Doctor Dragged From United Plane After Computer "Solves" Overbooking Problem


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Jim K said:

He still had patients scheduled...digging up his past, and irrelevant dirt, is a bit low.  But I get it ... you feel the actions of United and security was warranted.  I disagree however ... as no passenger should be sent to the hospital for, what is ultimately, the airlines MISTAKE. 

I am not saying that he should have been beaten up, however it was not United that did that. It was Airport Security. This guy had numerous chances to go peacefully, but instead he chose the hardest way out and literally taunted them.

So let me present the same terrible reasoning you've used right back at you. Because you're on the passenger's side, you obviously condone being completely uncooperative with airport security and flight staff. So uncooperative you basically dare them to forcibly remove you from the plane. Doesn't matter what problems a person is causing, who they are inconveniencing, or what steps authority figures go through. If someone ever gets hurt, they are completely justified in being stubborn to a fault.

13 minutes ago, Emn1ty said:

I am not saying that he should have been beaten up, however it was not United that did that. It was Airport Security. This guy had numerous chances to go peacefully, but instead he chose the hardest way out and literally taunted them.

So let me present the same terrible reasoning you've used right back at you. Because you're on the passenger's side, you obviously condone being completely uncooperative with airport security and flight staff. So uncooperative you basically dare them to forcibly remove you from the plane. Doesn't matter what problems a person is causing, who they are inconveniencing, or what steps authority figures go through. If someone ever gets hurt, they are completely justified in being stubborn to a fault.

....and I'm done. :) 

 

Though, if I was giving up my seat so United employees could fly ... yea ... I would put up a stink.  It is their problem ... and shouldn't be my problem or my inconvenience because they couldn't plan accordingly.  They need to fix their problem...sending customers to hospitals isn't the fix.

  • Like 3
16 minutes ago, Emn1ty said:

I am not saying that he should have been beaten up, however it was not United that did that. It was Airport Security. This guy had numerous chances to go peacefully, but instead he chose the hardest way out and literally taunted them.

So let me present the same terrible reasoning you've used right back at you. Because you're on the passenger's side, you obviously condone being completely uncooperative with airport security and flight staff. So uncooperative you basically dare them to forcibly remove you from the plane. Doesn't matter what problems a person is causing, who they are inconveniencing, or what steps authority figures go through. If someone ever gets hurt, they are completely justified in being stubborn to a fault.

Has someone noticed that right-wing solutions always involve authorities using violence again non-threats (peaceful protestors, plane passengers, students)?

 

The first thing they would do is blame the victim(s).

  • Like 2
10 minutes ago, Mockingbird said:

Has someone noticed that right-wing solutions always involve authorities using violence again non-threats (peaceful protestors, plane passengers, students)?

 

The first thing they would do is blame the victim(s).

Have you ever noticed that left-wing solutions involve people exercising rights they don't actually have?

 

13 minutes ago, Jim K said:

Though, if I was giving up my seat so United employees could fly ... yea ... I would put up a stink.  It is their problem ... and shouldn't be my problem or my inconvenience because they couldn't plan accordingly.  They need to fix their problem...sending customers to hospitals isn't the fix.

If I was offered $800 I'd be off the plane. If someone else was being harassed about not leaving the plane, I'd give my seat up for the $800 in their place. Regardless I'd not confront security and make it an issue of force in the first place. But that's just me. Would I complain about it? Yes, of course. But I wouldn't force security to rip me off the plane because I know that me being on that plane is of their discretion to begin with.

24 minutes ago, Emn1ty said:

So let me present the same terrible reasoning you've used right back at you. Because you're on the passenger's side, you obviously condone being completely uncooperative with airport security and flight staff. So uncooperative you basically dare them to forcibly remove you from the plane. Doesn't matter what problems a person is causing, who they are inconveniencing, or what steps authority figures go through. If someone ever gets hurt, they are completely justified in being stubborn to a fault.

 

1 hour ago, Emn1ty said:

Everyone is very willing to be on his side, but the more information we get on the circumstances of this encounter the more it appears to be the passenger's own fault than anything to do with United Airlines. This guy was asking for it, baiting it even. Reminds me of the "sovereign citizen" morons who don't comply with cops because they think they don't have the authority to make them comply.

Ad hominem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem) is the lowest form of argument and can't be a factor in the right and wrong of things. It is used as a smokescreen to defer attention when one's line of reasoning is not holding up.

 

In a Civil Society, there is a huge weight upon citizens to engage in a dialog and however profound the disagreement, violence is simply not on the table as a bully option. This would even extend to Civil Disobedience which the passenger might have engaged in provided you can stomach/believe the trumped up fine print of United to portray dumping a paying passenger who has already been seated for the minor convenience of United employees too lazy to find alternate transport as "Breaking the Law"

 

He has every right to speak his mind, start a "sit in", strum a guitar and sing "Give Peace a Chance" in the face of incredible wrongness and school yard bully behavior.

 

It doesn't matter who he is. if he is a whiny trouble maker or an OCD repetitive speaker boring everyone around him. He was NOT violent. He WAS peaceful. Do we really want to rewrite the DNA of a free society to portray determined and repeated resistance to an unfair situation as warranting the use of dangerous force?

 

  • Like 4
47 minutes ago, Emn1ty said:

Have you ever noticed that left-wing solutions involve people exercising rights they don't actually have?

Does matter.

 

The appropriate situation is to defuse the situation, not use brutality.

 

The later is a totalitarian regime (aka Putin's Russia), but I guess you like that don't you?

23 minutes ago, DevTech said:

Ad hominem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem) is the lowest form of argument and can't be a factor in the right and wrong of things. It is used as a smokescreen to defer attention when one's line of reasoning is not holding up.

Indeed it is, perhaps you should address the person I was demonstrating that point to (thus why I prefaced it with "terrible reasoning"). The idea that because I don't side with the passenger I am somehow entirely ok with how United (and the security guard) handled this is just incorrect. I think that the practice of overbooking is crap and needs to be fixed and I think the security officials were far too rough with him. However, this guy was also being an idiot. So there's fault on all sides.

 

24 minutes ago, DevTech said:

In a Civil Society, there is a huge weight upon citizens to engage in a dialog and however profound the disagreement, violence is simply not on the table as a bully option. This would even extend to Civil Disobedience which the passenger might have engaged in provided you can stomach/believe the trumped up fine print of United to portray dumping a paying passenger who has already been seated for the minor convenience of United employees too lazy to find alternate transport as "Breaking the Law"

The minor inconvenience of United employees could have become a major inconvenience if it delayed one to several other flights (and inconvenienced hundreds of other passengers). Again, I pose the question of why this single passenger's time and seat are more important than everyone else's on that plane or other planes potentially affected by the delayed transport of flight personnel? Or did you not think about that?

 

29 minutes ago, DevTech said:

He has every right to speak his mind, start a "sit in", strum a guitar and sing "Give Peace a Chance" in the face of incredible wrongness and school yard bully behavior.

 

He has every right to do those things, but the Airline also has every right to remove him from the plane. He, however, did not take the "give peace a chance" route and instead threatened them and dared them to remove him from the aircraft. He cited convenience, not protest. This also wasn't "incredible wrongness". It's not like they just came in and tore him out of his seat with no pretense. He volunteered, changed his mind (citing he had to see patients which likely could have been cared for without him as he's only working one day a week), they told him that he was required to leave, he refused, they warned him they would have to forcibly remove him and that his lack of compliance constitutes an arrest (which they didn't do) and then he resisted federal security officers despite all that.

It's fun to omit the details to make it sound bad, isn't it? Your version makes it sound like he did absolutely nothing wrong, and that anyone should be allowed to just stage a protest on private property without any consequences (in fact, that is illegal without the proper paperwork and even then in protest you cannot prevent normal operation of what you are protesting which he was doing).

 

34 minutes ago, DevTech said:

It doesn't matter who he is. if he is a whiny trouble maker or an OCD repetitive speaker boring everyone around him. He was NOT violent. He WAS peaceful. Do we really want to rewrite the DNA of a free society to portray determined and repeated resistance to an unfair situation as warranting the use of dangerous force?

He was uncooperative, he refused to comply with a federal agent (which, again, is a federal offence). So it doesn't matter if he was "peaceful" in breaking the law, he was breaking the law. The moment airport security boarded that plane, it was a Federal issue. This has nothing to do with "free society", you are perfectly free to break the law. However, you are not free of that law being enforced or authority being enforced.

 

Next time a cop pulls you over and asks for license and registration try saying no and see how that goes. Hell, try not pulling over because it's obviously your "right" not to cooperate with law enforcement, right? That's how a "free" society works, right?

3 hours ago, Emn1ty said:
  • He's had his doctor's license suspended and later surrendered after trading drugs for sex.
  • He's only authorized to work as a doctor for one day a week with another doctor supervising.

This has nothing to do with the incident and you're only posting it to deride the man.

 

 

3 hours ago, Emn1ty said:
  • He wasn't just removed from the flight, he initially volunteered.
  • He then reboarded, was given every chance to leave peacefully and chose not to. He was even told that security would be federally obligated to remove him from the plane by force and he said "drag me out, I'll sue" (paraphrasing).

Please could you link me to an article proving either of these happened?  I've seen nothing on the press sources I visit.

 

 

3 hours ago, Emn1ty said:
  • He then resisted a federal security officer, which is illegal and constitutes grounds for arrest (which the officer also made known to the man before he was forcibly removed).

Everyone is very willing to be on his side, but the more information we get on the circumstances of this encounter the more it appears to be the passenger's own fault than anything to do with United Airlines. This guy was asking for it, baiting it even. Reminds me of the "sovereign citizen" morons who don't comply with cops because they think they don't have the authority to make them comply.

 

Since when is it illegal to resist an assault?  Federal security officers might have a right to detain you, but they don't have a right to assault you.

 

Again, please could you link me to to some proof that he reboarded?  If he did that, then yes he caused the incident to escalate, but he still did not deserve to be assaulted unless he became violent first.

  • Like 3
5 hours ago, Emn1ty said:
  • He's had his doctor's license suspended and later surrendered after trading drugs for sex.
  • He's only authorized to work as a doctor for one day a week with another doctor supervising.
  • He wasn't just removed from the flight, he initially volunteered.
  • He then reboarded, was given every chance to leave peacefully and chose not to. He was even told that security would be federally obligated to remove him from the plane by force and he said "drag me out, I'll sue" (paraphrasing).
  • He then resisted a federal security officer, which is illegal and constitutes grounds for arrest (which the officer also made known to the man before he was forcibly removed).

Everyone is very willing to be on his side, but the more information we get on the circumstances of this encounter the more it appears to be the passenger's own fault than anything to do with United Airlines. This guy was asking for it, baiting it even. Reminds me of the "sovereign citizen" morons who don't comply with cops because they think they don't have the authority to make them comply.

None of that matters. He paid for a seat on a plane and was allowed to board. He was then offered compensation to relinquish his seat after the airline knowingly overbooked the flight, which he declined. The airline then called in security and had him forcibly removed just so it could save money transporting its own staff around.

 

The reason incidents like this happen in the US and seemingly nowhere else is exactly because of attitudes like yours, where people look for any dirt on the victim in order to justify oppressive actions. United Airlines was completely out of order in the way they handled this situation. Stop supporting abusive and immoral business practices. None of this would have happened if UA hadn't deliberately overbooked the flight to maximise profits at the detriment of its customers.

  • Like 3
45 minutes ago, theyarecomingforyou said:

None of that matters. He paid for a seat on a plane and was allowed to board. He was then offered compensation to relinquish his seat after the airline knowingly overbooked the flight, which he declined. The airline then called in security and had him forcibly removed just so it could save money transporting its own staff around.

 

The reason incidents like this happen in the US and seemingly nowhere else is exactly because of attitudes like yours, where people look for any dirt on the victim in order to justify oppressive actions. United Airlines was completely out of order in the way they handled this situation. Stop supporting abusive and immoral business practices. None of this would have happened if UA hadn't deliberately overbooked the flight to maximise profits at the detriment of its customers.

Its even worse, the flight was not overbooked, they just needed to get some crew home. On a 300 mile trip, they could of got the crew home by the next day in a rental for far cheaper. Funny enough, this wasn't even the cheaper solution for United.

  • Like 3
1 hour ago, sidroc said:

Its even worse, the flight was not overbooked, they just needed to get some crew home. On a 300 mile trip, they could of got the crew home by the next day in a rental for far cheaper. Funny enough, this wasn't even the cheaper solution for United.

It astonishes me that they'd rather physically remove a paying passenger from a flight than simply make alternative arrangements for their staff. I really hope this hurts them as a business.

  • Like 2
8 hours ago, FloatingFatMan said:

This has nothing to do with the incident and you're only posting it to deride the man.

No, it demonstrates that the urgency of him having patients is a bit less extreme. He was only working for one week with another doctor, his patients could likely get along without him.

 

8 hours ago, FloatingFatMan said:

Please could you link me to an article proving either of these happened?  I've seen nothing on the press sources I visit.

http://abc7chicago.com/news/united-airlines-doctor-video-moment-by-moment-timeline-of-flight-3411/1864536/
 

Quote

5:21 p.m.: Passenger Tyler Bridges, husband of Audra D. Bridges, posts a video on Twitter showing a removed passenger who somehow managed to get back on the plane. He is seen with blood on his face, running up the center aisle of the plane.

 

Quote

7:01 p.m.: Now an hour and a half past the scheduled time of departure, passenger Jayse D. Anspach, of Louisville, posts a video on Twitter showing the unknown passenger in Tyler Bridges' video being dragged off the plane by a Chicago Department of Aviation officer.

The unidentified passenger's face is bloodied in the incident, and other passengers can be heard protesting his violent removal from the plane.

This order of events may be off, I'm not sure.

 

8 hours ago, FloatingFatMan said:

Since when is it illegal to resist an assault?  Federal security officers might have a right to detain you, but they don't have a right to assault you.

It is illegal to resist a federal law enforcement officer. He was warned of what he was doing, told he'd have to be forcibly removed and he resisted removal. That is in and of itself illegal, just as not pulling over at the request of a Police Officer is also illegal.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/10/business/united-flight-passenger-dragged.html?_r=0

 

Quote

The United employee then told the man that if he did not get off the plane, she would call security. As she turned to leave, the man shouted after her, Mr. Bridges said. Specifically, he said, the passenger complained that he had been singled out because he was Chinese.

This I did not know, apparently he was accusing the flight crew of racism (why?!?). This makes me feel even more he was just trying to cause a problem.

 

http://www.tmz.com/2017/04/12/united-airlines-doctor-passenger-dragged-plane-video/

 

Quote

The United passenger who was bloodied and dragged off a jet by cops dared the officers to drag him off the plane and take him to jail.

David Dao was confronted by officers at O'Hare Airport when he refused to get off the plane. You hear him say, "I won't go. I'm physician, have to work tomorrow, 8 o'clock."

 

He threatens to sue United and even says to the cops, if they take him to jail, so be it.

More showing his unwillingness to be civil about this.

1 hour ago, Emn1ty said:

No, it demonstrates that the urgency of him having patients is a bit less extreme. He was only working for one week with another doctor, his patients could likely get along without him.

 

http://abc7chicago.com/news/united-airlines-doctor-video-moment-by-moment-timeline-of-flight-3411/1864536/
 

 

This order of events may be off, I'm not sure.

 

It is illegal to resist a federal law enforcement officer. He was warned of what he was doing, told he'd have to be forcibly removed and he resisted removal. That is in and of itself illegal, just as not pulling over at the request of a Police Officer is also illegal.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/10/business/united-flight-passenger-dragged.html?_r=0

 

This I did not know, apparently he was accusing the flight crew of racism (why?!?). This makes me feel even more he was just trying to cause a problem.

 

http://www.tmz.com/2017/04/12/united-airlines-doctor-passenger-dragged-plane-video/

 

More showing his unwillingness to be civil about this.

Why the hell should be civil about this? The plane wasn't overbooked. United employees were only a 4 hour drive from where they had to go, but instead they waste everyone's time by removing paying customers from a flight that was not, I repeat, WAS Not overbooked. Why should anyone have to "just deal with it?" 

  • Like 4
3 hours ago, wakjak said:

Why the hell should be civil about this?

So you agree with how he handled it? He should have dared them to remove him from the plane?

 

3 hours ago, wakjak said:

The plane wasn't overbooked. United employees were only a 4 hour drive from where they had to go, but instead they waste everyone's time by removing paying customers from a flight that was not, I repeat, WAS Not overbooked. Why should anyone have to "just deal with it?" 

The fact that the plane was or was not overbooked isn't even an issue (since regardless overbooking isn't required to initiate the process they were using). The plane could have a single passenger and United could deny boarding and offer compensation while being well within their terms outlined. That four hours could be several delayed flights. Flight crew don't have 4 hours to spare anymore between flights, you delay flight crew then you delay other flights and schedules. This could throw of hundreds of people's schedules, make many miss transfers between flights, etc.

Is one passenger's seat/time really worth more than an entire service working as scheduled?

 

Again, I'll repeat, a ticket for a flight is not a guarantee. You buy a ticket, you should be prepared for flights to be delayed, canceled, etc. Anyone who frequently travels on planes is aware these things can happen, and to me all I see here is a guy fishing for a law suit. Especially after first blaming it on racism, then daring them to remove him from the plane. He caused that flight to be delayed by two hours likely delaying other flights and wasting the other passenger's time.

I like how everyone automatically assumes that United had absolutely no reason to want them on that flight as opposed to taking a 4 hour drive or waiting 24 hours to take a different flight. It couldn't possibly be that that was their best option, could it? No... couldn't possibly be that.

 

And if the plane was supposed to have spare seating for that crew, then yes. It was overbooked. However it didn't need to be overbooked for them to prevent people from flying.

11 hours ago, theyarecomingforyou said:

None of this would have happened if UA hadn't deliberately overbooked the flight to maximise profits at the detriment of its customers.

I completely agree with this, however this doesn't justify the passenger being provocative and uncooperative towards airport security.

4 hours ago, Emn1ty said:

I completely agree with this, however this doesn't justify the passenger being provocative and uncooperative towards airport security.

I think you are presenting many reasonable points as a sort of "Public Defender" for United Airlines and your various posts might very well be having a moderating effect on what might just be a Witch Hunt, yet there seems to be some sort of underlying premise on your part that Freedom is a two-way street. In order to defend Freedom, it has to be absolute.

 

The passenger can be provocative and uncooperative and anything else that would seem completely disrespectful toward authority and as long as he is non-violent, then violence should be light years away from happening. Civil Society means that the rights of an individual are respected, it doesn't mean a polite British Tea Time chat with the Queen!

 

 

  • Like 3
5 hours ago, Emn1ty said:

I completely agree with this, however this doesn't justify the passenger being provocative and uncooperative towards airport security.

Provocative? Uncooperative? Are you crazy?

 

Are you saying we're all just slaves and must immediately comply with any authority figure or risk violence/incarceration/death? That is exactly what a police state is.

 

There is ZERO justification for beating up a non violent citizen who has done nothing wrong. Zero. If you are trying to spin this in favor of the authorities, that is disgusting. That's why we stand by and don't even care about all the abuses and violation of rights going on.

  • Like 3
2 hours ago, DevTech said:

I think you are presenting many reasonable points as a sort of "Public Defender" for United Airlines and your various posts might very well be having a moderating effect on what might just be a Witch Hunt, yet there seems to be some sort of underlying premise on your part that Freedom is a two-way street. In order to defend Freedom, it has to be absolute.

Freedom has never been nor ever will be absolute. Freedom is a scale, and if you want absolute freedom what you're asking for is total anarchy.

 

2 hours ago, DevTech said:

The passenger can be provocative and uncooperative and anything else that would seem completely disrespectful toward authority and as long as he is non-violent, then violence should be light years away from happening. Civil Society means that the rights of an individual are respected, it doesn't mean a polite British Tea Time chat with the Queen!

Then please enlighten me as to how you forcibly remove a passenger without being violent. A passenger who is being completely uncooperative. And seeing as you think that people shouldn't have to obey authorities, while you're at it explain to me how a police officer should enforce pulling someone over if they apparently don't have to pull over cause they're not being "violent" in their driving.

 

The problem with your reasoning here is that you're effectively stating a law enforcement officer can only enforce the law if those disobeying the law and their requests are being violent. That's simply not how reality works. Just as police can forcibly remove protesters who are breaking protest law despite doing so nonviolently, this passenger was refusing to comply and was subject to any force deemed necessary to get compliance. 

The moment he resisted that officer was the moment he broke federal law by resisting arrest. He also broke law with a verbal assault by threatening to sue the officer and provoking them. Both are misdemeanors or worse that can carry jail time.

To reiterate, I don't think this should have happened this way. I think United should have upped the offered money to get people off the plane. Or even just randomly selected another seat. But he got what was coming to him for his behavior. He was disrespectful to the security officers, accused the flight crew of being racists.

 

2 hours ago, Defcon said:

Provocative? Uncooperative? Are you crazy?

Accusing the flight crew of being racists. Threatening to sue the police officers. Daring them to drag him off the plane (and resisting). Yes, that qualifies to me as provocative and uncooperative. Not sure what your definition of those terms are.

 

2 hours ago, Defcon said:

Are you saying we're all just slaves and must immediately comply with any authority figure or risk violence/incarceration/death? That is exactly what a police state is.

No, I'm saying that not complying with an authority figure is typically illegal and thus why most people don't do that. Have people forgotten that police and law enforcement has every right to stop and question you (so long as it's not based on the protected groups such as race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc). And if you decide to not listen to them they are then justified in using force to get your cooperation.

People don't seem to be addressing my example of being pulled over. You must pull over when a cop asks you to, so I'm not sure why when a airport security officer requests you get off the plane that's any different. Especially when he warns you that failure to comply means they'll need to use force (which is exactly how the law spells it out). Should he have been harmed in the process? No, but resisting does make that a bit harder to prevent.

 

2 hours ago, Defcon said:

There is ZERO justification for beating up a non violent citizen who has done nothing wrong. Zero. If you are trying to spin this in favor of the authorities, that is disgusting. That's why we stand by and don't even care about all the abuses and violation of rights going on.

He was doing something wrong, he wasn't cooperating with flight crew or airport security. He was delaying the flight, wasting other people's time and delaying the operation of the flight. If you really think this guy is 100% innocent, you're ignoring the fact that he made up excuses (such as it being about race) and that he dared the cops to remove him.
 

To me it just sounds like you guys have a problem with authority in general.

"All the abuses and violation of rights going on" - there really isn't anymore than there always has been, we just have more ways for people to hear about it. And still, this event is so rare that it happens on less than 0.004% of United's flights. "All the abuse and violations of rights" my ass.

3 hours ago, Emn1ty said:

Freedom has never been nor ever will be absolute. Freedom is a scale, and if you want absolute freedom what you're asking for is total anarchy.

 

Then please enlighten me as to how you forcibly remove a passenger without being violent. A passenger who is being completely uncooperative. And seeing as you think that people shouldn't have to obey authorities, while you're at it explain to me how a police officer should enforce pulling someone over if they apparently don't have to pull over cause they're not being "violent" in their driving.

 

The problem with your reasoning here is that you're effectively stating a law enforcement officer can only enforce the law if those disobeying the law and their requests are being violent. That's simply not how reality works. Just as police can forcibly remove protesters who are breaking protest law despite doing so nonviolently, this passenger was refusing to comply and was subject to any force deemed necessary to get compliance. 

The moment he resisted that officer was the moment he broke federal law by resisting arrest. He also broke law with a verbal assault by threatening to sue the officer and provoking them. Both are misdemeanors or worse that can carry jail time.

To reiterate, I don't think this should have happened this way. I think United should have upped the offered money to get people off the plane. Or even just randomly selected another seat. But he got what was coming to him for his behavior. He was disrespectful to the security officers, accused the flight crew of being racists.

 

Accusing the flight crew of being racists. Threatening to sue the police officers. Daring them to drag him off the plane (and resisting). Yes, that qualifies to me as provocative and uncooperative. Not sure what your definition of those terms are.

 

No, I'm saying that not complying with an authority figure is typically illegal and thus why most people don't do that. Have people forgotten that police and law enforcement has every right to stop and question you (so long as it's not based on the protected groups such as race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc). And if you decide to not listen to them they are then justified in using force to get your cooperation.

People don't seem to be addressing my example of being pulled over. You must pull over when a cop asks you to, so I'm not sure why when a airport security officer requests you get off the plane that's any different. Especially when he warns you that failure to comply means they'll need to use force (which is exactly how the law spells it out). Should he have been harmed in the process? No, but resisting does make that a bit harder to prevent.

 

He was doing something wrong, he wasn't cooperating with flight crew or airport security. He was delaying the flight, wasting other people's time and delaying the operation of the flight. If you really think this guy is 100% innocent, you're ignoring the fact that he made up excuses (such as it being about race) and that he dared the cops to remove him.
 

To me it just sounds like you guys have a problem with authority in general.

"All the abuses and violation of rights going on" - there really isn't anymore than there always has been, we just have more ways for people to hear about it. And still, this event is so rare that it happens on less than 0.004% of United's flights. "All the abuse and violations of rights" my ass.

I have been trying to give you the benefit of the doubt by imagining you playing devil's advocate for United Airlines as a sort of balanced example of debate to perhaps illustrate some sort of metaphor around the sort of balanced debate that should have taken place on that plane.

 

However, it appears more that you have some sort of problem around authority figures that defies the logic and history of the United States which was founded by a complete disrespect to the authority that lawfully governed it and the very founders of the country broke all sorts of laws to create a document and a country that attempted to be "by the people and for the people"

 

Since we have already conformed to Godwin's Law, the kind of blind obedience to authority that you bring up over and over is much more part of a different country's history.

 

It simply does not matter what he said. There is no moral way to justify beating that guy up.  

  • Like 3
3 hours ago, Emn1ty said:

Then please enlighten me as to how you forcibly remove a passenger without being violent. A passenger who is being completely uncooperative. And seeing as you think that people shouldn't have to obey authorities, while you're at it explain to me how a police officer should enforce pulling someone over if they apparently don't have to pull over cause they're not being "violent" in their driving.


People don't seem to be addressing my example of being pulled over. You must pull over when a cop asks you to, so I'm not sure why when a airport security officer requests you get off the plane that's any different. Especially when he warns you that failure to comply means they'll need to use force (which is exactly how the law spells it out). Should he have been harmed in the process? No, but resisting does make that a bit harder to prevent.

 

I get a feeling I'm wasting my time but there is a reason nobody is addressing your motor vehicle example. It is simply a straw man argument that has no bearing on the situation.

 

Police cannot randomly pull over people walking down the street because of that pesky document known as "The Constitution"

 

Now I'm not sure if the case of people on horses was adequately covered but certainly the founders of the United States had no ability to foresee the invention of the motor car and add it to the Constitution. So police everywhere found it rather convenient to spout the line that "driving a car is not a right but a privilege we grant" and there it has stood for far too long. When you enter your family sedan, you give up the constitutional rights you would have by walking to your destination.

 

Clearly, the founders did not intend this and I wish I had a billion dollars or so to take this travesty of freedom to the supreme court. To bring out this sneaky erosion of rights as a justification for beating up an airline passenger is both wrong and misleading. That's why everyone ignored it.

 

  • Like 3
6 hours ago, DevTech said:

I have been trying to give you the benefit of the doubt by imagining you playing devil's advocate for United Airlines as a sort of balanced example of debate to perhaps illustrate some sort of metaphor around the sort of balanced debate that should have taken place on that plane.

 

However, it appears more that you have some sort of problem around authority figures that defies the logic and history of the United States which was founded by a complete disrespect to the authority that lawfully governed it and the very founders of the country broke all sorts of laws to create a document and a country that attempted to be "by the people and for the people"

 

Since we have already conformed to Godwin's Law, the kind of blind obedience to authority that you bring up over and over is much more part of a different country's history.

 

It simply does not matter what he said. There is no moral way to justify beating that guy up.  

Speaking of logical fallacies, I like how I've jumped on you own ad hominem by trying to attack an assumed notice or history of mine with law enforcement. You're entire post effectively assets that law enforcement is irrelevant because our country was founded by people who broke laws.

 

However the contexts are drastically different. First, the reason we rebelled was because of being disarmed, private property being stored without warrant, etc. It was not merely because we don't like authority.

 

Our country is built on laws just sat any country. This isn't about blind obedience, but picking your battles and not being unreasonable.

 

For example if a police officer asks you if you've been drinking and then asks for sobriety tests, you don't have to answer or comply with them. However how you refuse to comply matters. Sight wanting to talk to your lawyer first and that's reasonable. Telling them off however isn't going to fly.

 

6 hours ago, DevTech said:

I get a feeling I'm wasting my time but there is a reason nobody is addressing your motor vehicle example. It is simply a straw man argument that has no bearing on the situation.

 

Police cannot randomly pull over people walking down the street because of that pesky document known as "The Constitution"

 

Now I'm not sure if the case of people on horses was adequately covered but certainly the founders of the United States had no ability to foresee the invention of the motor car and add it to the Constitution. So police everywhere found it rather convenient to spout the line that "driving a car is not a right but a privilege we grant" and there it has stood for far too long. When you enter your family sedan, you give up the constitutional rights you would have by walking to your destination.

 

Clearly, the founders did not intend this and I wish I had a billion dollars or so to take this travesty of freedom to the supreme court. To bring out this sneaky erosion of rights as a justification for beating up an airline passenger is both wrong and misleading. That's why everyone ignored it.

 

The SCOTUS had upheld that officer can stop you for any reason, they however need a reason to search you. So no, the Constitution does not protect you from being stopped by an officer.

 

In regards to vehicles, police need a reason, however because you cannot converse with that officer without stopping you are still required to stop.

 

Perhaps instead of pulling this stuff out of thin air you should go read the laws regarding this.

3 minutes ago, Emn1ty said:

Speaking of logical fallacies, I like how I've jumped on you own ad hominem by trying to attack an assumed notice or history of mine with law enforcement. You're entire post effectively assets that law enforcement is irrelevant because our country was founded by people who broke laws.

 

However the contexts are drastically different. First, the reason we rebelled was because of being disarmed, private property being stored without warrant, etc. It was not merely because we don't like authority.

 

Our country is built on laws just sat any country. This isn't about blind obedience, but picking your battles and not being unreasonable.

 

For example if a police officer asks you if you've been drinking and then asks for sobriety tests, you don't have to answer or comply with them. However how you refuse to comply matters. Sight wanting to talk to your lawyer first and that's reasonable. Telling them off however isn't going to fly.

 

The SCOTUS had upheld that officer can stop you for any reason, they however need a reason to search you. So no, the Constitution does not protect you from being stopped by an officer.

 

In regards to vehicles, police need a reason, however because you cannot converse with that officer without stopping you are still required to stop.

 

Perhaps instead of pulling this stuff out of thin air you should go read the laws regarding this.

That was not Ad Hominem, it was a reply to your assertion that people on this forum have some sort of problem with authority figures when the opposite case should be true. Citizens should NEVER be comfortable with authority figures and they grant those figures a temporary service (as in they are the servants of the people) via democratic elections, but should maintain a watchful and skeptical eye on them at all times.

 

Basic Civics 101 to maintain an actual free democracy, a concept that is foreign to United Airlines and many large international mega-corps that hold that their corporate interests take precedence over governments and all the little unimportant people.

 

You may have your wish soon enough as dictators gain power by embracing the common man with the need for change and then once in power look to accumulate wealth and privilege at the expense of the people. What is the first safe refuge for all dictators? Get the military to attack another country as many times as needed to end up in a state of war which never fails to distract the common people despite the endless repeat of history that it represents. Maybe it is time indeed for citizens to practice extreme respect to authority figures, learn how to shut up and how to cower in fear as the winds of change sweep through the land.

 

Winter is Coming!

 

 

  • Like 2
2 hours ago, DevTech said:

That was not Ad Hominem, it was a reply to your assertion that people on this forum have some sort of problem with authority figures when the opposite case should be true. Citizens should NEVER be comfortable with authority figures and they grant those figures a temporary service (as in they are the servants of the people) via democratic elections, but should maintain a watchful and skeptical eye on them at all times.

 

Basic Civics 101 to maintain an actual free democracy, a concept that is foreign to United Airlines and many large international mega-corps that hold that their corporate interests take precedence over governments and all the little unimportant people.

 

You may have your wish soon enough as dictators gain power by embracing the common man with the need for change and then once in power look to accumulate wealth and privilege at the expense of the people. What is the first safe refuge for all dictators? Get the military to attack another country as many times as needed to end up in a state of war which never fails to distract the common people despite the endless repeat of history that it represents. Maybe it is time indeed for citizens to practice extreme respect to authority figures, learn how to shut up and how to cower in fear as the winds of change sweep through the land.

 

Winter is Coming!

 

 

None of this has anything to do with what we talking about. You've managed to turn am exceedingly rate incident into a representation of dictators and corporations taking advantage of the people to justify him not cooperating with a security officer.

 

Your post is just one giant red herring turned slippery slope. I'm not debating that authority figures should automatic be trusted at all times. However in this case the guy had very little reason to be uncooperative to the point of daring them to take him off the plane.

Moral of the story is, comply with security. Some people think that when security says let's go, saying no will result in security saying "You don't want to come with us? That's alright, we will leave you alone now, have a nice day!". Or they will patiently wait for you to change your mind.

 

One more thing, don't yell and scream like a pansy. On second thought, if you think you can get lots of money out of it because it's being recorded, then yes go ahead and scream.

 

v1.55

2 hours ago, Emn1ty said:

None of this has anything to do with what we talking about. You've managed to turn am exceedingly rate incident into a representation of dictators and corporations taking advantage of the people to justify him not cooperating with a security officer.

 

Your post is just one giant red herring turned slippery slope. I'm not debating that authority figures should automatic be trusted at all times. However in this case the guy had very little reason to be uncooperative to the point of daring them to take him off the plane.

Nope. Was trying to inject some light humor into what has become abject OCD silliness. Perhaps my references were too subtle.

 

Mr Authority himself, the "Buffoon President" has his nutcase adviser Stephen K. Bannon who gets his playbook from a looney-tunes book "The Fourth Turning" which uses the "Game of Thrones" saying "Winter is coming" and he actually wants to use the power of the President to actively create the authoritarian nightmare proposed by the book.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/steve-bannon-apocalypse_us_5898f02ee4b040613138a951

 

589a107c1900003400e0a987.jpeg?cache=r4kw

 

 

So the number of posts in this thread has died out in conformance with the newspaper maxim "Old News Is No News" so I will end my contribution with this link:

 

The Deeper Scandal of That Brutal United Video

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/04/united-video-scandal-law/522552/

 

"Domestic airlines are now enjoying record profits, having flown more passengers each year since 2010. This is in part because the airline industry is sheltered from both antitrust regulation and litigation. Four carriers—United, Delta, American, and Southwest—earn more than $20 billion in profits annually and own 80 percent of seats on domestic flights. "

 

"In this way, the United video serves as a stark metaphor, one where the quiet brutalization of consumers is rendered in shocking, literal form. The first thought that I had watching the outrageous footage of a passenger being dragged through an aisle like a bag of trash was that this should never happen. But fundamentally, this is an old story: Companies in concentrated industries, like the airlines, have legal cover to break the most basic promise to consumers without legally breaking their contracts. The video is a scandal. But so is the law."

 

 

  • Like 3
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Hands-on with BOOX Tappy: cute little reading accessory by Taras Buria Page turners are quite popular accessories for e-readers, as they enable a hands-free reading experience, which is particularly useful with large readers featuring 10-inch or larger displays. The BOOX Tappy is a new accessory that was introduced earlier this year, and we took this cute-looking thingy for a spin. The Tappy comes in a small box, with two additional buttons and a user manual. The device is made of glossy green plastic and resembles old appliances from the nuclear age. Material quality is great, and each part feels quite premium. Plastic is high-quality, the switch is nice to flick, and the buttons are not rattly. At the bottom, four rubberized feet prevent slipping when used on a desk. Unfortunately, there are no color options, and the Tappy is only available in green. It looks good, but I wish there were other options as well. There are two removable buttons, an on/off switch, and an LED indicator that displays connection mode, charging status, and more. The buttons resemble those of an old typewriter, with quite a long travel distance and a pleasant clack. In the box, you have four buttons with different icons: heart, coffee, O, and X. You can easily swap buttons by simply pulling them upwards. Tip: buttons come with plastic covers, but they are quite tricky to remove. It is hard to call the Tappy the most ergonomic remote control, but after fiddling with it for a few hours, I managed to find a comfortable hand position. Attaching a lanyard to it can make it more comfortable in use without the fear of dropping it, but unfortunately, the Tappy does not come with one. The Tappy connects via Bluetooth 5.2, and it works in three modes, which you can toggle by pressing and holding both buttons for about five seconds: Reading Mode Multimedia Mode Browsing Mode Next / Previous page Next / Previous Track Up / Down scroll If you pair the Tappy with a BOOX device (I tested it with the BOOX Go 10.5 Gen 2 Lumi), you will get small pop-ups indicating the current mode. Plus, you can customize what each button does when pressed one time, two times, or held for a few seconds. The list of available actions and features you can use is massive, and I like that BOOX lets you map stuff like brightness adjustment, app launching, screenshot-taking, screen rotating, navigation, and more. Note, however, that while you can use the Tappy with other readers, its customization is only available on BOOX devices running firmware version 4.2 and newer. I could not connect the Tappy to my computer (Windows 11 claims a driver error when I try), but it worked with the DuRoBo Krono that I recently reviewed. My Kindle Paperwhite refused to work with the Tappy, though, just like my iPhone. The Tappy uses a non-removable Li-Ion battery, which can be recharged with a Type-C cable. BOOX rates the remote for "weeks of use," and I can say that it indeed has very good battery life. While there are no battery indicators on the remote, you can see the current level in the status bar or in Input settings in the BOOX firmware. After a few days of active use, mine still shows about 95%. Overall, the Tappy left a nice impression. It is well-made, and the integration with BOOX devices is great. I also like that BOOX decided to have some fun with its design and swappable buttons. I cannot say I am a fan of its odd shape, though. Still, I managed to find a way to use it comfortably. And when not in use, it just looks neat sitting on the table doing nothing or serving you as a small clacky fidget. Buy BOOX Tappy - $29.99 on Amazon US As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
    • AdGuard Family lifetime deal now only $14.97 by Steven Parker Today's highlighted Neowin Deal comes via our Apps + Software section, where you can get a lifetime subscription and save 91% on a lifetime AdGuard Family Plan. AdGuard is a unique program that has all the necessary features for what they claim to be "the best web experience." The software combines the an advanced ad blocker, a privacy protection module, and a parental control tool—all working in one app. This software deals with annoying ads, hides your data from a multitude of trackers, protects you from malware attacks, and even lets you restrict your kids from accessing inappropriate content. Install AdGuard and see the internet as it was supposed to be: clean and safe. Get rid of annoying banners, pop-ups & video ads once and for all Hide your data from the multitude of trackers & activity analyzers that swarm the web Avoid fraudulent and phishing website and malware attacks Protect your kids online by restricting them from accessing inappropriate & adult content Good to know Family Plan Length of access: lifetime This plan is only available to new users Redemption deadline: redeem your code within 30 days of purchase Max number of devices: 9 Access options: desktop & mobile Software version: AdGuard Family Updates included A lifetime subscription of AdGuard Family Plan normally costs $169.99, but this deal can be yours for just $14.97, that's a saving of $157.02. For full terms, specifications, and license info please click the link below. Get this AdGuard Family lifetime deal for just $14.97 (was $169.99) Although priced in U.S. dollars, this deal is available for digital purchase worldwide. As an online publication, Neowin too relies on ads for operating costs and, if you use an ad blocker, we'd appreciate being whitelisted. In addition, we have an ad-free subscription for $28 a year, which is another way to show support! Support queries If you have queries or need support for any of the Neowin Deals, please use the contact form here. Neowin Deals are managed and sold by StackCommerce who represent Neowin on an affiliate basis. Why we post these deals We post these because we earn commission on each sale so as not to rely solely on advertising, which many of our readers block. It all helps toward paying staff reporters, servers and hosting costs. So for those that keep moaning and complaining, be thankful we're still online for you to even do that. Other ways to support Neowin Whitelist Neowin by not blocking our ads Create a free member account to see fewer ads Make a donation to support our day to day running costs Subscribe to Neowin - for $14 a year, or $28 a year for an ad-free experience Disclosure: Neowin benefits from revenue of each sale made through our branded deals site powered by StackCommerce.
    • Passkeys: Think of them like a broken heart necklace. Imagine one of those heart necklaces that breaks into two matching pieces. One person keeps one half, and the other person keeps the other half. With passkeys, the website has one half, and you have the other half. If the website gets hacked and someone steals its half, that stolen piece is useless by itself. It cannot unlock your account without your matching half. This particular heart necklace is one of a kind, there is only one in existence. Your half of the necklace has to be stored somewhere. It might be stored on your phone, tablet, computer, security key, or a password manager that can sync it between all your devices. A security key is a small physical device that you keep with you, kind of like a house key, car key, or flash drive. I would not usually recommend a security key as the first option for the average person. For most people, it is easier to use their phone, computer, or a password manager that can sync passkeys between their devices. A security key is more like a spare key you keep in a safe place, just in case you lose access to your other devices or your password manager. Some security keys plug into your computer. Some plug into your phone or tablet. Some get tapped against your device. The idea is simple: a security key can hold another passkey for the same website. Think of it like creating a second one-of-a-kind heart necklace for the same account. One necklace could be paired with your password manager, while another necklace could be paired with your security key. That means the website has more than one matching half on file. One half matches the passkey in your password manager. Another half matches the passkey stored on your security key. So, if you lose access to your phone, computer, or password manager, you would still be able to log in using the passkey stored on your security key. Think of it like keeping an extra special necklace piece on a tiny keychain, stored somewhere safe. The website still has the matching half for that security key, but your half is safely stored inside the little key. A passkey does not automatically exist on every device you own. It lives wherever you save it. If your half is stored on one device, then that device is the one that has the matching piece. For example, if you create the passkey on your Windows computer and it is only saved to that computer, your iPhone does not automatically have that same half. If you create it on your iPhone and it only stays on that iPhone, your Android phone does not automatically have it either. That is where password managers come in. A password manager can act like a protected jewelry box for your passkeys. Instead of your half of the necklace being locked to only one device, the password manager can securely sync that half to your other approved devices. For example, Apple Passwords and iCloud Keychain can sync passkeys between your Apple devices. Google Password Manager can sync passkeys with your Google account. But password managers such as 1Password and Bitwarden can sync passkeys between everything, your phones, tablets and computers. Now, you might ask: “What happens if I lose access to the device that has my passkey?” That depends on where your passkey was saved and what recovery options the website gives you. If your passkey was synced through a password manager, you may be able to sign in from another device that has access to that same password manager. For example, if your passkey is saved in iCloud Keychain, Google Password Manager, 1Password, or Bitwarden, another approved device may still have access to it. If your passkey was saved only on one phone, computer, or security key, and you lose that device, then you may not have your half of the necklace anymore. In that case, you would usually need to use the website’s backup login or account recovery options. A lot of websites that support passkeys still let you fall back to your regular password. So if you lose access to your passkey, the site may still let you log in with your password, a code sent to your email, a text message, a recovery code, or some other account recovery process. That is convenient, but it is also important to understand: if the website still allows password login, then your password still matters. Passkeys are safer than passwords, but if your account still has a password as a backup, you should still use a strong, unique password and turn on two-factor authentication if the website offers it. This is why it is a good idea to have more than one safe way back into important accounts. For example, you might keep your passkey in a syncing password manager, add a second trusted device, save recovery codes somewhere safe, or set up a backup security key. A passkey is very secure, but just like a real key, you need a backup plan in case you lose access to it. Now, you might ask: “What stops a hacker from copying my half of the necklace?” That’s the important part: your half is protected. It is not something you type in, and it is not something the website gets to keep. Think of your half as being locked inside a tiny safe on your phone, computer, security key, or password manager. That safe only opens when you approve it with your fingerprint, face, PIN, or device password. When you log in, the website does not need to see your half. It only needs proof that your half matches its half. Your actual half is not handed over to the website. This is different from a password. With a password, you type the secret into the website. If you type it into a fake website, the hacker now has it. With a passkey, you are not typing your secret into the website. Your device is proving you have the matching half without giving the half away. That also helps protect you from fake websites. If someone makes a fake login page that looks like the real site, your device can tell it is not the real match. It will not use your passkey there. Now, could someone use your passkey if they stole your device, got into your password manager, or somehow unlocked the safe that holds your half? Yes, that is why your device password, PIN, fingerprint, face unlock, and password manager security still matter. But a hacker cannot just steal your passkey from the website or trick you into typing it into a fake page like they can with a password. That is why passkeys are safer than passwords. The two matching pieces have to come together, like two lovebirds who were once separated and are finally reunited.
    • Newegg offers insane combo deal on Amazon Prime Day 2026 that beats Steam Machine by Sayan Sen Building a PC is undoubtedly difficult nowadays but with this epic combo deal, Newegg is trying to make it as easy for you as it is possible. If you are making a new one or even upgrading an old system to a new Windows 11 device, this combo bundle is truly unmissable as you get AMD's Ryzen 9800X3D, a compatible X870 motherboard, a 240mm AIO liquid cooler and finally a Samsung 990 PRO SSD all for under $1000 (purchase link under the specs table down below). This should beat out the newly launched Steam Machine from Valve in terms of performance and performance per dollar especially if you are willing to set Linux up on it. Essentially with this combo you will get the AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D 8-core 3D V cache CPU, Samsung's 990 PRO 2TB NVMe SSD, the MSI MAG X870 TOMAHAWK WIFI ATX Motherboard, and finally the Cooler Master Elite Liquid 240. Thanks to that massive vertically stacked L3 cache, the X3D desktop processors, including the 9800X3D, also come with the benefit of not needing fast memory. Even DDR5-5600 should be plenty for it. The technical specifications of the Ryzen 7 9800X3D are given in the table below: Specification Value Architecture Zen 5 Cores / Threads 8 / 16 Base Clock 4.7 GHz Max Boost Clock Up to 5.2 GHz L1 Cache 640 KB L2 Cache 8 MB L3 Cache 96 MB Total Cache 104 MB CPU Core Process TSMC 4nm FinFET I/O Die Process TSMC 6nm FinFET Socket AM5 Default TDP 120W Max Temperature (Tjmax) 95°C Thermal Solution Not included Memory Type DDR5 Max Capacity 256 GB Memory Speeds 2x1R: DDR5-5600 2x2R: DDR5-5600 4x1R: DDR5-3600 4x2R: DDR5-3600 PCIe Version PCIe 5.0 PCIe Lanes (Total/Usable) 28 / 24 USB 3.2 Gen 2 (10Gbps) 4 USB 2.0 1 Graphics Cores 2 CU RDNA 2 Frequency 2200 MHz DisplayPort over USB-C Yes Overclocking Unlocked Up next we have the tech specs for the MSI MAG X870 TOMAHAWK WIFI Motherboard: Specification Value Chipset AMD X870 CPU Support AMD Ryzen 9000 / 8000 / 7000 Series Desktop Processors Socket AM5 Memory Slots 4 × DDR5 UDIMM Maximum Memory Capacity 256GB Memory Support DDR5 8400–5600 MT/s (OC), DDR5 5600–4800 MT/s (JEDEC) Integrated Graphics Outputs 1 × HDMI 2.1 FRL (up to 8K 60Hz) 2 × USB4 Type-C with DisplayPort 1.4 HBR3 (up to 4K 60Hz) Expansion Slots PCI_E1: PCIe 5.0 x16 (CPU) PCI_E2: PCIe 3.0 x1 (Chipset) PCI_E3: PCIe 4.0 x4 (Chipset) Audio Realtek ALC4080 Codec 7.1-Channel USB High Performance Audio Supports up to 32-bit/384kHz playback on front panel S/PDIF output M.2 Slots 4 × M.2 M2_1: PCIe 5.0 x4 (CPU, 22110/2280) M2_2: PCIe 5.0 x4 (CPU, 2280/2260) M2_3: PCIe 4.0 x2 (Chipset, 2280/2260) M2_4: PCIe 4.0 x4 (Chipset, 2280/2260) SATA Ports 4 × SATA 6Gb/s RAID Support RAID 0, 1, 5, 10 for M.2 NVMe storage devices Rear USB Ports 4 × USB 2.0 3 × USB 5Gbps Type-A 2 × USB 10Gbps Type-A 1 × USB 10Gbps Type-C 2 × USB4 40Gbps Type-C Front USB Headers 4 × USB 2.0 4 × USB 5Gbps Type-A 1 × USB 20Gbps Type-C LAN Realtek 8126-CG 5G LAN Wireless Wi-Fi 7 (M.2 Key-E module pre-installed) Supports 2.4GHz / 5GHz / 6GHz bands Up to 5.8Gbps Supports 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac/ax/be Bluetooth Bluetooth 5.4, MLO, 4KQAM Internal Power Connectors 1 × 24-pin ATX Power 2 × CPU Power Connectors 1 × PCIe 8-pin Power Connector Fan Headers 1 × CPU Fan 1 × Combo Fan (Pump/System) 6 × System Fan RGB Headers 3 × Addressable V2 RGB (JARGB_V2) 1 × RGB LED (JRGB) Other Internal Headers 1 × EZ Conn-header 2 × Front Panel Headers 1 × Chassis Intrusion 1 × Front Audio 1 × TPM 2.0 Header Debug Features 4 × EZ Debug LEDs 1 × EZ Digit Debug LED Rear I/O Ports Clear CMOS Button Flash BIOS Button HDMI 2 × USB 40Gbps Type-C 1 × USB 10Gbps Type-C 4 × USB 10Gbps Type-A 3 × USB 5Gbps Type-A 4 × USB 2.0 5G LAN Port Wi-Fi/Bluetooth Antenna Connectors Audio Connectors Form Factor ATX The Samsung 990 PRO is a PCIe Gen4 NVMe SSD and still one of the fastest drives available today for under $500. Speaking of fast, sequential reads and writes are rated at 7450 MB/s and 6900 MB/s, respectively. The random throughputs for reads and writes are 1400K IOPS and 1550K IOPS, respectively. The 990 PRO is based on Samsung's 7th Gen V-NAND flash, and it too is TLC. It packs 2 gigs of LPDDR4 DRAM cache, which helps the random performance. The endurance rating for this is 1200 TBW (terabytes written), which should be sufficient for most users. The Samsung 990 PRO is compatible with the PlayStation 5, but if you are going to use the 990 PRO on a PC, check out the Samsung Magician app that lets you track your drive's health, update its firmware, customize various settings, and more. The tech specs are given below: Specification Value Interface PCIe Gen 4.0 x4, NVMe 2.0 Form Factor M.2 2280 Controller Samsung In-house Controller NAND Flash 3D TLC DRAM Cache 2GB LPDDR4 Sequential Read (Max) 7,450 MB/s Sequential Write (Max) 6,900 MB/s Random Read (4K) Up to 1,400,000 IOPS Random Write (4K) Up to 1,550,000 IOPS TBW (Endurance) 1,200 TBW MTBF 1,500,000 hours Operating Temperature 0°C to 70°C Storage Temperature -40°C to 85°C Shock Resistance 1,500G / 0.5ms Heatsink No Get the combo deal at this link: AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D, Samsung 990 PRO 2TB, MSI MAG X870 TOMAHAWK WIFI motherboard, Cooler Master Elite Liquid 240: $784.99 + $25 off with promo code FTTF77: $759.99 (Sold and Shipped by Newegg US) Good to know This Newegg deal is U.S. specific, and not available in other regions unless specified. We only use first-party seller links (at the time of article publishing); ensure that you purchase from a first-party seller link only. Check out Today's Deals on Amazon | or our recent tech deals. Become a Prime member (for Students or SNAP) via Neowin Get Prime Access - Prime for half price (for qualifying Medicaid, EBT, SNAP) Subscribe to Prime Video, Audible Plus, Music Unlimited or Kindle Unlimited via Neowin As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Month Later
      timbobit earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Month Later
      nates earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Almohandis earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Rookie
      dorf went up a rank
      Rookie
    • First Post
      mike_rumble earned a badge
      First Post
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      469
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      165
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      104
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      87
    5. 5
      Steven P.
      70
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!