Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Real Security - Bogus Security
129 views
Skip to first unread message
Julian Macassey
Apr 8, 2012, 2:10:19 PM4/8/12
to
Today we live in a world of security theatre. Want to
visit someone in a high rise office building? Photo ID required.
Want to fly somewhere? Get your gear X-rayed, sniffed for
explosives and body passed through a magnetometer and if you are
lucky X-rayed. Just to make sure you are not going to try
anything that has been tried before and don't know how to evade
the checks.
Want to pay exorbitant entrance fees to see your fave
musician come on stage late and stoned and try to perform? You
need to be patted down to make sure you are not carrying anything
illegal.
Driving home after a nice dinner. Check point ahead. They
say it's to make sure you are not driving drunk. How do they
know? Well they need to see your driving licence it seems. I
suppose if you look like the picture on your licence, you must be
really drunk. Sometimes they ask for proof of insurance, does this
mean drunk drivers don't have insurance ether?
The reality is they are trolling for offenders, no
licence, no insurance etc. It's exactly what they say it
isn't, an old fashioned check point, just like the third world, just
like everyday Iraq, or Pakistan. When you read the stats, you see
they get a few drunks and lots of people who have no licence, are
wanted by the cops etc.
Anyhow, the main event is all the security theatre, the
shuck and jive they put on to convince the simple and normal that
all is OK and they are safe.
Despite all the theatre are they any safer? No, but they
feel less paranoid, knowing a bored person in a uniform earning
close to minimum wage is annoying people trying to go about their
daily routine without let or hindrance.
Of course, the computer world has a long history of this
play acting. In the days when computer meant BIG MAINFRAME, they
were kept in locked rooms, often with big glass windows so the
peasantry could look into the cathedral, a lepers squint for the
other staff. Inside the locked room? People earning as little as
the company could get away with - Computer operators, paid to swap
tape, load paper and start batches when told to.
Did that theatre make computing safer? Of course not.
Then, as now, the damage was always done by people outside the
locked room. Programmers with terminals, messing with the code,
analysts coming up with oddities that benefited them. Plus of
course most fraud, bogus accounts set up etc. were done at the
request of executives, people who probably had never been in the
locked room where the corporate computer was kept.
Was this a clue? It seems not. The physical security has
got worse as the actual breaches, via data access have got worse.
Visit a big colo data center. Which is a big building
with rows and rows of 19 inch racks and big SANs. Unless you
arrive with a power saw and a 16 lb sledge hammer, there isn't
much damage you can do if you do gain access with bad intent.
So, to give you assurance that your data is safe, the
building will have no name on it, the door will have biometric
access. Getting past the receptionist, a renta-goon behind a
bulletproof screen requires "Photo ID" and then unless you want
an escort (often with gun) to trail you, you need to be
registered bio-metrically for access.
Once you are in, you need extra crap if you just happened
to pop by to add or remove something like a PSU. Serial numbers
will be taken by a disinterested renta-good, you will be on camera.
Yet daily these super secure centers are penetrated - via
the data links. More doors and cameras will not stop that.
When will the stupidity stop?
--
It is through disobedience that progress has been made, through
disobedience and through rebellion. - Oscar Wilde
Message has been deleted
Garrett Wollman
Apr 8, 2012, 2:57:07 PM4/8/12
to
In article <slrnjo3l4b...@adeed.tele.com>,
reason. Some unimportant places make you wear a visitor badge with a
blurry black-and-white photo on it (Which Must Be Returned When You
Leave); some important places will let anyone in without fuss, so long
as you claim to be seeing someone.
I'm told that a lot of it is driven by insurance companies.
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wol...@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
Julian Macassey <jul...@tele.com> wrote:
> Today we live in a world of security theatre. Want to
>visit someone in a high rise office building? Photo ID required.
Actually, I've found this to be extremely variable, for no obvious
> Today we live in a world of security theatre. Want to
>visit someone in a high rise office building? Photo ID required.
reason. Some unimportant places make you wear a visitor badge with a
blurry black-and-white photo on it (Which Must Be Returned When You
Leave); some important places will let anyone in without fuss, so long
as you claim to be seeing someone.
I'm told that a lot of it is driven by insurance companies.
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wol...@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
Julian Macassey
Apr 8, 2012, 3:03:11 PM4/8/12
to
On Sun, 8 Apr 2012 18:57:07 +0000 (UTC), Garrett Wollman
<wol...@bimajority.org> wrote:
> In article <slrnjo3l4b...@adeed.tele.com>,
> Julian Macassey <jul...@tele.com> wrote:
>
>> Today we live in a world of security theatre. Want to
>>visit someone in a high rise office building? Photo ID required.
>
> Actually, I've found this to be extremely variable, for no obvious
> reason. Some unimportant places make you wear a visitor badge with a
> blurry black-and-white photo on it (Which Must Be Returned When You
> Leave); some important places will let anyone in without fuss, so long
> as you claim to be seeing someone.
I think much of that is driven by the company's idea of
<wol...@bimajority.org> wrote:
> In article <slrnjo3l4b...@adeed.tele.com>,
> Julian Macassey <jul...@tele.com> wrote:
>
>> Today we live in a world of security theatre. Want to
>>visit someone in a high rise office building? Photo ID required.
>
> Actually, I've found this to be extremely variable, for no obvious
> reason. Some unimportant places make you wear a visitor badge with a
> blurry black-and-white photo on it (Which Must Be Returned When You
> Leave); some important places will let anyone in without fuss, so long
> as you claim to be seeing someone.
their importance. Places that have no need to try to impress,
can't be bothered with the trouble and expense.
>
> I'm told that a lot of it is driven by insurance companies.
Consider that the biggest renta-goon company Kroll was
> I'm told that a lot of it is driven by insurance companies.
owned by "too big to fail" insurance company AIG. Symbiosis?
Alan J Rosenthal
Apr 8, 2012, 3:07:54 PM4/8/12
to
Yes. We're safer all the time. All sorts of crime statistics are down.
The security theatre doesn't help, of course; on the contrary, the reduction
in crime shows that the security theatre is unnecessary.
> When will the stupidity stop?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe
The security theatre doesn't help, of course; on the contrary, the reduction
in crime shows that the security theatre is unnecessary.
> When will the stupidity stop?
Alan J Rosenthal
Apr 8, 2012, 3:21:52 PM4/8/12
to
wol...@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) writes:
>Actually, I've found this to be extremely variable, for no obvious
>reason.
I think the reason would be that it is theatre, rather than security.
>Actually, I've found this to be extremely variable, for no obvious
>reason.
No ISO standards for the required level of theatre.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Joe Zeff
Apr 9, 2012, 5:50:13 AM4/9/12
to
On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 18:10:19 +0000, Julian Macassey wrote:
> Today we live in a world of security theatre.
You left out a word: it should be security *kabuki* theater.
> Today we live in a world of security theatre.
--
Joe Zeff -- The Guy With The Sideburns:
http://www.zeff.us http://www.lasfs.info
Reputation is what others think of you;
honor is what you know of yourself.
Shmuel Metz
Apr 9, 2012, 8:21:34 AM4/9/12
to
In <slrnjo3l4b...@adeed.tele.com>, on 04/08/2012
mainframes from Hollywood?
Why spoil a good rant by throwing in bogus history?
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <http://patriot.net/~shmuel> ISO position
Reply to domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+bspfh to contact me.
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
at 06:10 PM, Julian Macassey <jul...@tele.com> said:
>Of course, the computer world has a long history of this play
>acting. In the days when computer meant BIG MAINFRAME, they were
>kept in locked rooms,
May I have some of what you're smoking? Or did you learn about
>Of course, the computer world has a long history of this play
>acting. In the days when computer meant BIG MAINFRAME, they were
>kept in locked rooms,
mainframes from Hollywood?
Why spoil a good rant by throwing in bogus history?
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <http://patriot.net/~shmuel> ISO position
Reply to domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+bspfh to contact me.
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
Alexander Schreiber
Apr 9, 2012, 8:17:58 AM4/9/12
to
Julian Macassey <jul...@tele.com> wrote:
>
> [security theatre]
HTH,
Alex.
--
"Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and
looks like work." -- Thomas A. Edison
>
> [security theatre]
>
> When will the stupidity stop?
Ha, that is an easy one: never.
> When will the stupidity stop?
HTH,
Alex.
--
"Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and
looks like work." -- Thomas A. Edison
Julian Macassey
Apr 9, 2012, 9:04:14 AM4/9/12
to
On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 08:21:34 -0400, Shmuel Metz
<spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote:
> In <slrnjo3l4b...@adeed.tele.com>, on 04/08/2012
> at 06:10 PM, Julian Macassey <jul...@tele.com> said:
>
>>Of course, the computer world has a long history of this play
>>acting. In the days when computer meant BIG MAINFRAME, they were
>>kept in locked rooms,
>
> May I have some of what you're smoking? Or did you learn about
> mainframes from Hollywood?
Hollywood mainframes are the ones that have sparks and
<spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote:
> In <slrnjo3l4b...@adeed.tele.com>, on 04/08/2012
> at 06:10 PM, Julian Macassey <jul...@tele.com> said:
>
>>Of course, the computer world has a long history of this play
>>acting. In the days when computer meant BIG MAINFRAME, they were
>>kept in locked rooms,
>
> May I have some of what you're smoking? Or did you learn about
> mainframes from Hollywood?
smoke coming off them.
>
> Why spoil a good rant by throwing in bogus history?
Well, let's have a quick look.
> Why spoil a good rant by throwing in bogus history?
East London 1967, big mainframe behind locked doors.
Copenhagen 1968, big mainframe in locked buiding.
Los Angeles (Inglewood) 1980 big mainframe, locked doors,
card key access for only a few.
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 1995 Mainframe in locked room.
Pewaukee, Wisconsin. 1995 Mainframe in locked room.
I have more if you need them.
Amusing anecdotes:
At the Inglewood facility, owned by a large oil Co, I
once saw a developer enter the room with her Card Key. Rather
than swipe the key and wait for the electric latch to acrtivate,
she slipped the bolt with her card.
At the Pewaukee facility, one evening a VP after a good
dinner decided to show some of his buddies round the company HQ.
On the tour was a visit to the computer room where two IBM 290s
lived. He rang the bell on the door and an operator opened. He
asked to come in and the operator, never having seen the VP
before asked for company ID. Said VP had none and operator
refused him access. The operator was not disciplined.
Bogus history?
Message has been deleted
Mike Andrews
Apr 9, 2012, 9:14:16 AM4/9/12
to
Julian Macassey <jul...@tele.com> wrote in <slrnjo5nie...@adeed.tele.com>:
To which I add:
Rice University, 1964 Mainframe in locked room
Nasa Manned Spacecraft Center, Houston, 1965-7 Multiple
mainframes in locked rooms in locked buildings
US Air Force, various locations, 1967-71 Multiple mainframes in
locked rooms in locked, guarded buildings
University of Oklahoma 1970-present Mainframe in locked room
Oklahoma State University, 1970-present Mainframe in locked room
Oklahoma Department of Transportation 1973-present Mainframe in
locked room
Other Oklahoma state government agencies 1973-present Mainframes
without exception in locked rooms
Wilson Foods, Oklahoma City, 1977-1990 (company folded)
Mainframe in locked room
IBM Corporation, various locations, 1973-present Mainframes in
locked rooms.
In all the above cases, access was restricted to operations,
systems programmers, and their immediate management.
--
"Of course they're pallid and mushroom-like, Howard!
They're _mushrooms_!"
-- from a Gahan Wilson cartoon
involving H.P. Lovecraft
Rice University, 1964 Mainframe in locked room
Nasa Manned Spacecraft Center, Houston, 1965-7 Multiple
mainframes in locked rooms in locked buildings
US Air Force, various locations, 1967-71 Multiple mainframes in
locked rooms in locked, guarded buildings
University of Oklahoma 1970-present Mainframe in locked room
Oklahoma State University, 1970-present Mainframe in locked room
Oklahoma Department of Transportation 1973-present Mainframe in
locked room
Other Oklahoma state government agencies 1973-present Mainframes
without exception in locked rooms
Wilson Foods, Oklahoma City, 1977-1990 (company folded)
Mainframe in locked room
IBM Corporation, various locations, 1973-present Mainframes in
locked rooms.
In all the above cases, access was restricted to operations,
systems programmers, and their immediate management.
--
"Of course they're pallid and mushroom-like, Howard!
They're _mushrooms_!"
-- from a Gahan Wilson cartoon
involving H.P. Lovecraft
David DeLaney
Apr 9, 2012, 7:13:17 PM4/9/12
to
Joe Zeff <the.guy.with....@lasfs.info> wrote:
>On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 18:10:19 +0000, Julian Macassey wrote:
>> Today we live in a world of security theatre.
>
>You left out a word: it should be security *kabuki* theater.
It may be closer to security Noh theatre...
>On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 18:10:19 +0000, Julian Macassey wrote:
>> Today we live in a world of security theatre.
>
>You left out a word: it should be security *kabuki* theater.
Dave "what part of Noh oh wait, most of it" DeLaney
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Shmuel Metz
Apr 10, 2012, 7:26:34 AM4/10/12
to
In <slrnjo5nie...@adeed.tele.com>, on 04/09/2012
Unfortunately, it[1] was a sorter, not a computer.
> Well, let's have a quick look.
I did, at the copmputers that I've been on. Only the classified
computers had locked doors.
>East London 1967, big mainframe behind locked doors.
Perhaps things are different in Europe[2].
>Los Angeles (Inglewood) 1980 big mainframe, locked doors, card key
>access for only a few.
Los Angelos, 1967, 360/40, not behing locked door.
>I have more if you need them.
So do I, not locked.
>On the tour was a visit to the computer room where two IBM 290s
290? I doubt it.
>Said VP had none and operator
>refused him access. The operator was not disciplined.
In a well run shop, an operator would be disciplined for letting in a
VP without identification. In the Army he could face a court martial
for letting in a general without ID. Fire an operator for doing his
job and you can expect a lawsuit.
[1] I don't know whether it was a different sorter in every movie
or the same sorter.
[2] Yes, the UK is part of Europe.
at 01:04 PM, Julian Macassey <jul...@tele.com> said:
>Hollywood mainframes are the ones that have sparks and
>smoke coming off them.
I recall ar least one Hollywood mainfram that had no smoke.
>Hollywood mainframes are the ones that have sparks and
>smoke coming off them.
Unfortunately, it[1] was a sorter, not a computer.
> Well, let's have a quick look.
computers had locked doors.
>East London 1967, big mainframe behind locked doors.
>Los Angeles (Inglewood) 1980 big mainframe, locked doors, card key
>access for only a few.
>I have more if you need them.
>On the tour was a visit to the computer room where two IBM 290s
>Said VP had none and operator
>refused him access. The operator was not disciplined.
VP without identification. In the Army he could face a court martial
for letting in a general without ID. Fire an operator for doing his
job and you can expect a lawsuit.
[1] I don't know whether it was a different sorter in every movie
or the same sorter.
[2] Yes, the UK is part of Europe.
Graham Reed
Apr 10, 2012, 3:29:26 PM4/10/12
to
Mike Andrews <mi...@mikea.ath.cx> writes:
> IBM Corporation, various locations, 1973-present Mainframes in
> locked rooms.
It was a Very Big Deal giving me physical access to the room which
> IBM Corporation, various locations, 1973-present Mainframes in
> locked rooms.
housed our shiny-new 64-bit Aches box--back when that needed two
full-height rack-frames--because that room was secured to the same level
as a Mainframe (= Host in IBMeze) facility. It had the tape robots and
other "Everyone in the building... and several other buildings" class
servers.
Why was our test machine put there? 'Cause it hadn't been released yet
and someone was worried that someone would be able to clone it from
viewing the cabinets. (Rather than reading the white papers out of
Research which described exactly the bits that they thought would make
it crash faster than any Aches machine before. 'Cause no-one had ever
heard of a crossbar switch, right?)
--
"Graham was right."
-- "Smoke and Mirrors" by Tanya Huff
Howard S Shubs
Apr 14, 2012, 6:15:52 PM4/14/12
to
In article <slrnjo5l3...@mordor.angband.thangorodrim.de>,
--
Don't bother with piddly crap like "gun control".
Life is 100% fatal. Ban it.
Alexander Schreiber <a...@usenet.thangorodrim.de> wrote:
> Julian Macassey <jul...@tele.com> wrote:
> >
> > [security theatre]
> >
> > When will the stupidity stop?
>
> Ha, that is an easy one: never.
It'll stop when September 1993 ends.
> Julian Macassey <jul...@tele.com> wrote:
> >
> > [security theatre]
> >
> > When will the stupidity stop?
>
> Ha, that is an easy one: never.
--
Don't bother with piddly crap like "gun control".
Life is 100% fatal. Ban it.
Niklas Karlsson
Apr 14, 2012, 6:38:58 PM4/14/12
to
On 2012-04-14, Howard S Shubs <how...@shubs.net> wrote:
> In article <slrnjo5l3...@mordor.angband.thangorodrim.de>,
> Alexander Schreiber <a...@usenet.thangorodrim.de> wrote:
>
>> Julian Macassey <jul...@tele.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > [security theatre]
>> >
>> > When will the stupidity stop?
>>
>> Ha, that is an easy one: never.
>
> It'll stop when September 1993 ends.
Only locally, and in a fairly limited way.
> In article <slrnjo5l3...@mordor.angband.thangorodrim.de>,
> Alexander Schreiber <a...@usenet.thangorodrim.de> wrote:
>
>> Julian Macassey <jul...@tele.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > [security theatre]
>> >
>> > When will the stupidity stop?
>>
>> Ha, that is an easy one: never.
>
> It'll stop when September 1993 ends.
I thought that September 1993 had in fact ended, though, at least by a
technical definition. AOL no longer has a Usenet interface, does it? I
recall much ado about it being shut down a while back.
Snprobbx doesn't have one that I know of, but no doubt I'll be proven
wrong...
Niklas
--
You know you're in trouble when the Russians are adding safety
features to your design.
-- Maciej Ceglowski on Buran, the Space Shuttle clone
Julian Macassey
Apr 14, 2012, 7:21:45 PM4/14/12
to
On 14 Apr 2012 22:38:58 GMT, Niklas Karlsson <ank...@yahoo.se> wrote:
>
> I thought that September 1993 had in fact ended, though, at least by a
> technical definition. AOL no longer has a Usenet interface, does it? I
> recall much ado about it being shut down a while back.
>
> Snprobbx doesn't have one that I know of, but no doubt I'll be proven
> wrong...
Alas, farcebook is like AOL in its heyday, a world unto
>
> I thought that September 1993 had in fact ended, though, at least by a
> technical definition. AOL no longer has a Usenet interface, does it? I
> recall much ado about it being shut down a while back.
>
> Snprobbx doesn't have one that I know of, but no doubt I'll be proven
> wrong...
itself. farcbook users I am told are unaware of e-mail, let alone
goggle etc.
Another reason to despise the luser on farcebook.
--
The right to bear arms comes from our creator, not from our
government. - Newt Gingrich 13 April 2012
Wojciech Derechowski
Apr 15, 2012, 1:06:37 AM4/15/12
to
On 2012-04-14, Niklas Karlsson <ank...@yahoo.se> wrote:
> On 2012-04-14, Howard S Shubs <how...@shubs.net> wrote:
>> In article <slrnjo5l3...@mordor.angband.thangorodrim.de>,
>> Alexander Schreiber <a...@usenet.thangorodrim.de> wrote:
>>
>>> Julian Macassey <jul...@tele.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > [security theatre]
>>> >
>>> > When will the stupidity stop?
>>>
>>> Ha, that is an easy one: never.
>>
>> It'll stop when September 1993 ends.
>
> Only locally, and in a fairly limited way.
>
[Usenet interface]
> On 2012-04-14, Howard S Shubs <how...@shubs.net> wrote:
>> In article <slrnjo5l3...@mordor.angband.thangorodrim.de>,
>> Alexander Schreiber <a...@usenet.thangorodrim.de> wrote:
>>
>>> Julian Macassey <jul...@tele.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > [security theatre]
>>> >
>>> > When will the stupidity stop?
>>>
>>> Ha, that is an easy one: never.
>>
>> It'll stop when September 1993 ends.
>
> Only locally, and in a fairly limited way.
>
>
> Snprobbx doesn't have one that I know of, but no doubt I'll be proven
> wrong...
As recently exposed government conspiracy, and thus a part of security
> Snprobbx doesn't have one that I know of, but no doubt I'll be proven
> wrong...
theater for various three- and four-letter agencies, it should have
one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?hl=en&v=ZJ380SHZvYU&gl=US
WD
--
Who is Entscheidungs and what is his problem?
Paul
Apr 15, 2012, 4:19:00 PM4/15/12
to
Julian Macassey <jul...@tele.com> wrote in
news:slrnjok1k9...@adeed.tele.com:
> On 14 Apr 2012 22:38:58 GMT, Niklas Karlsson <ank...@yahoo.se>
> wrote:
>>
>> I thought that September 1993 had in fact ended, though, at least
>> by a technical definition. AOL no longer has a Usenet interface,
>> does it? I recall much ado about it being shut down a while back.
>>
>> Snprobbx doesn't have one that I know of, but no doubt I'll be
>> proven wrong...
>
> Alas, farcebook is like AOL in its heyday, a world unto
> itself. farcbook users I am told are unaware of e-mail, let alone
> goggle etc.
>
> Another reason to despise the luser on farcebook.
--
Paul the Legacy Server
Full Recovery reached May 30, 2008
"People can be educated beyond their intelligence"
-- Marilyn vos Savant
Message has been deleted
Andrew
Apr 19, 2012, 8:11:04 AM4/19/12
to
On Sun, 8 Apr 2012 18:10:19 +0000 (UTC), Julian Macassey wrote:
> Want to fly somewhere? Get your gear X-rayed, sniffed for
> explosives and body passed through a magnetometer and if you are
> lucky X-rayed. Just to make sure you are not going to try
> anything that has been tried before and don't know how to evade
> the checks.
I had to fly recently, something I've avoided since they started giving you
> Want to fly somewhere? Get your gear X-rayed, sniffed for
> explosives and body passed through a magnetometer and if you are
> lucky X-rayed. Just to make sure you are not going to try
> anything that has been tried before and don't know how to evade
> the checks.
a choice between perv scanners and sexual assault. I wasn't hassled, but as
we were leaving, my partner noticed security giving a patdown to a seven
year old girl. Because she was wearing leg braces.
On the plus side, it seems you can get attractive young women to smile at
you by remarking on how rediculous the whole thing is. I suspect that is
because they have more frequent problems with it than most.
--
Andrew
IT is a filter. It accepts masochists on stdin and emits misanthropes on
stdout.
Jay E. Morris
Apr 19, 2012, 6:17:15 PM4/19/12
to
On 4/19/2012 7:11 AM, Andrew wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Apr 2012 18:10:19 +0000 (UTC), Julian Macassey wrote:
>
>> Want to fly somewhere? Get your gear X-rayed, sniffed for
>> explosives and body passed through a magnetometer and if you are
>> lucky X-rayed. Just to make sure you are not going to try
>> anything that has been tried before and don't know how to evade
>> the checks.
>
> I had to fly recently, something I've avoided since they started giving you
> a choice between perv scanners and sexual assault. I wasn't hassled, but as
> we were leaving, my partner noticed security giving a patdown to a seven
> year old girl. Because she was wearing leg braces.
>
> On the plus side, it seems you can get attractive young women to smile at
> you by remarking on how rediculous the whole thing is. I suspect that is
> because they have more frequent problems with it than most.
>
An acquaintance of mine who falls into that category says one way to
> On Sun, 8 Apr 2012 18:10:19 +0000 (UTC), Julian Macassey wrote:
>
>> Want to fly somewhere? Get your gear X-rayed, sniffed for
>> explosives and body passed through a magnetometer and if you are
>> lucky X-rayed. Just to make sure you are not going to try
>> anything that has been tried before and don't know how to evade
>> the checks.
>
> I had to fly recently, something I've avoided since they started giving you
> a choice between perv scanners and sexual assault. I wasn't hassled, but as
> we were leaving, my partner noticed security giving a patdown to a seven
> year old girl. Because she was wearing leg braces.
>
> On the plus side, it seems you can get attractive young women to smile at
> you by remarking on how rediculous the whole thing is. I suspect that is
> because they have more frequent problems with it than most.
>
insure getting searched is to wear a long skirt/dress. She could be
hiding an entire al-Qaeda terrorist cell under there.
Lawns 'R' Us
Apr 20, 2012, 3:03:23 AM4/20/12
to
On 2012-04-19, Jay E. Morris <mor...@epsilon3.com> wrote:
> An acquaintance of mine who falls into that category says one way to
> insure getting searched is to wear a long skirt/dress. She could be
> hiding an entire al-Qaeda terrorist cell under there.
What size? AAA, AA, A, B, C, D, 4.5 volt, 9 volt, lantern, ...?
> An acquaintance of mine who falls into that category says one way to
> insure getting searched is to wear a long skirt/dress. She could be
> hiding an entire al-Qaeda terrorist cell under there.
Message has been deleted
Julian Macassey
Apr 20, 2012, 11:02:36 AM4/20/12
to
On Fri, 20 Apr 2012 11:26:44 +0000 (UTC), Gary Barnes
<g...@adminspotting.org> wrote:
> On 20 Apr 2012 07:03:23 GMT, Lawns 'R' Us
><nob...@nowhere.example.com> wrote:
> I think you'll find that a 9 volt at least is a battery.
4.5 and 9 Volt are just piles.
--
I have some great friends who are NASCAR team owners. - Willard
Mitt Romney
<g...@adminspotting.org> wrote:
> On 20 Apr 2012 07:03:23 GMT, Lawns 'R' Us
><nob...@nowhere.example.com> wrote:
4.5 and 9 Volt are just piles.
--
I have some great friends who are NASCAR team owners. - Willard
Mitt Romney
Joe Thompson
May 9, 2012, 12:14:39 PM5/9/12
to
On 2012-04-10, Shmuel Metz <spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote:
> In a well run shop, an operator would be disciplined for letting in a
> VP without identification. In the Army he could face a court martial
> for letting in a general without ID.
An acquaintance has justifiably drawn his sidearm on senior (to him)
> In a well run shop, an operator would be disciplined for letting in a
> VP without identification. In the Army he could face a court martial
> for letting in a general without ID.
NCOs twice:
http://everything2.com/user/Roninspoon/writeups/Two+stories+of+the+pistol
-- Joe
--
Joe Thompson | Sysadmin - Scientificist
E-mail addresses in headers are valid. | http://www.orion-com.com/
"There is no way my emacs is ever getting a credit card!" -- Matthew Vernon
Mike Andrews
May 9, 2012, 12:37:55 PM5/9/12
to
Joe Thompson <sp...@orion-com.com> wrote in <joe55f$e4l$7...@xen1.xcski.com>:
> On 2012-04-10, Shmuel Metz <spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote:
>> In a well run shop, an operator would be disciplined for letting in a
>> VP without identification. In the Army he could face a court martial
>> for letting in a general without ID.
>
> An acquaintance has justifiably drawn his sidearm on senior (to him)
> NCOs twice:
>
> http://everything2.com/user/Roninspoon/writeups/Two+stories+of+the+pistol
I am reliably informed by a former cow-orker, now gone to Permanent
Recovery, that when he was a USAF crypto custodian, he shot dead a bird
colonel who walked into the custodian's vault (inside the crypto vault,
which was itself inside the commcenter vault) without permission and not
only refused to leave, but got physically aggressive.
The colonel took the "I'm the Exec, I'm authorized anywhere" line. He
may have been the Exec, but he wasn't authorized there without explicit
permission from the custodian -- and he didn't have it.
Don Stich and I drew down on Army MPs who tried to disarm us while we were
carrying classified material at a level which required two armed men to
guard it. One of the MPs was an E-5, the others were E-3 and E-4. At the
time, Don and I were E-4. We weren't happy about it, but we had been told
that we would be armed from the time we left the vault until we returned.
--
The *good* thing about them, for filmic purposes, is that one Skippy
looks very much like all the rest, hence the terms "one-shot Skippy"
and "plug-compatible Skippy". I don't think they ever had to go as far
as "belt-fed Skippy". - R. Sneddon, in the monastery, on wallabies
> On 2012-04-10, Shmuel Metz <spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote:
>> In a well run shop, an operator would be disciplined for letting in a
>> VP without identification. In the Army he could face a court martial
>> for letting in a general without ID.
>
> An acquaintance has justifiably drawn his sidearm on senior (to him)
> NCOs twice:
>
> http://everything2.com/user/Roninspoon/writeups/Two+stories+of+the+pistol
Recovery, that when he was a USAF crypto custodian, he shot dead a bird
colonel who walked into the custodian's vault (inside the crypto vault,
which was itself inside the commcenter vault) without permission and not
only refused to leave, but got physically aggressive.
The colonel took the "I'm the Exec, I'm authorized anywhere" line. He
may have been the Exec, but he wasn't authorized there without explicit
permission from the custodian -- and he didn't have it.
Don Stich and I drew down on Army MPs who tried to disarm us while we were
carrying classified material at a level which required two armed men to
guard it. One of the MPs was an E-5, the others were E-3 and E-4. At the
time, Don and I were E-4. We weren't happy about it, but we had been told
that we would be armed from the time we left the vault until we returned.
--
The *good* thing about them, for filmic purposes, is that one Skippy
looks very much like all the rest, hence the terms "one-shot Skippy"
and "plug-compatible Skippy". I don't think they ever had to go as far
as "belt-fed Skippy". - R. Sneddon, in the monastery, on wallabies
Message has been deleted
Joe Thompson
May 9, 2012, 12:59:48 PM5/9/12
to
On 2012-05-09, Mike Andrews <mi...@mikea.ath.cx> wrote:
> Joe Thompson <sp...@orion-com.com> wrote in <joe55f$e4l$7...@xen1.xcski.com>:
>
>> On 2012-04-10, Shmuel Metz <spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote:
>>> In a well run shop, an operator would be disciplined for letting in a
>>> VP without identification. In the Army he could face a court martial
>>> for letting in a general without ID.
>>
>> An acquaintance has justifiably drawn his sidearm on senior (to him)
>> NCOs twice:
>>
>> http://everything2.com/user/Roninspoon/writeups/Two+stories+of+the+pistol
>
> I am reliably informed by a former cow-orker, now gone to Permanent
> Recovery, that when he was a USAF crypto custodian, he shot dead a bird
> colonel who walked into the custodian's vault (inside the crypto vault,
> which was itself inside the commcenter vault) without permission and not
> only refused to leave, but got physically aggressive.
The ultimate Career-Limiting Move... One wonders what the official
> Joe Thompson <sp...@orion-com.com> wrote in <joe55f$e4l$7...@xen1.xcski.com>:
>
>> On 2012-04-10, Shmuel Metz <spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote:
>>> In a well run shop, an operator would be disciplined for letting in a
>>> VP without identification. In the Army he could face a court martial
>>> for letting in a general without ID.
>>
>> An acquaintance has justifiably drawn his sidearm on senior (to him)
>> NCOs twice:
>>
>> http://everything2.com/user/Roninspoon/writeups/Two+stories+of+the+pistol
>
> I am reliably informed by a former cow-orker, now gone to Permanent
> Recovery, that when he was a USAF crypto custodian, he shot dead a bird
> colonel who walked into the custodian's vault (inside the crypto vault,
> which was itself inside the commcenter vault) without permission and not
> only refused to leave, but got physically aggressive.
report was to any next-of-kin.
I have heard rumors that the two men with the Keys What Arm the Real Big
Red Button in each missile installation are both armed, each under
orders to draw and if necessary fire on the other man if he in any way
acts erratically -- the latter word apparently being defined pretty
broadly.
I have no idea whether this is a Hollywood version of the truth, or the
real thing, or in either case whether somebody may have been influenced
rather a lot by _Blowups Happen_. -- Joe
Joe Zeff
May 9, 2012, 4:12:36 PM5/9/12
to
On Wed, 09 May 2012 16:14:39 +0000, Joe Thompson wrote:
> An acquaintance has justifiably drawn his sidearm on senior (to him)
> NCOs twice:
>
> http://everything2.com/user/Roninspoon/writeups/Two+stories+of+the
+pistol
Lovely. Absolutely lovely. The only thing better would have been if
> An acquaintance has justifiably drawn his sidearm on senior (to him)
> NCOs twice:
>
> http://everything2.com/user/Roninspoon/writeups/Two+stories+of+the
+pistol
Fredricks had been court martialed.
Being certified means I can legally be employed as a chain-sawyer. That
means that now the company can send me after spammers without running
afoul of occupational health and safety regulations.
Alexander Schreiber
May 9, 2012, 5:54:03 PM5/9/12
to
Roger Burton West <roger+a...@nospam.firedrake.org> wrote:
> out, it's not hard to get a uniform...
And if people are trained to obey the uniform, no matter what, you'll get
the Captain of Kopenick: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Voigt - if
you are lucky. If you are unlucky, well ...
Part of sentry training during my stint in the army where the stories
about (usually) officers who either a) had the "brilliant"[0] idea to
pull surprise inspections of their sentries[1][3] or b) tried bull their
way through checkpoints on the "I outrank you" card.[2]
Kind regards,
Alex.
[0] right
[1] occasionally getting a painful lesson in why this is not a good idea
courtesy of 7.62 NATO
[2] not getting anywhere and usually annoying _their_ superiors when they
got calls from the gatehouse about this sillyness
[3] usually by trying to sneak into secure areas, climbing over fences and
other bad ideas like that
> On 2012-05-09, Mike Andrews wrote:
>
>>The colonel took the "I'm the Exec, I'm authorized anywhere" line. He
>>may have been the Exec, but he wasn't authorized there without explicit
>>permission from the custodian -- and he didn't have it.
>
> It's weird how people can't generalise. As the linked article points
>
>>The colonel took the "I'm the Exec, I'm authorized anywhere" line. He
>>may have been the Exec, but he wasn't authorized there without explicit
>>permission from the custodian -- and he didn't have it.
>
> out, it's not hard to get a uniform...
And if people are trained to obey the uniform, no matter what, you'll get
the Captain of Kopenick: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Voigt - if
you are lucky. If you are unlucky, well ...
Part of sentry training during my stint in the army where the stories
about (usually) officers who either a) had the "brilliant"[0] idea to
pull surprise inspections of their sentries[1][3] or b) tried bull their
way through checkpoints on the "I outrank you" card.[2]
Kind regards,
Alex.
[0] right
[1] occasionally getting a painful lesson in why this is not a good idea
courtesy of 7.62 NATO
[2] not getting anywhere and usually annoying _their_ superiors when they
got calls from the gatehouse about this sillyness
[3] usually by trying to sneak into secure areas, climbing over fences and
other bad ideas like that
Joe Thompson
May 9, 2012, 6:26:14 PM5/9/12
to
On 2012-05-09, Alexander Schreiber <a...@usenet.thangorodrim.de> wrote:
> Roger Burton West <roger+a...@nospam.firedrake.org> wrote:
>> On 2012-05-09, Mike Andrews wrote:
>>
>>>The colonel took the "I'm the Exec, I'm authorized anywhere" line. He
>>>may have been the Exec, but he wasn't authorized there without explicit
>>>permission from the custodian -- and he didn't have it.
>>
>> It's weird how people can't generalise. As the linked article points
>> out, it's not hard to get a uniform...
>
> And if people are trained to obey the uniform, no matter what, you'll get
> the Captain of Kopenick: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Voigt - if
> you are lucky. If you are unlucky, well ...
...you get more malevolent forms of what TV Tropes calls the Bavarian
> Roger Burton West <roger+a...@nospam.firedrake.org> wrote:
>> On 2012-05-09, Mike Andrews wrote:
>>
>>>The colonel took the "I'm the Exec, I'm authorized anywhere" line. He
>>>may have been the Exec, but he wasn't authorized there without explicit
>>>permission from the custodian -- and he didn't have it.
>>
>> It's weird how people can't generalise. As the linked article points
>> out, it's not hard to get a uniform...
>
> And if people are trained to obey the uniform, no matter what, you'll get
> the Captain of Kopenick: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Voigt - if
> you are lucky. If you are unlucky, well ...
Fire Drill, up to and including the mass self-poisoning of the entire
staff of a Japanese bank. -- Joe
David Cameron Staples
May 9, 2012, 8:03:59 PM5/9/12
to
On 10/05/12 2:59 AM, Joe Thompson wrote:
> On 2012-05-09, Mike Andrews <mi...@mikea.ath.cx> wrote:
>> I am reliably informed by a former cow-orker, now gone to Permanent
>> Recovery, that when he was a USAF crypto custodian, he shot dead a bird
>> colonel who walked into the custodian's vault (inside the crypto vault,
>> which was itself inside the commcenter vault) without permission and not
>> only refused to leave, but got physically aggressive.
>
> The ultimate Career-Limiting Move... One wonders what the official
> report was to any next-of-kin.
Dear sir or madam,
> On 2012-05-09, Mike Andrews <mi...@mikea.ath.cx> wrote:
>> I am reliably informed by a former cow-orker, now gone to Permanent
>> Recovery, that when he was a USAF crypto custodian, he shot dead a bird
>> colonel who walked into the custodian's vault (inside the crypto vault,
>> which was itself inside the commcenter vault) without permission and not
>> only refused to leave, but got physically aggressive.
>
> The ultimate Career-Limiting Move... One wonders what the official
> report was to any next-of-kin.
The USAF regrets to inform you that Col Very Unwise was killed on <date>
at <base>. A full investigation has determined that the cause of death
was suicide by means of egregious stupidity.
--
David Cameron Staples | staples AT unimelb DOT edu DOT au
Melbourne University | ITS | Hosting | Unix Operations
Some people are like Slinkies... generally useless, but you can't help
but smile when you see one tumble down the stairs. -- bash.org/?47462
Message has been deleted
Shmuel Metz
May 10, 2012, 8:10:50 AM5/10/12
to
In <34jq79-...@mikea.ath.cx>, on 05/09/2012
and that he wasn't stopped earlier. Did your acquaintance get a
commendation, or did they just cover up the incident to protect the
good name of the exec?
>Don Stich and I drew down on Army MPs who tried to disarm us while we
>were carrying classified material at a level which required two armed
>men to guard it.
Did you report them[1]? What happened at the GCM[2]?
[1] I suspect that you could have faced disciplinary action if
you didn't.
[2] I suppose that in theory they could have gotten off with
an Article 15, but I'd count even a Special as lenient.
at 11:37 AM, Mike Andrews <mi...@mikea.ath.cx> said:
>I am reliably informed by a former cow-orker, now gone to Permanent
>Recovery, that when he was a USAF crypto custodian, he shot dead a
>bird colonel who walked into the custodian's vault (inside the
>crypto vault, which was itself inside the commcenter vault) without
>permission and not only refused to leave, but got physically
>aggressive.
What I find hard to believe is that a Lt. Colonel could be that dumb
>I am reliably informed by a former cow-orker, now gone to Permanent
>Recovery, that when he was a USAF crypto custodian, he shot dead a
>bird colonel who walked into the custodian's vault (inside the
>crypto vault, which was itself inside the commcenter vault) without
>permission and not only refused to leave, but got physically
>aggressive.
and that he wasn't stopped earlier. Did your acquaintance get a
commendation, or did they just cover up the incident to protect the
good name of the exec?
>Don Stich and I drew down on Army MPs who tried to disarm us while we
>were carrying classified material at a level which required two armed
>men to guard it.
[1] I suspect that you could have faced disciplinary action if
you didn't.
[2] I suppose that in theory they could have gotten off with
an Article 15, but I'd count even a Special as lenient.
Shmuel Metz
May 10, 2012, 8:05:13 AM5/10/12
to
In <joe55f$e4l$7...@xen1.xcski.com>, on 05/09/2012
outfits you would be referring to the *former* sgt. major. Given the
rules of engagement, I can see why your acquaintance didn't fire an
incapacitating shot early on, but in some situations he would have
been court martialed for not putting down the intruders and exiting
gate crashers early on.
At least, during my Army personnel training they didn't say that a
sentry had a right to use deadly force to protect security, they
taught us that he had a duty to do so, and could be held accountable
for failing to use deadly force, even against a senior officer, much
less an NCO.
at 04:14 PM, Joe Thompson <sp...@orion-com.com> said:
>An acquaintance has justifiably drawn his sidearm on senior (to him)
>NCOs twice:
>http://everything2.com/user/Roninspoon/writeups/Two+stories+of+the+pistol
I don't understand why there was no disciplinary action. In some
>An acquaintance has justifiably drawn his sidearm on senior (to him)
>NCOs twice:
>http://everything2.com/user/Roninspoon/writeups/Two+stories+of+the+pistol
outfits you would be referring to the *former* sgt. major. Given the
rules of engagement, I can see why your acquaintance didn't fire an
incapacitating shot early on, but in some situations he would have
been court martialed for not putting down the intruders and exiting
gate crashers early on.
At least, during my Army personnel training they didn't say that a
sentry had a right to use deadly force to protect security, they
taught us that he had a duty to do so, and could be held accountable
for failing to use deadly force, even against a senior officer, much
less an NCO.
Shmuel Metz
May 10, 2012, 7:20:25 AM5/10/12
to
In <joe7q4$e4l$8...@xen1.xcski.com>, on 05/09/2012
at 04:59 PM, Joe Thompson <sp...@orion-com.com> said:
>The ultimate Career-Limiting Move...
Well, pulling rank was a CLM for the colonel, but *failing* to shoot
the colonel might have been a CLM for the custodian. At least, the
personnel training I had in the Army suggests that he could have been
court martialed for dereliction of duty.
>One wonders what the official report was to any next-of-kin.
Darwin.
at 04:59 PM, Joe Thompson <sp...@orion-com.com> said:
>The ultimate Career-Limiting Move...
Well, pulling rank was a CLM for the colonel, but *failing* to shoot
the colonel might have been a CLM for the custodian. At least, the
personnel training I had in the Army suggests that he could have been
court martialed for dereliction of duty.
>One wonders what the official report was to any next-of-kin.
Mike Andrews
May 10, 2012, 11:07:49 AM5/10/12
to
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote in <4fabb04a$17$fuzhry+tra$mr2...@news.patriot.net>:
> In <34jq79-...@mikea.ath.cx>, on 05/09/2012
> at 11:37 AM, Mike Andrews <mi...@mikea.ath.cx> said:
>
>>I am reliably informed by a former cow-orker, now gone to Permanent
>>Recovery, that when he was a USAF crypto custodian, he shot dead a
>>bird colonel who walked into the custodian's vault (inside the
>>crypto vault, which was itself inside the commcenter vault) without
>>permission and not only refused to leave, but got physically
>>aggressive.
>
> What I find hard to believe is that a Lt. Colonel could be that dumb
> and that he wasn't stopped earlier. Did your acquaintance get a
> commendation, or did they just cover up the incident to protect the
> good name of the exec?
Not a leaf colonel (LTC O-5), but a full, or *bird*, colonel (COL O-6). He
was authorized inside the comm center vault, and may have been authorized
in the crypto vault, but was *not* authorized entry to the custodian's
vault. His contention was that he was authorized entry anywhere, and he was
dead wrong. It got swept as far under the rug as they could get it, or so
Jimmy told me.
It's rare, but not unheard of, for an O-6 to be that stupid, IME; less so
for an O-5, much less so for an O-4. It is, TBH, the sort of behavior I'd
expect from a butterbars O-1 feeling his rank.
>>Don Stich and I drew down on Army MPs who tried to disarm us while we
>>were carrying classified material at a level which required two armed
>>men to guard it.
>
> Did you report them[1]? What happened at the GCM[2]?
>
> [1] I suspect that you could have faced disciplinary action if
> you didn't.
>
> [2] I suppose that in theory they could have gotten off with
> an Article 15, but I'd count even a Special as lenient.
We convinced the E-5 to send a runner to his Sergeant of the Guard, who
came out with the Officer of the Guard. The OotG got me off to one side,
asked me what was going on, and then told me that we had done The Right
Thing, that they hadn't been aware that AF people were carrying classified
on base, and that procedures would be changed immediately. He also told me
that he was going to chew me and Don a little to save face for the MPs,
since they had been following procedure, but that we should just let it
slide.
They were doing their jobs as they had been told to do them. So were we.
There was a little conflict in job duties. No CM at all, and no
justification for one. No Art. 15, even. It all got worked out at pay
grades above ours, and from then on we went armed when required to, with
no problems at all.
--
Judging by this particular thread, many people in this group spend years
taking illogical, pointless orders from morons and having their will to
live systematically crushed. And that's the teachers. Think what it's like
for the kids! -- after Rayner, in the Monastery
> In <34jq79-...@mikea.ath.cx>, on 05/09/2012
> at 11:37 AM, Mike Andrews <mi...@mikea.ath.cx> said:
>
>>I am reliably informed by a former cow-orker, now gone to Permanent
>>Recovery, that when he was a USAF crypto custodian, he shot dead a
>>bird colonel who walked into the custodian's vault (inside the
>>crypto vault, which was itself inside the commcenter vault) without
>>permission and not only refused to leave, but got physically
>>aggressive.
>
> What I find hard to believe is that a Lt. Colonel could be that dumb
> and that he wasn't stopped earlier. Did your acquaintance get a
> commendation, or did they just cover up the incident to protect the
> good name of the exec?
was authorized inside the comm center vault, and may have been authorized
in the crypto vault, but was *not* authorized entry to the custodian's
vault. His contention was that he was authorized entry anywhere, and he was
dead wrong. It got swept as far under the rug as they could get it, or so
Jimmy told me.
It's rare, but not unheard of, for an O-6 to be that stupid, IME; less so
for an O-5, much less so for an O-4. It is, TBH, the sort of behavior I'd
expect from a butterbars O-1 feeling his rank.
>>Don Stich and I drew down on Army MPs who tried to disarm us while we
>>were carrying classified material at a level which required two armed
>>men to guard it.
>
> Did you report them[1]? What happened at the GCM[2]?
>
> [1] I suspect that you could have faced disciplinary action if
> you didn't.
>
> [2] I suppose that in theory they could have gotten off with
> an Article 15, but I'd count even a Special as lenient.
came out with the Officer of the Guard. The OotG got me off to one side,
asked me what was going on, and then told me that we had done The Right
Thing, that they hadn't been aware that AF people were carrying classified
on base, and that procedures would be changed immediately. He also told me
that he was going to chew me and Don a little to save face for the MPs,
since they had been following procedure, but that we should just let it
slide.
They were doing their jobs as they had been told to do them. So were we.
There was a little conflict in job duties. No CM at all, and no
justification for one. No Art. 15, even. It all got worked out at pay
grades above ours, and from then on we went armed when required to, with
no problems at all.
--
Judging by this particular thread, many people in this group spend years
taking illogical, pointless orders from morons and having their will to
live systematically crushed. And that's the teachers. Think what it's like
for the kids! -- after Rayner, in the Monastery
Seth
May 10, 2012, 5:49:17 PM5/10/12
to
In article <slrnjo3l4b...@adeed.tele.com>,
Julian Macassey <jul...@tele.com> wrote:
>
> Today we live in a world of security theatre. Want to
>visit someone in a high rise office building? Photo ID required.
Worse than that. Any ID accepted, including a business card.
Really.
Seth
Julian Macassey <jul...@tele.com> wrote:
>
> Today we live in a world of security theatre. Want to
>visit someone in a high rise office building? Photo ID required.
Worse than that. Any ID accepted, including a business card.
Really.
Seth
Seth
May 10, 2012, 5:54:43 PM5/10/12
to
In article <slrnjok1k9...@adeed.tele.com>,
Thanks to gargle, today is 2644 October 1993.
Seth
Julian Macassey <jul...@tele.com> wrote:
>On 14 Apr 2012 22:38:58 GMT, Niklas Karlsson <ank...@yahoo.se> wrote:
>>
>> I thought that September 1993 had in fact ended, though, at least by a
>> technical definition. AOL no longer has a Usenet interface, does it? I
>> recall much ado about it being shut down a while back.
>>
>> Snprobbx doesn't have one that I know of, but no doubt I'll be proven
>> wrong...
>
> Alas, farcebook is like AOL in its heyday, a world unto
>itself. farcbook users I am told are unaware of e-mail, let alone
>goggle etc.
But they only make it September by polluting Usenet.
>On 14 Apr 2012 22:38:58 GMT, Niklas Karlsson <ank...@yahoo.se> wrote:
>>
>> I thought that September 1993 had in fact ended, though, at least by a
>> technical definition. AOL no longer has a Usenet interface, does it? I
>> recall much ado about it being shut down a while back.
>>
>> Snprobbx doesn't have one that I know of, but no doubt I'll be proven
>> wrong...
>
> Alas, farcebook is like AOL in its heyday, a world unto
>itself. farcbook users I am told are unaware of e-mail, let alone
>goggle etc.
Thanks to gargle, today is 2644 October 1993.
Seth
Joe Thompson
May 10, 2012, 10:31:48 PM5/10/12
to
On 2012-05-10, Shmuel Metz <spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote:
> In <joe55f$e4l$7...@xen1.xcski.com>, on 05/09/2012
> at 04:14 PM, Joe Thompson <sp...@orion-com.com> said:
>
>>An acquaintance has justifiably drawn his sidearm on senior (to him)
>>NCOs twice:
>
>>http://everything2.com/user/Roninspoon/writeups/Two+stories+of+the+pistol
>
> I don't understand why there was no disciplinary action. In some
> outfits you would be referring to the *former* sgt. major. Given the
> rules of engagement, I can see why your acquaintance didn't fire an
> incapacitating shot early on, but in some situations he would have
> been court martialed for not putting down the intruders and exiting
> gate crashers early on.
I suspect as with so many other such incidents, things got papered over
> In <joe55f$e4l$7...@xen1.xcski.com>, on 05/09/2012
> at 04:14 PM, Joe Thompson <sp...@orion-com.com> said:
>
>>An acquaintance has justifiably drawn his sidearm on senior (to him)
>>NCOs twice:
>
>>http://everything2.com/user/Roninspoon/writeups/Two+stories+of+the+pistol
>
> I don't understand why there was no disciplinary action. In some
> outfits you would be referring to the *former* sgt. major. Given the
> rules of engagement, I can see why your acquaintance didn't fire an
> incapacitating shot early on, but in some situations he would have
> been court martialed for not putting down the intruders and exiting
> gate crashers early on.
officially while unofficially the Sar-Major was on the shitlist for a
good long while. Judging from the military folks I know, far worse than
a black mark on your record is *no* mark, but a bad reputation such that
you quit being promoted.
And it *was* his base, after all... -- Joe
Message has been deleted
Ignatios Souvatzis
May 29, 2012, 3:34:40 PM5/29/12
to
Niklas Karlsson wrote:
> On 2012-04-14, Howard S Shubs <how...@shubs.net> wrote:
>> In article <slrnjo5l3...@mordor.angband.thangorodrim.de>,
>> Alexander Schreiber <a...@usenet.thangorodrim.de> wrote:
>>
>>> Julian Macassey <jul...@tele.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > [security theatre]
>>> >
>>> > When will the stupidity stop?
>>>
>>> Ha, that is an easy one: never.
>>
>> It'll stop when September 1993 ends.
>
> Only locally, and in a fairly limited way.
>
> On 2012-04-14, Howard S Shubs <how...@shubs.net> wrote:
>> In article <slrnjo5l3...@mordor.angband.thangorodrim.de>,
>> Alexander Schreiber <a...@usenet.thangorodrim.de> wrote:
>>
>>> Julian Macassey <jul...@tele.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > [security theatre]
>>> >
>>> > When will the stupidity stop?
>>>
>>> Ha, that is an easy one: never.
>>
>> It'll stop when September 1993 ends.
>
> Only locally, and in a fairly limited way.
>
> I thought that September 1993 had in fact ended, though, at least by a
> technical definition. AOL no longer has a Usenet interface, does it? I
> recall much ado about it being shut down a while back.
>
> Snprobbx doesn't have one that I know of, but no doubt I'll be proven
> wrong...
Tbbtyr has one.
> technical definition. AOL no longer has a Usenet interface, does it? I
> recall much ado about it being shut down a while back.
>
> Snprobbx doesn't have one that I know of, but no doubt I'll be proven
> wrong...
-is
apeiron
May 29, 2012, 6:31:30 PM5/29/12
to
actually legible*. Tbbtyr is the NBY of modern Usenet. Except this time
round they've got people writing Jro pages about how to fix it. It's sad
when one yearns for the days of QrwnArjf.
* it was either that or killfile all of them, and I have a feeling that
doing so would make some groups so quiet as to be disjointed. Of course,
one can then argue that this suggests I should stop reading them.
--
apeiron
0 new messages