"nobody cares" often just means nobody cares in the newsroom. not new, but needs to be said more often.

... And then they claim that Americans only care about vapid gossip and not substantive issues -- and point to their own shallow coverage decisions as "proof" of what Americans care about.

..The Time Magazines of the world ignore stories about Bush's abuses of spying powers. Therefore, Americans don't care about such abuses. That's the self-referential, self-loving rationale on which this entire article is based. And the whole article is filled with demonstrable falsehoods, all in service of arguing that the Bush administration has done nothing wrong, and even if they did, Americans don't mind at all. | glenn greenwald, salon via ip

Öffentliche Ausschreibung Java-IDS Konzeption und Entwicklung eines Intrusion Detection Systems für die Java-Laufzeitumgebung | bsi

pflichtenheft = lastenheft

projekt "live-finger"

Der Auftragnehmer hat im Rahmen des Projektes den Nachweis zu liefern, dass Attrappen von Fingern (sogenannte Fake-Finger) hergestellt werden können ... | f.finger

omnicard meeting

Americans can now pay to have their personal information put on file just to avoid the hassle of airport security. As cynical as George Orwell ever was, I doubt he imagined the idea of citizens offering up money for their own subjugation. | nyt via schneier

belt: i don't know why someone should take it off. a fellow traveller told me he never does and goes through with the line: look it's so small and fragile and i am an old man, it would take me hours to fiddle it in again. i mean if you can give me a hand? ... it doesn't need more.

berlin, germany: after all those years they haven't learned to identify a microphone. hardly happens at other airports in europe anymore. one thing that needs to be proofed: the more bureaucrats are in town the less are controls. try geneva airport.

laptop screening: the only time they did this to me was - yes - in berlin. guess the rule just got implemented at the time and i was a statistical pick; thank's for cleaning my response, as i didn't know what they wanted before i entered their baby-bottle-screening-room. seems to be outdated today.

there is no reason not to question their behaviour, as they need to make a choice between: how long will it take and 50% probability of being of danger. as they are observed too they can get into trouble by being too picky.

beside of "we let them get through with it" it's worth to consider: they won't be able to identify a bomb, because they hardly get to see one in their training. they simply don't have comparable picts because they don't know what they should look for. one of many reasons why they go after toothpaste and lipsticks who happened not to be in a bag. the latter is history by now.

a lot is speculation and if you have bad luck, they simply don't like your nose or pick you because they feel secure that you won't cause them troubles to fullfill their statistics.

the last instance for going on board are not these people at the screening device. if you protest against their treatment they have to call a represantative of the airline in the end who has to decide how the story will end. i never tried it out by myself, as i never book a flight by having a lot of time to play around, but that's what i was told and would make sense to do.