liberal arts classes. Unlike you (probably) I liked World History, and I paid attention. And, what was that crack about CNN? Does anybody still watch CNN? Hell, aside from the movie channels, who watches TV? But it's not worth arguing with you. I've met people like you before. You're thick, like mud, and it's not worth the wading.
In other words:
I disagree with you because you're a self-loathing egotistical schmuck in desperate need of therapy, not because you know something I don't.
I know it's hard for you higher-education types to conceive of someone outside of academia who doesn't agree with you about your mental superiority, but hey, you'll get used to it. Wait and see what happens if you try to take that Ph.D out into private industry. I'd love to be a fly on the wall when some crusty old engineer takes you down a few pegs.
But that's just me. What say we drop this before it becomes an all out flamewar?
Homeowner's Insurance (Score:3, Informative)
You'll need the standard stuff - receipts, serial numbers, and all that jazz.
I'm flying tomorrow (today), and I am truly not looking forward to going through security with both my powerbook and two hard drives as well.
Why worry about it? (Score:3, Funny)
Now to protect yourself from theft: Disguise. Buy a shitty looking backpack and use it to store your electronic goodies. Inside my backpack is a digital camera, Iridium phone, cell phone, laptop, noise canceling head-phones, Psion, MP3 player and possibly a GameBoy. A fine catch for any theif - and yet I draw hardly a glance. The stupid executive type with his six year old trackball Toshiba in a old "leatherette" Compaq case is just begging for a stealin'.
If you're really paranoid - grab a Thinkpad with a quick-removable hard-drive and carry the drive in your pocket. Data is far more valuable the money. My output during my travels is small enough to fit on a 128MB SmartMedia card that slips into my wallet.
Oh, bring a pack of cards. You woulden't want to smash your laptop during turbulance by playing solitare on it and letting if fall to the ground when then plane jumps up 3 feet and you forgot to buckle your seatbelt.
Re:Why worry about it? (Score:1)
He yells "Hey, he's stealing my lapptop" and all the security guys run and grab the guy.
My friend made the comment that security didn't search any of his stuff. and a few people slipped thru. Thiw was in the US, durring the summer.
Legal advice from slashdot? (Score:1)
Re:Legal advice from slashdot? (Score:3, Funny)
Doug
Repealing the DMCA would fix my computer (Score:2)
Do you hire a law firm to fix your computer?
Yes. Questioning the constitutionality of MPAA-bought legislation in court would have an effect of "fixing my computer," would it not?
Legal advice versus (Score:2)
That might also count as Free Speech. But only because the first amendment protects your right to demonstrate your ignorance and stupidity in public.
This happened to my electric razer (Score:4, Interesting)
When I was travelling to Darmstadt rigth after 9/11, my hand luggage was searched. Inside was, among other things, an electric razer. Brute security-guard looks at it, tries opening it, but ends up instead breaking it apart. I'm told to report the damage to their "arrival office" upon arrival.
Office says it must have been badly packed. I inform them that I *saw* the guy literally breaking it apart and that the packaging doesn't really play a part. They then claim electronic devices are not covered. There's nothhing "electronic" about it I say, sure it uses electricity but there's a difference between electric and electronic. And in any case, what *should* I bring for shaving, you don't particularily like razer-blades now do you ? And are you telling me I can stand and watch one of your employees break my things apart, and then you will claim that I have to cover the loss myself ?
In the end they paid for it, but not without making a lof of unneeded fuzz about it.
Don't carry it on. Check it. (Score:2)
And in any case, what *should* I bring for shaving, you don't particularily like razer-blades now do you ?
(assuming "you" refers to the government) If you don't need to shave on the plane, then don't carry your razor kit on your person. Take a Gillette Mach 3 Turbo razor (for women, Gillette Venus), pack it in your suitcase, and then check your suitcase. But be sure to read the ticket (it's a contract, you know) and understand the lost luggage policy.
(assuming "you" refers to the owner of a face being shaved) For some reason, my Gillette Mach 3 Turbo razor gives a closer shave than my Norelco Reflex Action electric razor that I just bought new blades for.
Re:Don't carry it on. Check it. (Score:2)
put your data on a zip disk when entering Arabia (Score:1)
However, when you enter an Arab Country (alongside the Persian Gulf), don't be surprised when the security guys even format your harddisk to be sure you don't have any porn on it.
It has never happened to me, but I got the advise from a guy who's been there to put all your favourite data on a Zip disk or a CD-ROM
What Country Do You Live In? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:What Country Do You Live In? (Score:1)
You are (Score:1)
Re:You are (Score:2)
What possible way do you become liable for someone elses mismanagmeent?
Because a guy with a gun makes you hand over your laptop, you're liable?
Therefore, by your logic, every person who is mugged is liable because they "volunteered" to give the mugger their money-- the gun doesn't matter, huh?
Sheesh.
Its like a nation full of people saying "I wet the bed, I have no rights, screw me over, I like it."
Where are the strong competent people who demanded the bill of rights while their brothers scoffed saying "no government would ever do these things, the bill of rights is redundant".
What happened to that nation?
Re:You are (Score:1)
You go to the roughest part of your town. Not the kind of place you want to be in the daytime, let alone at night. You have been warned by the police/your parents/local thugs/whoever not to go there.
You are mugged.
Whose fault is that?
Re:You are (Score:1)
Re:You are (Score:2)
I'm glad you just compared going thru airport security with walking into a den of thieves.
I certainly don't consider them to be anything better than mobsters myself.
So, to correct your correction: "The Federal Air Marshals pick you up at gunpoint and force you into the worst part of town with your laptop, you start walking home, you get mugged. Who's fault is it?"
Get a real laptop, get a Toughbook. (Score:2)
Re:Get a real laptop, get a Toughbook. (Score:1)
Another good company is Itronix, which sells the XC-6250 (look for one with a color touchscreen, 200Mhz Pentium, that one's very tough) and the GoBook. Their GoBookMax is a completely modern, but extremely tough laptop. It's extremely strong. You would have to deliberately want to break it to break it -- i.e. dump it in a swimming pool, hit it with an axe, etc. You'd have to really want to kill it.
My favorite is the Panasonic, though. It's such a nice laptop!
TI TravelMate (Score:2)
I once had a nice 25MHz 486DX TI TravelMate (Gateway branded) from the first laptop generation with tolerable hard drive capacity (120MB). On full power conservation, I could edit files within my text editor for nearly five hours on one charge (if I didn't save often).
Eventually the wires to the display became stretched through the hinge. The screen would go funny if you opened it up too far.
I took it through the airport once in Halifax where I had to open it up and show that it worked. I opened it up just past 90 degrees (the safe range) and then the security woman there grabbed the panel cranking it open all the way the final stop (nearly 135 degrees). I was actually holding the system in the air at the time with my hands so she could see it better. I'm 6'5" and I doubt she was ten cents over 5'0". Did she really need to break it's back just to see that there was text on the screen? Fragile? Let me adjust it!
That was an aggravating repair. Half a day running around Vancouver to find the replacement part, $90 for a thin wire bundle 12" long, and another half a day to thread the cable myself while not losing too many microscrews along the way.
I'd like to think that agent is now working at a poultry processing plant breaking limbs off of chickens with her bare hands.
Nobody! (Score:3, Interesting)
That's the great thing about the federal government-- they have ultimate authority with no responsibility.
So, not only do we get LESS security in airports now that they are bringing in their DMV level idiots to handle everyone's stuff, but we have no recourse when they drop your laptop.
I've had mine dropped by a dipthong in Tulsa Oklahoma. I got upset and he got irate at me that I could be upset that he dropped my laptop! I almost decked him. If he'd said, "I'm sorry! It slipped, is it ok?" I would have not cared, but instead he was telling me to hurry up as I bent down to pick up my laptop.
Anyway, I would go after the airport. If you have damage go to the manager of the airport and take it up with them . Airports, despite being oppressed by the feds, are generally a business, even if they too are a local municipalities business. So, their guy is likely to be at least a bit concerned about market forces and try to make it right.
This is only going to get worse. After all, it was the federal government that was responsible for the poor security that lead to 9/11, and their response has been to totally take over airport security (Rather than just meddling to make it useless). The correct response would be to let each airline be responsible for its OWN security-- nobody has an interest in keeping their multimillion dollar planes intact while still providing customer service like an airline. Furthermore, with them responsible for security on their flights if something DID happen they would be facing a lawsuit-- and so they have motivation to provide good security.
With the federal government, their only motivation is power and re-electability. so if they can make noise like they are doing something bout it, and the country is mollified and at the same time get more power over us (hoe long until these weapons searches become drug searches as well?) then they are happy. And so many of you are bedwetting liberals and christian conservatives that you love the government and want it to take over your lives completely... so we have the feds--responsible for the initial failure on 9/11-- taking over the area that could prevent it. And nobody is holding them accountable.
As long as you don't hold your government accountable, you get what you deserve.
The horror stories are regular-- there's the guy who had his yacht seized by the coast guard because one of their dogs barked *once* during a boarding. They seized the yacht, tore it apart, couldn't find anything. So they decided that the fiberglass hull must be made out of cocaine (which is inane- the process would be more expensive than the value of the cocaine.) And thus they drilled 80,000 holes in the hull looking for cocaine. They didn't find anything. They boat was ruined, the guy sued, he appealed all the way to the supreme court and the supreme court ruled that he didn't have a case.
Cause you can't sue the federal government.
You call this a democracy? Stop voting for Democrats and Republicans. Stop putting up with this incompetence and poor management. And to think- you're paying %50 of your income in total taxes* for the privilege!
If you aren't outraged, you aren't paying attention.
* Some bedwetting liberal always complains about this number pointing out that the highest tax bracket is "only" (yeah, they'd love it to be more) %35. Well, lets assume you're paying some average of %25 in federal taxes. On top of that you have %16 social security (your half and your employers half-- you don't think he doesn't make *you* earn his half of that cost do you?) another %14 for medicaide, another %8 for all the money you spend in local sales taxes (assuming %8 local sales tax, that you spend most of your money locally and pay taxes, and that you only invest a small amount of your money at the long term, netting a tax of %10 on that, rather than %25 for short term investing).... that leaves %63 of your income going to taxes. And I've not even counted car tab fees, property taxes, state or local income taxes!, GASOLINE taxes which are almost %50, etc. etc. So, saying %50 of your money goes to taxes is being generous.