tokenizer

You're right. It would be best if they just eased back on the implementation. I don't care if it's the TSA or the airports doing it really. If things get better that be good, if things get worse that would be bad in terms of my perspective on travelling to the US.

As things stand now, the only way I'm going into the US is from Montreal down into Vermont. Any other way seems to sketchy to me.

In my country of Canada, flying from place to place within the country only requires walking past guards that don't do anything to you at the gate, and metal detectors. I haven't flown to different countries, so I'm sure I'm being too idealistic and naive on this subject, especially in terms of actual policy.

> Lots of the comments here point out that airplanes tend to be the target because we're not talking about "killing lots of people" as we are about terror.

The difference being? I'm sorry. Wasn't the Boston terrorist attack not on a plane? Didn't that kill people. In my opinion terror is an emotion, and people can feel that in a variety of situations depending on who they are. Killing a bunch of people, as an event, rarely happens.

So why do you want to force and coerce me? This isn't a libertarian v. socialist argument. It's a libertarian v. authoritarian argument. Are you telling me I'm a threat until proven otherwise, or that we should have policies that treat everyone or a select few that way?

No offense, but that's no way to live IMO. I'd much rather take the risk. I only mentioned the free market because if they were to take this over, solutions would be available for both of us. But for now there's only one solution: That of political theatre.

Please don't get offended as I'm not attacking you, just bad policy. If I were you I'd reflect on how others feel here. You can definitely make a point in that most people don't care either way, but I'd like to think that a majority of people who are interested in terrorism (lol NSA) from a philosophical see policy like this authoritarian at best, and evil and conspiratorial at worst.

> Airplanes have been determined to be a greater catalyst to "terror" than other venues.

Source? Again, terror is a vague definition of an emotion which is dependent on internal characteristics and machinations of each individual who knows the word and feels emotion. I'd love to see their parameters for that word.

That said, I'm sorry if we disagree that air travel needs to be so tightly regulated. I'd love for you to point me to people who are happy about laws like these from a sociological or philosophical perspective. I can definitely do the same for my end, by directing you to this: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/06/fa_planehijackings/

Regulation can be a little bad for history. While 1970's regs sound pretty scary (I'll have to check that stat out myself), 2000 sounds better than now...

Security doesn't have to mean inspection lines or profiling.

It could mean guards walking around, like in an apartment complex or mall. It could mean people watching CCTV.

This could all be done by the airline. They don't want bombings just as much as you or I. The only difference is they don't have an incentive to create a regulation that forces people to subject themselves to embarrassment or harassment.

Where is the TSA's incentive? Justifying their existence. In one hand, you have an anti terrorist, governmental agency, which will always try to justify itself, and on the other you have a necessary expense for the airlines mandated by their public relations and to reduce bad press/events from happening.

sorry, let me add: /sarcasm.

I hear ya. I'm just being a realist. If I was dictator of the world, I'd ban all taxes and let the market figure it out.

Too bad the government makes that choice. I'd assume that if people, or consumers of travelling via airplane, were as you say, cautious about travel, a free market alternative would be better than the TSA.

That said, you're right. But lines, inspections, and "lists", are largerly unnecessary. You have guards walking around, and a federal agent on each plane.

All that I'm saying, is that I'd rather not have to subsidise security for air travel. Let the market sort it out.

Sadly, you're suggestion will be mentioned if this happens I'm sure. But instead of a physical step before the gates, it will be a mental one. What place could you check people prior to them being physically checked before boarding?

When they think about using an airplane. When someone thinks about travelling, the TSA will locate and travel to them, and direct the citizen through their thought crime machine. If you refuse, then the TSA strip search you and inspect your orifices in public, which will also be the next step from private rooms. /s

Security is a feeling. Also, there are events and odds. The events and odds don't make me feel like policy is needed for me to feel safe travelling IMO. What happens happens. If someone tries to logically attempt to cast blame upon a party for something like a bombing for not preemptively stopping it, then I'll just point to the math surrounding the TSA. IT MAKES NO SENSE.

What about the lines? People don't get felt up or forced through machines to wait in the lines to get felt up or forced through machines.

I fail to see how someone couldn't just bomb the lines with the exact same effect you're describing above.

I'd much rather prefer volunteering to use a private company's services freely without force or coercion, and risk dying randomly, then be harassed and embarrassed and risk dying randomly.

Exactly. Why can't we just pull their meta-data profiles from online, and just assess potential threat levels and weight it against the national threat level.

Threat level orange? Internet Anarchists and Armchair Libertarians don't fly.

Threat level blue? Just people who look like they have some desert heritage.

Threat level red? "I'm sorry sir. It says here you we're really, really mad at how a cop stopped you last weekend for going through a red light."

> By that logic, we should remove security at Fort Knox because it never gets robbed.

Airports should have security. Every country has security in their airports. Where it crosses the line are when you have the security preemptively treat you like a criminal, and violate your personhood without justification other than a blanket statement of "terrorists".

Security ! always have to = Neo-Fascism. But many people feel it does in American airports.

While this is necessary knowing what we now know. I really hope it isn't continued by the UN as a tool for the countries with worse human rights violations.

Semantically you could make the opposite argument however given the perspective/context.

Abandon can mean relinquishing of control. It would depend on your employees/clients, but given a large enough sample size, I'm sure one party might feel cheated when power changes hands.

That said, ownership gives you that power. The power to relinquish it. It seems perfectly ethical/moral to me.

Well NASA is run by the government, and the government passed this law. I'm in your boat, but I think you're right. However if they violated it it would be interesting to see who'd be thrown under the bus.

That said this is just another law designed to further tension IMO. If you created a rule that designated the information conferences were bilateral, and that the nations all share in their fields, then that would be fair, however creating a rule that bans a foreigner, will only increase tensions, possibly creating a ban against Americans in similar conferences held in China.

Maybe China bans US nationals from a conference on Architecture? Then US opinion gets increasingly anti-China, forgetting the pretext that caused said most recent bad decision. I guess what I'm trying to say is that bad policy builds up technical-debt, especially in foreign affairs.

The way I see it, this is them simply penalizing a monopoly. While you could argue some subsidize their income through Amazon, many more actual French citizens earn their income through independent brick and mortar shops.

I honestly don't see how restricting Amazon alone affects the market that much. It wouldn't affect my aspirations towards publishing a book or marketplace.

That said, I don't see how another "non populist" argument could be justified by a government...

Both the left and right of their government has approved this law. While I understand this is more in line with authoritarian politicking than libertarian politicking, they do make a decent locale/culture argument against a cultureless behemoth like Amazon.

Exactly. No need to complain about win-win scenarios that aren't coercive.

Why? OP gave you a list and a fairly non bias summary for each. Besides, using their site is completely optional and based on volunteerism. If you think it was of poor character, don't use their site.

Is mentioning they run the site necessary? Absolutely not IMO.

I guess my point was that if people are complaining about certain services being cut due to a shutdown, the people should be equally mad about what services get shut down during a shutdown. They've happened enough in the last 50 years to warrant a more open debate.

Wow. Thanks for the detailed information!

And apparently some Panda in a reserve wont be fed according to the news. It's pretty sick when people believe this is the only way to partially shut down the government.

Most of the NSA (85%), FBI (85%), CIA (85%), Congress (Fully), The Judicial Branch, The Senate (Fully) will be paid and working.

If the US government partially shuts down the government, but chooses to spend on defense but not National Parks and NASA, then it chooses to shut down in that way...

If only this was real... Seriously, 123,000$ could leverage you much from contracts, tax relief, or military might. People may think this is bad, but usually with the government, bribes take a long time, and are usually geared towards everyone, so while cheap, are time sinks. This would solve my problems with bribing.

Conversely, you could say that half the adult population is not mature enough to vote. Or how about your logic applied to Women during the Women's Suffrage movement. They didn't work as much or were as educated back then. Maybe they shouldn't vote- oh wait, nevermind. They were disenfranchised.

What about African Americans in the 1700's? Again, on average less educated and "mature" as one might say due to being a disenfranchised population.

The funniest thing about your vote, is that in 2 years from 16, they somehow magically become mature enough...

> Don't worry too much about kids taking over the country -- voter participation by people younger than 40 is so low that you could drop the voting age to zero and it wouldn't affect the results that much.

Well then let's do that. Seriously. Making assumptions on participation for youths in elections is akin to making assumptions on how women would vote before Women's Suffrage. While you may be correct, it's impossible to say that they're apathetic for such and such reasons when they're not even allowed to vote until the age of 18.

Exactly. Taxation without representation is extortion.

> Why are there high deficits, currently? Oh yeah, social safety net.

Yes, because it's definitely not military and espionage expenditure or subsidies for corporations.

> My point is, these subjects (even TBTF) aren't black and white.

While I agree with you B&W point, I feel like too big to fail is a failure in management of the economy. To let companies become so big as to effect the entire economy so negatively if they fail is disastrous. The government is propping up/keeping afloat monopolies.

In my opinion, The US is at 0% interest rates, is still in a recession, and can't possibly do anything else in regards to inflationary measures (printing money) without the negative affect on it's position as the world reserve currency.

http://youtu.be/PHe0bXAIuk0?t=13m36s <- Notice how the US is on target for a depression according to many economists.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMHmTyJXcy0&feature=c4-overvi... <- Here's a great talk regarding quantum easing and how unless the government can start more drastic measures, the economy will tank.

I'd like to heard your defense for the status quo, and also how you believe that social safety nets created in the 40's has anything to do with our crises of 2008.

> Wait, what. You meant to come out against ageism, then you criticize old people for voting "wrong"?

No, I'm simply pointing out that in this day and age, we have more older people voicing their opinion. This leads to policies that favor this group and disadvantages other groups (youth).

I think Thomas Jefferson had much to say on the tyranny of one generation to the next.

> All in all, if you take a step back from you criticisms, there's a common point: Legitimacy. Submitting a ballot every few years is a very weak foundation for a government as sprawling and powerful as most modern and western ones. Fiddling the knobs of who can vote does little more than shift the balance of power inside the political class.

Agreed. However youth suffrage is an important topic. You say that society needs to protect childhood, but to me, it seems like they're protecting them from their own opinions and values... Like the article mentions.

Incidentally, I'm sure Men had many reasons why Women wouldn't have been good voters before 1918. Too bad we actually have to allow them to do so before we can actually make assumptions on how they'd act. /s

How about we try to get to the core issues of this systemic risk of authoritarianism and repression, and look at:

Ageism: Why can't younger people vote? Because they don't have valid opinions? Some adults don't have valid opinions. This seems to affect our dramatically in our modern era, as many of our older folks are still around and skewing the generational differences towards conservatism.

Classism: Why do we feel it necessary to have a political class at all? Bush Sr., Mr. Clinton, Bush Jr., Obama, (Ms. Clinton?). To me, it feels weird even asking these people to have differing views. They're all apart of the council on foreign relations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Members_of_the_Council_on_Fore...). Control+F either Clinton or Bush. This in my opinion, is why we won't change any neo-con/neo-lib policies anytime soon. Expect less worker rights, more outsourcing, more free trade, more deficits, and more protection of institutions deemed too big to fail (impossible in classical capitalism but not the crony kind).

Apathy: The US has killed many people in Iraq since 2003. If you crunch one version of account, it works out to 16 people every day, for 20 years. Yet most Americans are more concerned with their own internal matters. This seems like it could be extended to anything being committed outside of the US to other humans, including torture, enslavement, anything. The American people have already shown that if their bellies are full, then it doesn't matter how many people their government kills. How can anyone fix this?

Anyway, this to me seems like the major hurdles we all need to get over...

Hey really cool videos thanks for sharing the link.

I've been extremely interested in starting a youtube channel and ones that are currently similar are somewhat similar to your youtube stats.

An example:

5,000 subscribers

1,000,000 views

Joined 2011

So my question is how did you monetize your channel? I have a few more months to go before I can get good equipment for recording and editing so I'm unfamiliar with youtube's monetization for niche channels. Thanks.

That sounds really cool you should provide me (us) link.

For niche blogs that do well like yours;

What year did you start? How was growth? Posting frequency?

Thanks for any insights. I'm really curious because I'm slowly starting to realize I can maybe earn some beer money by being an active part of the community for a hobby of mine. Your case is a perfect example, as you do adsense, have a similar niche (newish tech) and seem like you started our of fun/love of your hobby. Cheers

Again. Seriously dude. Asian is not a race you ignoramus.