Bah to the stupid Digg imbeciles who can't form their own words and only poorly regurgitate other site's content...

Any bets that the same phenomenon applies to block-lists? Now that w3c is listed, the list will get passed from site to site, while the correction will travel much more slowly. Moreover, I speculate that many of the sites involved don't have procedures for whitelisting, so the blacklisting will keep coming back as the list gets passed back and forth. I'll be ecstatic if the "W3C is a porn site" report can be nipped in the bud, because otherwise ISP's are going to be blocking it, spottily, forever.

America used to be a nation of equality. Now privileged folk like Star get to run roughshod over the rights of the rest of Americans. Look at it. She was smart. She could have foreseen the panic she'd cause. The baggage agent wasn't smart. Neither were the cops. Neither were the bureaucrats. They didn't have any choice, they had to respond as they did because they weren't smart.
Star owed it to them and to society not to freak them out. That's equality - those with the ability have to support those without.

America used to be a nation of freedom. Now privileged folk like Star get to tie up an airport for an entire morning - destroying people's freedom to travel.

America used to be a nation of rights. Now privileged people like Star ruin the rights of everyone else - we all get strip searched because someone like HER might have brought something frightening aboard.

It's not just Star, either. It's all those diabetics. How dare they not know that bringing syringes on a plane is going to scare people? They should just stay home. It's those pilots. They could crash the plane at any moment! How dare they allow someone that much power? As a special privilege, yet, after all those years of flight training? Aren't we all supposed to be equal?

Waaaaah! Who's going to protect us from all these smart people?

Why do you all insist on defending Star in the name of freedom? She's the one who's destroying it. Why do you all hate America?

It isn't sufficient just to be co-operative with the authorities. Or rather, being co-operative entails a demonstration of abject fear. If the civilians aren't afraid of the authorities, how will the authorities maintain their authority? How can they possibly command respect without having the raw power to back it up? And how can we show adequately our respect without cringing in fear at the least suggestion that we might stand out of the crowd and draw the authorities' attention to ourselves? Those who govern are never satisfied with less.

It's a good thing, really. If the civilians aren't afraid of the government, surely the terrorists will be even less afraid.

Someone please tell me how to answer these arguments in a culture that values safety above the freedom to be unusual; conformity above exploration; comfort above learning.

@Engine Here (#58):

People have been shot reaching for their wallet.

In fact, they have been shot for reaching for their wallets because the cops have demanded ID. By your reasoning - which I am certain that any reasonable person would agree with - everyone should wear ID in a transparent holder on a chain around the neck at all times so that they can present it while holding their hands in the air.

I entirely agree that it's sensible to put your hands in the air any time you see anyone in a uniform. Even better is to fall to the ground spread-eagled. The first priority in encountering anyone in uniform is to establish that you're not a threat to them or to their authority. Even then, you should expect to be tasered if they still feel threatened, and thank your lucky stars that it was a taser and not a bullet.

If you don't like it, enlist in the police force. Remember that any civilian is a potential threat to society.

Face facts, people.

• 
  If you do anything out of the ordinary, you're going to cause fear in people.
  
• 
  Someone who feels afraid is likely to call the authorities to investigate.
  
• 
  The authorities' investigation is going to (a) cost the taxpayers for their time, and (b) divert their attention from the 'real' threats.
  
• 
  Both the time consumed and the diversion of the authorities' attention represent a cost to society.
  
• 
  It's only fair that you should pay that cost, since you caused the problem in the first place by looking strange or acting in an unusual manner.
  

Star got off lightly; I'm sure that the Boston police spent many thousands of dollars on her case.

I wish I could find the flaw in this reasoning, since I myself am very likely to find myself viewed as strange, even inadvertently. But I don't think there is a flaw. In a society that is faced with existential threats at every moment, each step in this chain of reasoning makes perfect sense.

That's why I try very, very hard to blend in with the crowd. Anything else is tantamount to turning in a false alarm.

@General Specific (#18)

Right, his original identity was stolen, and now we have to put his new name on the no-fly list because the identity thief can otherwise fly under the new name.

Gee, some people don't know anything.

So just how does this differ from any other time in history? Politics belongs to the strong. And it has to, because only the strong can protect us from the evil terrorists. Get over it.

It's a fair attitude toward the sponsors - up to a point. I don't know about the Beijing Games, but earlier Games have gone so far as to exclude spectators because they were wearing the wrong brand of shoes (the shoes had three stripes, or a curved check-mark thingy whose *name* is trademarked, or the fourteenth and second letters of the alphabet, and hence were displaying a non-sponsor's logo). Rumor had it that they also were excluding the "wrong" brands of automobile from spectators' parking, and so on.

There has to be some point where such things become unreasonably intrusive. Requiring uniforms (bearing the sponsors' logos prominently) for all spectators? For all passers-by in the street outside? Strip-searching spectators to see if they have correctly branded underwear?

Of course, being a private organization, they have every right to exclude whomever they please. And as a private individual, I have every right to refuse to do business with them or their sponsors.

Whom are you going to believe, an unarmed Congresswoman or a security guard with his hand on his pistol?

I'm going to believe the guard. Deadly force trumps legislation.

Constitutional government is going to go down in history as "an interesting experiment, while it lasted."

Any computer scientist knows that Goto is considered harmful. (Sorry, couldn't resist.)

More properly, "Earthrise from Lunar orbit." As you no doubt know, the Moon's rotation is tidally locked, so from most places on the Moon, the Earth never rises nor sets. There's still a tiny bit of libration in its motion, so I suppose it would be possible to find a point near the limb where the Earth is always near the horizon and occasionally dips below.

"The cause of death was listed as heart failure."

A good friend, who's an undertaker, has said
that "heart failure," "cardiac arrest," and so
on are common "causes of death" on death
certificates as a proxy for "I don't know,"
or "I'm not telling." After all, their hearts did stop beating eventually.

I wonder if this is where Heinlein got the idea for "The Roads Must Roll" (Or, more properly, for its setting: the story itself is a thinly-veiled allegory for the Teamsters strike of 1934.)

The silliest part is something that Patrick Smith didn't mention: if a pilot wants to endanger a flight, he's got much easier and more certain ways to do it than to smuggle weapons aboard.