backtop


Print 72 comment(s) - last by Xavitar.. on Sep 28 at 5:55 PM

Could eventually be deployed at airports, border crossings, and other public gatherings

Security personnel working for the Department of Homeland Security may soon be able to remotely monitor crowds for the behavioral signals of a terrorist, using a computer system that scans their pulses, body language, breathing rates, and facial temperatures.

The program, called “Future Attribute Screening Technology,” or FAST, works as a combination of custom software and crowd-monitoring body sensors, strategically placed at airports, U.S. border crossings, and other public, high-security areas.

In simulated scenarios, the DHS says FAST is accurate in detecting suspicious behavior in almost four out of five cases. One such trial, run recently at an equestrian ranch in Maryland, paid more than 140 participants $150 to walk through FAST’s sensor array; a handful of the participants were given instructions to act shifty, evasive, deceptive, or even hostile. FAST had an effective accuracy rate of “about [78 percent] on mal-intent detection, and [80 percent] on deception,” according to spokesman John Verrico.

“We're still very early on in this research, but it is looking very promising,” he said.

Individuals detected as suspicious by FAST will be pulled aside for light questioning by security staff. Information processed by the system will never be matched with names, said Verrico, and it will only be used to help security screeners decide whom to question. After that, data from FAST is discarded.

Beyond simply discarding data, Verrico points out that the system is subject to intense privacy controls (PDF).

DHS researchers are designing FAST with mobility in mind, and over the long term would like to roll out portable vehicles for use in concerts, sporting events, and other public gatherings: once the technology is perfected, writes New Scientist’s Short Sharp Science blog, FAST trucks could be as common a sighting at public gatherings as “mobile toilets and catering trucks.”

The Electronic Privacy Information Center’s John Verdi said FAST is “substantially more invasive than screening in airports,” calling it a “medical exam” that the government has no right to conduct. Critics are concerned that the program could reveal physical conditions like heart murmurs, breathing problems, and high stress levels – a blatant privacy invasion – as well as set off false alarms.

“What determines your heart rate is a whole bunch ofreasons besides hostile intent,” said Michigan State University’s Timothy Levine, an expert on deceptive behavior.

FAST appears to be yet another aspect of the U.S. – as well as the rest of the world’s – governments’ growing fascination with biometric data on citizens: the FBI’s “Next Generation Identification” system, currently still in development, seeks to catalogue almost every major identifying characteristic about the U.S. criminal population, including fingerprints, retinal prints, and tattoo/scar markings.

Like the NGI, FAST is still under development and has several years left before it is ready for widespread, public usage – if it even makes it that far. The program is in its second year in development, and has three left to go. USA Today notes that the Transportation Security Administration already has more than 2,000 human screeners doing the same thing – essentially paving the way for their replacement and more widespread deployment by FAST.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Nazi Germany
By stilltrying on 9/24/08, Rating: 0
RE: Nazi Germany
By mdogs444 on 9/24/2008 9:31:18 AM , Rating: 3
Yeah. We put our own citizens in concentration camps and mass murder them. We also force them to be in the military to do our bidding, or else be killed.


RE: Nazi Germany
By omnicronx on 9/24/2008 10:24:30 AM , Rating: 1
You mean kind of like this? Minus the mass murdering.

quote:
On February 19th 1942 Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066. Under the terms of the Order, some 120,000 people of Japanese descent living in the US were removed from their homes and placed in internment camps.
quote:
In 1943 all internees over the age of seventeen were given a loyalty test. They were asked two questions:

1. Are you willing to serve in the armed forces of the United States on combat duty wherever ordered? (Females were asked if they were willing to volunteer for the Army Nurse Corps or Women's Army Corps.)

2. Will you swear unqualified allegiance to the United States of America and faithfully defend the United States from any or all attack by foreign or domestic forces and forswear any form of allegiance or obedience to the Japanese emperor, to any other foreign government, power or organization?


http://www.historyonthenet.com/WW2/japan_internmen...


RE: Nazi Germany
By FITCamaro on 9/24/2008 10:37:44 AM , Rating: 4
Well the second question is kinda part of being a citizen of a country.

I won't defend that the Japanese camps here in WW2 were right. But to compare them to concentration camps. No. They were not made into a slave labor force, starved, or experimented on.


RE: Nazi Germany
By foolsgambit11 on 9/24/2008 3:03:04 PM , Rating: 2
Continued citizenship in the United States is not based on any loyalty test. Of course, they needn't have been asked those questions, after all, since come age 18, they'd have had to sign up for the draft anyway. Because being a citizen is not about fighting to defend the country, per se, but rather about following the laws of the land.

I definitely have a problem with the second half of the second question - the part that asks them to forswear any allegiance to Japan, but only because it isn't asked of all citizens who are born with dual citizenship.


RE: Nazi Germany
By FITCamaro on 9/25/2008 10:14:47 AM , Rating: 3
The US does not recognize dual citizenship.


RE: Nazi Germany
By amanojaku on 9/24/2008 10:08:58 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I won't defend that the Japanese camps here in WW2 were right. But to compare them to concentration camps. No. They were not made into a slave labor force, starved, or experimented on.

<sarcasm>Great! It's OK if we round up all the people of Caucasian decent and put them in camps, because the descendants of slave owners must be evil.</sarcasm> Some things are wrong, period. FYI, internment camps existed for German and Italian Americans, as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_concentration...


RE: Nazi Germany
By glennpratt on 9/24/2008 10:38:30 AM , Rating: 2
Oh yeah, except for mass murdering my high school was like the Nazi's as well.


RE: Nazi Germany
By Spyvie on 9/24/2008 11:53:26 AM , Rating: 1
Standing armys in America could never happen...

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/09/army_homelan...


RE: Nazi Germany
By foolsgambit11 on 9/24/2008 3:10:36 PM , Rating: 2
Hey, I was in that unit, once upon a time.


RE: Nazi Germany
By Samus on 9/25/2008 6:20:35 AM , Rating: 2
Not one Japanese civilian was ever murdered in US confinement camps. It's not similar to anything from Nazi-Germany or what any other country has ever done throughout history. We were attacked by Japan. How should we have reacted? Our intent wasn't to keep them 'hostage' we were simply protecting ourselves from possible spies. We didn't take it as a threat from the Japanese 'people' as we were quite aware the Japanese government was behind it. Unfortunately, their people suffered for their governments poor decisions.

Don't fuck with America. Hell, even if you don't fuck with America, she'll fuck with you (ala Iraq)


RE: Nazi Germany
By Myg on 9/24/08, Rating: -1
RE: Nazi Germany
By FITCamaro on 9/25/2008 10:16:29 AM , Rating: 3
Very true. Self responsibility for young people in the US is all but nonexistent.


RE: Nazi Germany
By Myg on 9/25/2008 3:05:49 PM , Rating: 2
0 - rating; sorry, truth hurts too much?

You lot need to get over your unfounded and self-assumed superiority.


RE: Nazi Germany
By clovell on 9/26/2008 11:07:23 AM , Rating: 2
I think you're the one assuming right now.


RE: Nazi Germany
By B3an on 9/24/2008 9:39:42 AM , Rating: 2
I think we'll probably get rated down, but i totally agree. I think that a lot these days when i read american news.

And if this was any other country it would quickly disrespected by the yanks basically saying how bad and evil they are.


RE: Nazi Germany
By mdogs444 on 9/24/2008 9:44:56 AM , Rating: 5
The problem with this is that its one thing to disagree with American policy, its another to compare it the Nazi's. Go ahead and try convincing those who were directly affected by the actions of Nazi's, and see how many agree with you.


RE: Nazi Germany
By stilltrying on 9/24/2008 10:17:31 AM , Rating: 4
The Nazis and Gestapo did not just come in overnight and start mass murdering. They slowly started their Gestapo and war crimes in much the same way as America is starting to slowly implement the police state. Gradualism is the key. Spread it over time and people can be trained to think how those with power want you to think by controlling all forms of media. When it was just TV and radio it could be easily done but the internet has changed the game. Those who don't know their history are doomed to repeat it. REAL ID - papers please, homeland security/fatherland security, telecom spying, weimar republic, stimulus checks, the list goes on and on.

Do you not know that many corporations and your current Presidents grandfather funded the Nazi regime.


RE: Nazi Germany
By mdogs444 on 9/24/2008 10:21:53 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Do you not know that many corporations and your current Presidents grandfather funded the Nazi regime.

Sure many corporations did ... just like the european insurance company who's trying gain naming rights to a professional USA sports stadium.

Suggesting that Bush's grandfather funded the Nazis is quite a far stretch. Thats like saying you are directly responsible for funding Bin Laden because you put gasoline in your tank from the middle east. Lets not try to draw a never ending line here.


RE: Nazi Germany
By FITCamaro on 9/24/2008 10:24:27 AM , Rating: 2
So you're going to say IBM is a terrible country because 80 years ago they provided some equipment to the Nazis?

quote:
Do you not know that many corporations and your current Presidents grandfather funded the Nazi regime.


http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2434/was-...

Read the truth before making a claim. There is a difference between investing in a country and supporting a regime.


RE: Nazi Germany
By FITCamaro on 9/24/2008 10:25:08 AM , Rating: 2
company*


RE: Nazi Germany
By stilltrying on 9/24/2008 11:28:35 AM , Rating: 1
you believe youre propaganda and I will believe mine. come back in 2 years and we will re-discuss meanwhile the whole financial system is about to be nationalized um i mean socialized uh i mean fascized. See you in a couple if America makes it that long. look at the fasci symbol in the US senate. find that peculiar, a bunch of sticks with an ax, um i mean on the dime. once again see you in 2


RE: Nazi Germany
By mdogs444 on 9/24/2008 11:46:36 AM , Rating: 2
Blind faith doesn't make it true stilltrying.


RE: Nazi Germany
By stilltrying on 9/24/08, Rating: 0
RE: Nazi Germany
By FITCamaro on 9/24/2008 2:24:43 PM , Rating: 2
Umm...where did I say I'm for this bailout?


RE: Nazi Germany
By stilltrying on 9/24/2008 4:09:15 PM , Rating: 2
umm you didnt. umm im saying nazi germany fascism/socialism


RE: Nazi Germany
By stilltrying on 9/24/2008 12:05:47 PM , Rating: 1
i dont care if i get rated down im not on here for a popularity contest or to get in line with the rest of the herd. no offense or snide remark directed at you B3an


Uhh..
By Digimonkey on 9/24/2008 8:50:31 AM , Rating: 5
So it basically checks for irritated people. Irritated people at an airport...there's going to be a lot of light questioning going on.




RE: Uhh..
By Camikazi on 9/24/2008 9:02:43 AM , Rating: 2
Well I guess I'm not flying anymore, I'm always irritated at an airport, this would only irritate me more.


RE: Uhh..
By pjpizza on 9/24/2008 10:36:09 AM , Rating: 2
Hmmm... There must have been a glitch in the Matrix...


RE: Uhh..
By FITCamaro on 9/24/2008 9:09:22 AM , Rating: 2
While I see some value in this kind of thing, I agree that it just seems to be something that would be highly inaccurate. How do you weed out someone who's just pissed off at their spouse for doing something stupid and someone who's got a bomb in their suitcase?


RE: Uhh..
By mdogs444 on 9/24/2008 9:21:00 AM , Rating: 2
I agree. Next thing we'll have legislation passed in congress making it against the law to be anything but a happy person wearing a shirt with a rainbow iron-on.


RE: Uhh..
By FITCamaro on 9/24/2008 10:17:44 AM , Rating: 2
Well the big thing is any professional terrorist isn't going to give any clue of what he's planning. It's not like they walk around wearing a trench coat with an evil or sadistic look on their face. They try to blend in and not be noticed. Smile and laugh.

I'm sure if deployed, these things might catch a few people. But its probably gonna be by chance.


RE: Uhh..
By mdogs444 on 9/24/2008 10:18:52 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's not like they walk around wearing a trench coat with an evil or sadistic look on their face.

Unless you're as dumb as that MIT person who got caught up in that mess a few months back.


RE: Uhh..
By ebakke on 9/24/2008 10:27:18 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Well the big thing is any professional terrorist isn't going to give any clue of what he's planning. It's not like they walk around wearing a trench coat with an evil or sadistic look on their face.
quote:
Unless you're as dumb as that MIT person who got caught up in that mess a few months back.

....who wasn't a terrorist.


RE: Uhh..
By mdogs444 on 9/24/2008 10:59:47 AM , Rating: 3
No she wasnt, but she was dumb none the less.


RE: Uhh..
By Tanclearas on 9/24/2008 9:40:07 PM , Rating: 2
I love Big Brother.


RE: Uhh..
By FITCamaro on 9/25/2008 10:18:47 AM , Rating: 2
I've met them. Some of them are quite big. Bout 6'2". Prolly 230 lbs of muscle. Gun. Black clothes. Boots. Handcuffs.


RE: Uhh..
By bhieb on 9/24/2008 10:20:38 AM , Rating: 2
Not too mention that a true Jihad believer is probably less worried than us normal folks. It is only in our non-believer minds that we assume he is all sweaty and nervous. If he truly believes his cause it is no different than a psychopath defeating a lie detector. In his mind there is nothing to be panicked about, therefore there will be little to no physical changes either.


RE: Uhh..
By Oregonian2 on 9/24/2008 12:14:56 PM , Rating: 1
Exactly.

Article says:
quote:
...were given instructions to act shifty, evasive, deceptive, or even hostile


Do they want to "catch" people who are acting that way, or people who ARE those things who are acting calm and likely took a xanax before heading to the airport (actually I do that before longer flights anyway to battle claustrophobia).


RE: Uhh..
By imperator3733 on 9/24/2008 10:26:05 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah. An 80% success rate is just not good enough. Add to that the fact that most terrorists with bombs in their suitcase are most likely going to be calm, this just isn't going to work. I would definitely be more irritated if I had to go through this than I already am when I fly (which I hate doing). We really need a national network of super high-speed trains.


RE: Uhh..
By FITCamaro on 9/24/2008 10:39:02 AM , Rating: 2
I don't think you'll be "going through" it like a metal detector. I think it's supposed to sit out of the way like a surveillance camera.


RE: Uhh..
By Suntan on 9/24/2008 10:55:05 AM , Rating: 2
Have you never watched the Chuck Norris movies where he has to save the plane from the terrorists? They all act shifty, panicky and sweat a lot. As we don’t have the technology to clone enough Chucks to put one at each airport, this will have to do.

-Suntan


RE: Uhh..
By PhoenixKnight on 9/25/2008 9:00:01 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think the problem is that we don't have the technology, it's that the result of cloning Chuck Norris could be cataclysmic.

Think about this for a second: "Every month, Chuck Norris secretly has sex with every woman in the world. They bleed for a week as a result." Would you really want you're girlfriend/wife to have multiple periods every month from multiple Chuck Norii? I don't think so.

And if two Chuck Norii ever got into a fight with each other, the resulting melee would almost certainly destroy the world, if not the entire universe!

There are some laws of nature that must never be tampered with!


RE: Uhh..
By Xavitar on 9/28/2008 5:55:31 PM , Rating: 2
This is why the Large Norrii Collider cannot be allowed to go online.


RE: Uhh..
By derwin on 9/24/2008 7:11:42 PM , Rating: 2
The problem I see here is not the fact that people might get pulled aside for extra questiong because they are pissed off... entering an airport entails that risk anyway.

What really freightens me is the false sense of security the airport staffers could fall into if this FAST program doesnt detect someone. Perhaps they train terrorists like we train CIA peeps to beat a lie-detector - condition your bodily responses. It could just make things that much easier for someone who knows what they are doing to slip past security. With "FAST" at our back, our security personal would have little to nothing to do with selection of screening.

P.S. I think from a computer programing perspective this thing is awsome.


RE: Uhh..
By Drexial on 9/24/2008 9:37:30 AM , Rating: 2
airports, what about concerts and sporting events... I mean depending on the type of show you go to some of them will raise heart rates immensely. You leave a game that your team just lost, you're not going to be happy.

Aside from that I feel like this will pick up people that are excited just the same. you have the same sort of metabolic response.


RE: Uhh..
By andylawcc on 9/24/2008 12:21:30 PM , Rating: 2
give this man a SIX!


RE: Uhh..
By LivingDedBoy on 9/24/2008 12:32:49 PM , Rating: 2
Thats what they were aiming for, to get to the light questioning. If you read the PDF I believe its said as such on page 25 from the 4th through 10th line.

What they don't realize is that terrorists etc. are not going to be nervous, generally they are going to be perfectly calm.

Nervousness is usually created when something unknown/uncontrollable/unfamiliar happens. I'm not an expert, but something tells me that they know, are in control, and are perfectly fine with what is going to happen.


RE: Uhh..
By gamerk2 on 9/24/2008 4:06:58 PM , Rating: 2
Wonder what happens when someone is "misidentified". Throw in the 4th circuit's decision two months ago allowing the DoD to send US citizens to gitmo...


Proxies
By clovell on 9/24/2008 11:15:46 AM , Rating: 2
'Hostile Intent' here seems a bit suspect itself. Instructing people to act shifty for $150 is a bit different than seeing if this thing will actually catch bad guys before they can do bad things. And the entire system is premised on the fact that bad guys are shifty.

I'm sure there's more meat to this, but I'm certainly not buying what's being sold. I'm tired of having to be on alert everytime I fly. I'm tired of having to take my shoes off and fit all my liquids into a 1 quart plastic bag - especially when checking a bag (in case you have more than will fit in said bag), costs you an extra $30 round-trip. I think we're going about this the wrong way.




RE: Proxies
By Suntan on 9/24/2008 11:58:57 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I think we're going about this the wrong way.


So what is your proposal?

-Suntan


RE: Proxies
By theplaidfad on 9/24/2008 12:14:40 PM , Rating: 2
1. An armed and trained guard in each cock-pit. OR...
2. An armed and trained undercover guard on each flight.
3. A combination of both.

Just a couple of suggestions that I think have been alread tried in a few instances.


RE: Proxies
By Suntan on 9/24/2008 1:22:11 PM , Rating: 2
they already have that in a lot of cases.

Further, what's yer man going to do after it is known that there are 4 terrorists on board, each with a dedotnator to a bomb that is also onboard? Once again, there aren't enough Chuck Norrises to go around...

-Suntan


RE: Proxies
By FITCamaro on 9/24/2008 2:37:43 PM , Rating: 2
There are no planes with an armed guard in the cockpit. And only around 10% of pilots are armed. Nor are there armed air marshals on every flight (or even unarmed ones). Only a small percentage of them.

Any terrorist with a bomb on a plane plans to detonate it. And if you're that air marshal you come out of the cockpit and try to shoot them all. Personally I think there should be armed air marshals on every flight. And they should be trained in marksmanship to a near special forces level. It'd be tons of jobs. And for something like that, I wouldn't mind my taxes going to it or even paying a little more taxes to cover it.


RE: Proxies
By Suntan on 9/24/2008 5:56:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Any terrorist with a bomb on a plane plans to detonate it.


Yeah, that's my point. The current thought process is to try and keep them from getting it on. I have yet to hear a proposal that would work better.

-Suntan


RE: Proxies
By Diesel Donkey on 9/25/2008 1:14:02 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The current thought process is to try and keep them from getting it on.


How will preventing them from procreating help the situation on the plane? ;)


RE: Proxies
By clovell on 9/26/2008 11:16:28 AM , Rating: 2
Not to be a punk here - but how many bombs have been detonated on a US flight? Why do we need more security (such as stated in the article) again?


RE: Proxies
By DASQ on 9/24/2008 3:57:43 PM , Rating: 2
All of those instances increase costs of flying.


Fun
By Visual on 9/24/2008 9:06:45 AM , Rating: 4
Would it not be funny if while you are being questioned, you manage to make the cop nervous or annoyed or hostile enough that he triggers FAST himself? :p

It is an interesting idea, though I have doubts about how effective it can become. Sure they have some good success rate when they are paying people to act like idiots... I'd also make sure I get noticed by it and please my "employers" if they were paying me. But lets see some trials where they pay people only if they aren't noticed by the system...

Also, I can't imagine how many people will be getting stressed up and nervous just from knowing that such a system is scanning them, and consequently trigger it because of that. Self-causation to its finest :p




RE: Fun
By mdogs444 on 9/24/2008 10:13:58 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Also, I can't imagine how many people will be getting stressed up and nervous just from knowing that such a system is scanning them, and consequently trigger it because of that.

Happens all the time. Just think of how many people get nervous or angry when they get pulled over for a minimal traffic violation like failure to use a turn signal or not coming to a complete stop at a stop sign. The smallest things could trigger this off.


RE: Fun
By Suntan on 9/24/2008 10:23:02 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Also, I can't imagine how many people will be getting stressed up and nervous just from knowing that such a system is scanning them, and consequently trigger it because of that. Self-causation to its finest :p


Probably the same amount of people that cause this to happen in the current environment. A guy walks thru the metal detector and sets it off because he has one too many rivets in his jeans, then starts acting like a complete paranoid flake. The TSA agents start to wonder why he is acting so shifty… I’ve seen it happen to coworkers I travel with (and to my knowledge, I don’t work with any terrorists… …although I wouldn’t lose a lot of sleep if TSA stopped the coworkers from traveling with me.)

If the system starts reporting a lot of false positives, it will be fixed or it won’t last long. That’s the way it goes.

I personally don’t see the big deal with it. Assuming it works as intended (doesn’t trigger everytime a hot piece of --- walks down the terminal full of business men away from their wives for a week) it wouldn’t be any more obtrusive than the metal detectors.

How many people start weirding out when that little beagle gets lead right over to your luggage to sniff it? He’s not there to cheer up the room like the beagles at the old folks’ homes you know…

-Suntan


By Richardito on 9/24/2008 10:45:48 AM , Rating: 3
This looks like something out of Orson Wells' 1984. No privacy and the government basically owns you. Pretty soon they'll start designing the humanoid robots (i.e. cops) to "enforce" the laws without any bias.




By Suntan on 9/24/2008 10:52:08 AM , Rating: 2
The major discrepancy would be that in your story, the government was centered around everyone being “the same.” In this instance, the government is interested in rooting out criminal activity… …which is pretty much one of the central tenants we have always instructed our governing bodies to do.

-Suntan


Airport operations will cease
By Bateluer on 9/24/2008 9:06:21 AM , Rating: 3
If you scan for angry, irritated people at an airport, you'll find them in spades. Air lines are already in financial peril, do we really want to cause their business to drop even more by giving irritation tests to all fliers?

The DHS should be dissolved for being ineffective and wasting tax payer money.




RE: Airport operations will cease
By mdogs444 on 9/24/2008 9:24:26 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
The DHS should be dissolved for being ineffective and wasting tax payer money.


You're way off base. Sure, somethings might be a little bit out there and ineffective such as this particular article. But the DHS does much more than just screening for airlines. Personally, I'd rather know I'm going to be safe from passengers trying to smuggle on bombs and guns to a flight, and am willing to spend a few extra minutes of my time to ensure that. After all, we wait an average of over an hour at the gate anyway, so its not like you have anything better to do.

Now if you want to talk about ineffectiveness and a waste of tax payer money, I can think of about 100+ social programs that should be dissolved before the DHS.


Okay...
By Ordr on 9/24/2008 10:01:39 AM , Rating: 2
So you drop a 5mg Valium before arriving at one of these checkpoints. Problem solved.




RE: Okay...
By mdogs444 on 9/24/2008 10:03:39 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah...just don't do a shot of Tequila followed up by a few speed pills.


Megan Fox
By AlvinCool on 9/24/2008 9:46:13 AM , Rating: 2
So I wonder how many "hostile" males will be in the crowd that Megan Fox walks through?




RE: Megan Fox
By mdogs444 on 9/24/2008 9:59:40 AM , Rating: 1
I wouldn't be hostile for her....I'd be more hostile that shes dating a douche bag like Brian Austin Green from 90210. But then again, that's gotta increase all our chances!


Nothing Xanax can't handle
By Lord 666 on 9/24/2008 5:42:21 PM , Rating: 2
Washing a Xanax down with a beer should be able to throw off the system.

Due to the many people who take downers to help reduce fear of flying, its going to be real interesting to see in action.




By codeThug on 9/24/2008 6:04:45 PM , Rating: 2
Holden: Describe in single words only the good things that come into your mind about... your mother.

Leon: My mother?

Holden: Yeah.

Leon: Let me tell you about my mother...

[Leon shoots Holden with a gun he had pulled out under the table]




"Paying an extra $500 for a computer in this environment -- same piece of hardware -- paying $500 more to get a logo on it? I think that's a more challenging proposition for the average person than it used to be." -- Steve Ballmer














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki