“"we see physical assaults on our officers on a daily basis ... Not with guns but everyday pushing, shoving, kicking..."
Really? Who would be dumb enough to try that. They'd be arrested so fast their head would spin and I have to imagine they'd never be able to fly again, preventing future altercations.
That being said, their are 50,000 employees, so saying it's 1 a day then for the average TSA employee this will happen once every ~137 years. Yeah, that sounds real tough.”
scottpot on Nov 5, 2013 at 08:00:25
“Exactly.Post 9/11 if you even touch Anybody working in public transportation 'it is a Felony.”
any mouse on Nov 5, 2013 at 07:27:40
“A surprising number of people treat TSA agent very poorly, never understanding that they are assaulting a federal officer and that assaulting a TSA agent is the same legally as assaulting an FBI agent.
I was a supervisor for TSA and most people would back off when I pointed out that if they didn't calm down, they could be treated the same by the courts as they would be if they had done the same thing to an FBI agent. When they figured out that federal prison was not a fun place, most calmed down.
A few I had to remind that if they wanted to fly they had to be nice to me because the airlines would dump them from a flight at my say so. If I was still working for TSA, I would now point out that they could end up on the permanent "no fly" list, which sucks if your job requires you to fly on a regular basis.
That being said, 90% of the people that go through the check points understand that the agents are just doing their jobs and comply without any hassles. About 5% don't fly enough and get very confused, but are OK once the agents help them through the process. About 5% are jerks.
What I found shocking was the number of very prohibited items people thoughtlessly tried to pack. Things like loaded guns, "big Box" sized cans of oven cleaner (explosive at high altitude), and similar things.”
“The point of this article is that they're not really saving people's butts, mostly they're using excessive force and increasing casualties. So zero or almost zero positives for a whole lot of negative.”
“The thing is, if they're swat, many people don't want them putting their "precious lives on the line" to begin with, we'd rather see them out of a job. Then, when the job goes wrong and someone is killed who didn't have to be...”
“My question is where overseas are they going? I would have thought the US is still much better than all of the other alternatives that are all having troubles of their own unless maybe they're planning on going to China, which seems unlikely.”
sionnachair on Aug 29, 2013 at 19:12:36
“Chinese postdocs trained here are returning to China to set up labs there, instead of applying for jobs at US universities. They can get large labs paid for by the government whereas a US university can start them with 2 or 3 people and then they have to fight hard to get NIH money. A lot of high-quality scientific papers are coming from China now. That's fine but if the US doesn't invest now, we are going to lose out like we did in manufacturing.”
“That's exactly what I want to do. Let another country take the lead for once or at least wait until the chemical weapons are 100% verified, there's international support, and the international community is begging for our intervention.”
Siobhan R on Aug 29, 2013 at 00:57:07
“Yeah you Odrade!!! I agree. Let's let another country who doesn't have the same deficit we do step up to bat for once. Also, before we get involved...could we pleeeeeease know the facts!!”
blackwednesday on Aug 29, 2013 at 00:00:03
“@Odrade: Ok. I mostly agree, but China & Russia are problematic. They won't support military action under any circumstances...so then what? That pretty much means there won't be a UN mandate.
So, how long do we wait, and what does "taking the lead" mean? Who just starts bombing first? France is itching to fight.”
“Anyone know what specifically is the law that forces companies to comply and give the NSA access?”
quincy maxwell on Aug 9, 2013 at 17:31:10
“The Patriot Act. And the Constitution of the NSA.”
didereaux on Aug 9, 2013 at 17:30:30
“At this point the 'law'is whatever the Executive Branch says it is. Most of the time they rely on gobbledygook involving the 'Patriot Act' or FISA, but occasionally they simply fall back on the 'national security' clause.
This country has turned the corner, and if the people do not rise up en mass in huge protests the bus is going over the cliff.”
“Well, "The Futures Game: Who Wins, Who Loses, & Why" comes to mind. It even has a section titled "Speculating or Gambling?"
Care to respond to my points or support yours? Simply stating something does not make it true and serves no purpose. I gave concrete examples of how derivatives trading is not necessarily gambling and how derivatives CAN be analyzed.
Let's assume that you're right and for some reason the only analysis that matters is the analysis for stocks in "Security Analysis." My point about call options still holds and yet here's how our conversation roughly went:
You: Stocks can be analyzed, derivatives cannot
Me: Price of call option = price of stock therefore analysis of call option derivative = analysis of stock
You: Still, stocks can be analyzed and derivatives cannot
You are aware that if two things are equal, then any statement you make about one applies to the other, right? Thus either both stocks and some call options can be analyzed or they both cannot be analyzed.”
Syllogizer on Jun 18, 2013 at 11:46:34
“You say you gave "concrete examples", but I didn't see any. Not even one.”