Surely they didn't mean to say that!
OG
BBC Radio 4 news today was reporting on the bombing attempt on the plane
landing in Detroit.
Having described it as quite likely being a bomb carried in the underpants
of the alleged bomber, and how he has been reported as having burns to his
legs; the correspondent then mentioned how it had gone off 'half cocked'.
Made I larf!
Robert Carnegie
Around here we'd say he made an arse of it. And I heard an interview
with the other passenger who exposed his misdemeanour.
Of course in the other leg of the Trousers of Time, bereaved relatives
had to wait for the Al Qaeda press office in Yemen to open after the
Christmas break to find out just what happened, and nobody is flying
anywhere, so it isn't entirely funny. But at least that other
universe is saving on carbon dioxide generation.
SteveD
<rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>Of course in the other leg of the Trousers of Time, bereaved relatives
>had to wait for the Al Qaeda press office in Yemen to open after the
>Christmas break to find out just what happened, and nobody is flying
>anywhere, so it isn't entirely funny. But at least that other
>universe is saving on carbon dioxide generation.
And in a third leg, security on all flights is actually security, rather
than a poor man's panto.
Chris Zakes
I've been hearing a fair bit of talk about shifting the security focus
from technology to the methods used by the Israelis on El Al--personal
interaction between the security folks and the passengers to determine
who might be a threat.
Whether it actually *happens* or not is another kettle of lobsters,
but some of the new rules I've heard bandied about--no going to the
bathroom and nothing on your lap during the last hour of the flight,
for example--are clearly stupid.
-Chris Zakes
Texas
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they
will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
-Martin Luther King Jr.
SteveD
wrote:
>I've been hearing a fair bit of talk about shifting the security focus
>from technology to the methods used by the Israelis on El Al--personal
>interaction between the security folks and the passengers to determine
>who might be a threat.
Hmm. I wonder how they determine who's a terrorist and who's just
jetlagged. Maybe the latter fall asleep during interrogation...
-SteveD
Robert Carnegie
planes getting wrecked during landing final approach by semi-regularly
shooting 'em down on take-off and putting it on YouTube. You just
don't know which. People should either stay someplace they want to be
and not move, or walk. But nooo, apparently this plan is
"unecessarily violent". I think it /is/ necessary, and in the end
you'll thank me.
Chris Zakes
caused SteveD <use...@vo.id.au> to write:
As described by folks who've gone through it, it's mostly a couple of
minutes of questions: Where are you going? Where are you coming from?
Where will you be staying? etc. Considering how long it's been since
El Al has had a hijacking, *something* seems to be working.
On the other hand, the American system, which (supposedly) focuses
more attention on Danish grandmothers or pretty girls than on young
Middle Eastern or Islamic men with minimal luggage and no passport
definitely has some flaws.
mcv
> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 03:03:40 +0800, an orbital mind-control laser
> caused SteveD <use...@vo.id.au> to write:
>>On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 22:28:21 -0800 (PST), Robert Carnegie
>><rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Of course in the other leg of the Trousers of Time, bereaved relatives
>>>had to wait for the Al Qaeda press office in Yemen to open after the
>>>Christmas break to find out just what happened, and nobody is flying
>>>anywhere, so it isn't entirely funny. But at least that other
>>>universe is saving on carbon dioxide generation.
>>
>>And in a third leg, security on all flights is actually security, rather
>>than a poor man's panto.
>
> I've been hearing a fair bit of talk about shifting the security focus
> from technology to the methods used by the Israelis on El Al--personal
> interaction between the security folks and the passengers to determine
> who might be a threat.
>
> Whether it actually *happens* or not is another kettle of lobsters,
> but some of the new rules I've heard bandied about--no going to the
> bathroom and nothing on your lap during the last hour of the flight,
> for example--are clearly stupid.
For some reason, security seems to put more focus on inconveniencing
regular passengers than on actually stopping terrorists. In this
particular case, there were about a dozen known reasons not to let him
on the plane. (He was on some list, and his father warned the US not to
give him a visum. I believe the UK also refused him.)
mcv.
Rocky Frisco
A. Not if I'm on the plane. I won't.
B. That kind of talk in my country will get you on a list. Those in
power are free from sense of humour.
-Rocky Frisco
--
Government is Crime because humans are corrupt.
Rocky Frisco
> I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they
> will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
>
> -Martin Luther King Jr.
I wish my country would use that method of choosing "leaders."
Rocky Frisco
I think you have placed your finger on the matter. It's not about
security; it's about training the sheeple.
Free Lunch
<webm...@liberty-in-our-time.com> wrote in alt.fan.pratchett:
TSA wants to make us feel like something is being done.
Rocky Frisco
TSA wants us to stay quietly in line, softly going "baaaa."
Chris Zakes
<mcv...@xs4all.nl> to write:
But... but... "The system worked" according to Janet Napolitano, the
US Secretary of Homeland Security.
Yeah, right. The only part of "the system" that worked was the final
step--fellow passengers stopping the terrorist *after* he'd ignited
the explosive.
And to make matters even more worrisome, I heard a report today that
neither the body-scanners they're now touting or the "pat down"
technique the TSA uses would have caught the explosive used by
Abdulmutallab.
Robert Carnegie
The terms on which the UK rejected him are pretty much that he was
suspected of wishing to enter the country to work for a living, which
we seldom allow.
For the rest, I wonder how many warnings are sent to U.S. or other
national security authorities that say that a relative or acquaintance
is a terrorist and should be arrested, or that an international terror
plot is being planned in any one particular country, that come to
nothing. There are probably a whole lot of prank calls, with varying
degrees of malice.
And, yes, under Cheney they were banning people from flying because
those people were Democrats.
SteveD
wrote:
>TSA wants to make us feel like something is being done.
TSA wants idiots to feel like something is being done. I doubt anyone here
is particularly convinced.
-SteveD
Bernard Peek
The government has to handle two problems; terrorism and fear of
terrorism. The two need completely different remedies. Don't expect any
one thing to work against both.
Chris Zakes
caused SteveD <use...@vo.id.au> to write:
Oh, I'm quite convinced that they're doing "something." Whether that
"something" is effective is another question.
Metal detectors, for example, are a reasonable way to keep guns and
knives off airplanes. But the whole notion that we can't profile
people from Islamic countries as being a possibly higher terror risk,
because such profiling is racist, is rather stupid, though.
Lesley Weston
> On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 13:54:49 +0800, an orbital mind-control laser
> caused SteveD <use...@vo.id.au> to write:
>
>> On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 19:10:34 -0600, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> TSA wants to make us feel like something is being done.
>> TSA wants idiots to feel like something is being done. I doubt anyone here
>> is particularly convinced.
>>
>> -SteveD
>
> Oh, I'm quite convinced that they're doing "something." Whether that
> "something" is effective is another question.
>
> Metal detectors, for example, are a reasonable way to keep guns and
> knives off airplanes. But the whole notion that we can't profile
> people from Islamic countries as being a possibly higher terror risk,
> because such profiling is racist, is rather stupid, though.
El Al uses profiling and it doesn't seem to upset anyone.
--
Lesley Weston
The addy above is real, but I won't see anything posted to it for a long
time. To reach me, use leswes att shaw dott ca, adjusting as necessary.
Lesley Weston
<snip>
> And to make matters even more worrisome, I heard a report today that
> neither the body-scanners they're now touting or the "pat down"
> technique the TSA uses would have caught the explosive used by
> Abdulmutallab.
I don't see how patting down can do anything but annoy people, but They
had to be seen to be doing something immediately. The body-scanners
probably would be effective, but the best defense is the chemical
sniffers that are already in place in some airports. Once every
screening point in every airport is equipped with a sniffer, terrorists
will have to find a new trick, but that's going to take a while.
Free Lunch
in alt.fan.pratchett:
As FDR noted, fear can be much more disruptive than the cause.
People are much more likely to fear flying than any other form of
transportation, even though it is the safest method.
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.fan.pratchett:
>On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 13:54:49 +0800, an orbital mind-control laser
>caused SteveD <use...@vo.id.au> to write:
>
>>On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 19:10:34 -0600, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>TSA wants to make us feel like something is being done.
>>
>>TSA wants idiots to feel like something is being done. I doubt anyone here
>>is particularly convinced.
>>
>>-SteveD
>
>Oh, I'm quite convinced that they're doing "something." Whether that
>"something" is effective is another question.
>
>Metal detectors, for example, are a reasonable way to keep guns and
>knives off airplanes. But the whole notion that we can't profile
>people from Islamic countries as being a possibly higher terror risk,
>because such profiling is racist, is rather stupid, though.
If you listen to the news interview shows from folks involved in it,
they never say they don't profile. They always profile. The point is
that they use a more sophisticated profile than a mere checkoff of
"Islamic country of origin".
Free Lunch
<brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in alt.fan.pratchett:
>Chris Zakes wrote:
>> On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 13:54:49 +0800, an orbital mind-control laser
>> caused SteveD <use...@vo.id.au> to write:
>>
>>> On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 19:10:34 -0600, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> TSA wants to make us feel like something is being done.
>>> TSA wants idiots to feel like something is being done. I doubt anyone here
>>> is particularly convinced.
>>>
>>> -SteveD
>>
>> Oh, I'm quite convinced that they're doing "something." Whether that
>> "something" is effective is another question.
>>
>> Metal detectors, for example, are a reasonable way to keep guns and
>> knives off airplanes. But the whole notion that we can't profile
>> people from Islamic countries as being a possibly higher terror risk,
>> because such profiling is racist, is rather stupid, though.
>
>El Al uses profiling and it doesn't seem to upset anyone.
And it isn't simplistic or limited to folks who come from Islamic
countries.
Chris Zakes
caused Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> to write:
>Chris Zakes wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> And to make matters even more worrisome, I heard a report today that
>> neither the body-scanners they're now touting or the "pat down"
>> technique the TSA uses would have caught the explosive used by
>> Abdulmutallab.
>
>I don't see how patting down can do anything but annoy people, but They
>had to be seen to be doing something immediately. The body-scanners
>probably would be effective,
This article says they wouldn't:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/are-planned-airport-scanners-just-a-scam-1856175.html
because the explosive powder isn't dense enough to show up on the
scan.
>but the best defense is the chemical
>sniffers that are already in place in some airports. Once every
>screening point in every airport is equipped with a sniffer, terrorists
>will have to find a new trick, but that's going to take a while.
Depends on the method used. The walk-through type where puffs of air
were used to dislodge and then detect traces of explosives have
significant maintenance problems--normal dirt and humidity meant they
were always breaking down.
There's a "wipe down" method I've seen where a cloth swab is wiped
along the handle of any carry-on luggage, the analyzed. I don't know
if that would pick up PETN sewn into the underwear or not.
Bearing in mind that Abdulmutallab had the explosive sewn into the
crotch of his underwear, that's not an area where Joe Traveller is
going to want to be patted down. And privacy concerns have already
been raised about the clarity and detail level of the images in the
scanners.
http://www.bild.de/BILD/news/bild-english/world-news/2009/12/31/pregnancy-body-piercings-genitals/what-can-naked-scanners-really-see.html
SteveD
>On 03/01/2010 05:54, SteveD wrote:
>> On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 19:10:34 -0600, Free Lunch<lu...@nofreelunch.us>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> TSA wants to make us feel like something is being done.
>>
>> TSA wants idiots to feel like something is being done. I doubt anyone here
>> is particularly convinced.
>>
>
>The government has to handle two problems; terrorism and fear of
>terrorism.
And they're doing a great job of providing expansion opportunities in both
sectors.
SteveD
<brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>I don't see how patting down can do anything but annoy people, but They
>had to be seen to be doing something immediately. The body-scanners
>probably would be effective, but the best defense is the chemical
>sniffers that are already in place in some airports. Once every
>screening point in every airport is equipped with a sniffer, terrorists
>will have to find a new trick, but that's going to take a while.
Given human ingenuity, I can't see prevention measures being 100%
effective until the only way to fly is to be stripped naked, knocked
unconscious, scanned for every electronic and biological implant known,
and stuffed into a hermetically sealed, explosion-proof can for the trip.
By the time that's played out, any terrorists playing the long game will
have already infiltrated aircraft manufacturing and component shipping and
storage and installed a wide range of sudden-failure mechanisms and
designs. Ooh, that new 2015-era self-healing aircraft skin goop? Turns out
that it becomes acidic and brittle above 20,000 feet. Those engine bolts?
Spontaneously loosen or crack when a certain radio signal is received. And
every cattle-class seat now comes equipped with a "Wings Fall Off" button.
-SteveD
Chris Zakes
caused Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> to write:
>On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 08:36:18 -0600, Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com>
>wrote in alt.fan.pratchett:
>
>>On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 13:54:49 +0800, an orbital mind-control laser
>>caused SteveD <use...@vo.id.au> to write:
>>
>>>On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 19:10:34 -0600, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>TSA wants to make us feel like something is being done.
>>>
>>>TSA wants idiots to feel like something is being done. I doubt anyone here
>>>is particularly convinced.
>>>
>>>-SteveD
>>
>>Oh, I'm quite convinced that they're doing "something." Whether that
>>"something" is effective is another question.
>>
>>Metal detectors, for example, are a reasonable way to keep guns and
>>knives off airplanes. But the whole notion that we can't profile
>>people from Islamic countries as being a possibly higher terror risk,
>>because such profiling is racist, is rather stupid, though.
>
>If you listen to the news interview shows from folks involved in it,
>they never say they don't profile. They always profile. The point is
>that they use a more sophisticated profile than a mere checkoff of
>"Islamic country of origin".
Precisely. *Just* being from an Islamic country shouldn't prevent
someone from being able to fly. But perhaps it should be an indicator
to take a second look at the person in question to see if there are
any obvious danger signs (which, by all accounts, *didn't* happen on
Christmas.)
-Chris Zakes
Texas
Creationists make it sound as though a "theory" is something you dreamt up after
being drunk all night.
-Isaac Asimov
David Chapman
After keeping a bomb in his underpants, it seems unlikely that there is a
third leg.
Daniel Orner
Certainly the media in Canada is not buying this one. The business
about removing shoes - OK, a specific remedy for a specific method of
terrorism. No liquids - ditto. Kind of silly, but makes a kind of loopy
sense.
In this case, though, /not a single one/ of the new restrictions would
have done /anything/ to catch the original bomber. All it's doing is
making us very, very annoyed and much less likely to fly. I haven't seen
a single article, letter or editorial in favor of this policy and very
many angrily against.
Up until now I always flew from Toronto to New York because it's fairly
cheap and the whole thing is done in about three hours instead of
twelve. If these restrictions stay, I am seriously intending to drive
from now on. They are demeaning, annoying, and will make my flight
experience pure torture.
For some reason, Canada is the only country other than Belgium (for
some reason) where restrictions are /more/ strict than what the US
themselves require.
--
http://roleplayingjew.blogspot.com/ - An Orthodox Jew who plays Japanese
role-playing games? Strange but true!
Lesley Weston
> On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 07:18:02 -0800, an orbital mind-control laser
> caused Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> to write:
>
>> Chris Zakes wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> And to make matters even more worrisome, I heard a report today that
>>> neither the body-scanners they're now touting or the "pat down"
>>> technique the TSA uses would have caught the explosive used by
>>> Abdulmutallab.
>> I don't see how patting down can do anything but annoy people, but They
>> had to be seen to be doing something immediately. The body-scanners
>> probably would be effective,
>
> This article says they wouldn't:
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/are-planned-airport-scanners-just-a-scam-1856175.html
> because the explosive powder isn't dense enough to show up on the
> scan.
>
I wondered how the syringe came into it. This shows how completely daft
the whole plan was - when you mix a substrate with its accelerant, you
have to do a whole lot of mixing before it starts to become whatever it
will be. That's probably our best defence after all: the stupidity of
the would-be murderers and those who dupe them into carrying out their
pathetic plans.
>> but the best defense is the chemical
>> sniffers that are already in place in some airports. Once every
>> screening point in every airport is equipped with a sniffer, terrorists
>> will have to find a new trick, but that's going to take a while.
>
> Depends on the method used. The walk-through type where puffs of air
> were used to dislodge and then detect traces of explosives have
> significant maintenance problems--normal dirt and humidity meant they
> were always breaking down.
> There's a "wipe down" method I've seen where a cloth swab is wiped
> along the handle of any carry-on luggage, the analyzed. I don't know
> if that would pick up PETN sewn into the underwear or not.
I don't know either. But I do know that the sniffers are extraordinarily
sensitive.
>
> Bearing in mind that Abdulmutallab had the explosive sewn into the
> crotch of his underwear, that's not an area where Joe Traveller is
> going to want to be patted down.
I don't see how patting down is going to have any effect anyway. Except
possibly a titillating effect on one or other party, which is presumably
not the intention.
> And privacy concerns have already
> been raised about the clarity and detail level of the images in the
> scanners.
> http://www.bild.de/BILD/news/bild-english/world-news/2009/12/31/pregnancy-body-piercings-genitals/what-can-naked-scanners-really-see.html
I have real trouble understanding where there is a problem here. But
then I don't really suffer from the body taboo thing, so I'll just have
to take it on trust that it makes people feel uncomfortable. Still, I'd
rather be uncomfortable than dead.
Lesley Weston
Then that's the way to go.
Lesley Weston
Lesley Weston
What They should do is set up two kinds of flights. The first kind would
have passengers and crews checked out thoroughly in every way we've
thought of so far and everything we think of in the future. The second
kind would have no checks at all, and would thus provide much shorter
and less-annoying flight times. The drawbacks to the second kind would
be that you would have trouble finding crews willing to fly them, and
that the fares would have to be huge to compensate for all the lost planes.
Alec Cawley
Except the bad guys don't seem to show terribly much technical ability -
as opposed to human factors ingenuity. Like any of us, they can look at
human driven systems and work their way round them. They have not,
generally, defeated technological methods - they have bypassed them.
Robert Carnegie
> Free Lunch wrote:
> > On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 07:11:48 -0800, Lesley Weston
> > <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in alt.fan.pratchett:
> >
> >> Chris Zakes wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 13:54:49 +0800, an orbital mind-control laser
> >>> caused SteveD <use...@vo.id.au> to write:
> >>>
> >>>> On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 19:10:34 -0600, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> TSA wants to make us feel like something is being done.
> >>>> TSA wants idiots to feel like something is being done. I doubt anyone here
> >>>> is particularly convinced.
> >>>>
> >>>> -SteveD
> >>> Oh, I'm quite convinced that they're doing "something." Whether that
> >>> "something" is effective is another question.
> >>>
> >>> Metal detectors, for example, are a reasonable way to keep guns and
> >>> knives off airplanes. But the whole notion that we can't profile
> >>> people from Islamic countries as being a possibly higher terror risk,
> >>> because such profiling is racist, is rather stupid, though.
> >> El Al uses profiling and it doesn't seem to upset anyone.
> >
> > And it isn't simplistic or limited to folks who come from Islamic
> > countries.
>
> Then that's the way to go.
On the other hand, why isn't El Al the only airline anyone wants to
fly with by now? I haven't looked into this at all, but on this
account, they should be the only company still taking bookings.
Large Dave
> SteveD wrote:
>> On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 14:17:27 +0000, Bernard Peek <b...@shrdlu.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 03/01/2010 05:54, SteveD wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 19:10:34 -0600, Free Lunch<lu...@nofreelunch.us>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> TSA wants to make us feel like something is being done.
>>>> TSA wants idiots to feel like something is being done. I doubt
>>>> anyone here
>>>> is particularly convinced.
>>>>
>>> The government has to handle two problems; terrorism and fear of
>>> terrorism.
>>
>> And they're doing a great job of providing expansion opportunities in
>> both
>> sectors.
>
> What They should do is set up two kinds of flights. The first kind would
> have passengers and crews checked out thoroughly in every way we've
> thought of so far and everything we think of in the future. The second
> kind would have no checks at all, and would thus provide much shorter
> and less-annoying flight times. The drawbacks to the second kind would
> be that you would have trouble finding crews willing to fly them, and
> that the fares would have to be huge to compensate for all the lost planes.
>
All you have to do to get on board is to eat a bacon sandwich :-)
Ok it's a bit anti-semitic but El AL is safe!
--
Large Dave
This space accidentally left blank
Robert Carnegie
> SteveD wrote:
> > On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 14:17:27 +0000, Bernard Peek <b...@shrdlu.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 03/01/2010 05:54, SteveD wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 19:10:34 -0600, Free Lunch<lu...@nofreelunch.us>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> TSA wants to make us feel like something is being done.
> >>> TSA wants idiots to feel like something is being done. I doubt anyone here
> >>> is particularly convinced.
> >>>
> >> The government has to handle two problems; terrorism and fear of
> >> terrorism.
> >
> > And they're doing a great job of providing expansion opportunities in both
> > sectors.
>
> What They should do is set up two kinds of flights. The first kind would
> have passengers and crews checked out thoroughly in every way we've
> thought of so far and everything we think of in the future. The second
> kind would have no checks at all, and would thus provide much shorter
> and less-annoying flight times. The drawbacks to the second kind would
> be that you would have trouble finding crews willing to fly them, and
> that the fares would have to be huge to compensate for all the lost planes.
I dunno how many rides you expect to get from one aeroplane anyway
before it's junked. And they can be flown by remote control.
My own idea was to have a separate aeroplane just for baggage. So if
someone's suitcase is a bomb, we just lose a lot of suitcases. And an
aeroplane.
Alternatively, aeroplanes that you can't blow up or break just like
that could be a good idea.
Turning away from terrorism, I do seriously think that aeroplane use
has a dangerous environment impact that governments aren't able to get
to grips with and price properly - for instance by taxing the fuel -
for rather complicated reasons, and anything that discourages plane
use is not an absolute bad thing.
(On the other hand, bomb-proof planes are likely to be heavier and
therefore more polluting than the ones now.)
Moving on from there, if there were no aeroplanes, or if they were too
difficult to attack, terrorists would choose other targets. They
already often do. For instance, rail transport.
Rocky Frisco
Those aren't "problems." To the US government, they are "opportunities."
Rocky Frisco
I doubt that would make you safe. The different factions in Islam are
still blowing each other to bits in Iraq.
SteveD
More ways to control the masses through fear! Hooray!
SteveD
<brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>Still, I'd rather be uncomfortable than dead.
I'd rather be able to fly where and when I wanted on short notice than
spend hours being patted, prodded, poked, scanned, eyeballed, undressed,
growled at, and robbed, when absolutely NONE of that would prevent me
being killed by a plane bomb in the first place.
Rocky Frisco
Terror is an emotion; the place to fight it is in the mind. The weapon
is called "courage."
On the other hand, I can understand why the idiots in D. C. want to
fight it on the battlefield, since they are lacking in the above
quality. Psychopaths are Bullies; Bullies are Cowards.
Robert Carnegie
Not vegetarian-friendly... and aren't religious militia allowed not to
stick to other rules of their religion as long as they kill
unbelievers? As to diet, booze, sex, money... Or maybe not.
Reports of the lifestyles of terrorists are rarely impartial.
Chris Zakes
I'm not sure that would work. I've been told that for Jews, if the
only two choices are eating a bacon sandwich or starving to death,
then you eat the bacon sandwich, and God will understand.
Presuming the rules for Muslims are similar (which I don't know, and
can't be bothered to find out) a terrorist might consider eating a
bacon sandwich in pursuit of killing a planeload of infidels to be an
acceptable tactic.
Chris Zakes
laser caused Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> to write:
>Lesley Weston wrote:
>> SteveD wrote:
>> > On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 14:17:27 +0000, Bernard Peek <b...@shrdlu.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 03/01/2010 05:54, SteveD wrote:
>> >>> On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 19:10:34 -0600, Free Lunch<lu...@nofreelunch.us>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> TSA wants to make us feel like something is being done.
>> >>> TSA wants idiots to feel like something is being done. I doubt anyone here
>> >>> is particularly convinced.
>> >>>
>> >> The government has to handle two problems; terrorism and fear of
>> >> terrorism.
>> >
>> > And they're doing a great job of providing expansion opportunities in both
>> > sectors.
>>
>> What They should do is set up two kinds of flights. The first kind would
>> have passengers and crews checked out thoroughly in every way we've
>> thought of so far and everything we think of in the future. The second
>> kind would have no checks at all, and would thus provide much shorter
>> and less-annoying flight times. The drawbacks to the second kind would
>> be that you would have trouble finding crews willing to fly them, and
>> that the fares would have to be huge to compensate for all the lost planes.
>
>I dunno how many rides you expect to get from one aeroplane anyway
>before it's junked. And they can be flown by remote control.
Hundreds, probably thousands of flights.
>My own idea was to have a separate aeroplane just for baggage. So if
>someone's suitcase is a bomb, we just lose a lot of suitcases. And an
>aeroplane.
Waste of time and money. When was the last time we had a plane crash
because of a bomb in the luggage? (Lockerbie, I think, in 1988.)
Luggage is already subject to X-rays and an examination that is much
more strenuous than what passengers receive. That's why the terrorists
have shifted to passenger-carried bombs.
>Alternatively, aeroplanes that you can't blow up or break just like
>that could be a good idea.
Wrong again. Such a plane would be so heavy it couldn't fly without
massive fuel consumption, or the materials would be so expensive that
the only people who could afford the tickets are rich enough to own
their own airplanes and don't *need* to fly commercial.
>Turning away from terrorism, I do seriously think that aeroplane use
>has a dangerous environment impact that governments aren't able to get
>to grips with and price properly - for instance by taxing the fuel -
>for rather complicated reasons, and anything that discourages plane
>use is not an absolute bad thing.
Okay, presuming that's true (which I question, but that's a discussion
for a different day) is putting all those airplane passengers into
cars to drive the same distance going to have any less environmental
impact? Maybe they can use trains in the UK or Europe, but that's not
a viable option in the US, where, outside of the northeast, passenger
rail transport is pretty much nonexistent.
Daniel Orner
Probably because they only fly to and from Israel. You can't get an El
Al Flight from the US to Canada, for instance, unless it's a stopover on
the way to Israel.
Daniel Orner
Yes, that's correct; in fact, there are exactly three sins that one is
required to submit to death before committing - murder, incest/adultery,
and idol worship. All the others you are /required/ to sin rather than die.
I don't know what the Muslim take on it is.
>
> Presuming the rules for Muslims are similar (which I don't know, and
> can't be bothered to find out) a terrorist might consider eating a
> bacon sandwich in pursuit of killing a planeload of infidels to be an
> acceptable tactic.
>
> -Chris Zakes
> Texas
>
> Creationists make it sound as though a "theory" is something you dreamt up after
> being drunk all night.
>
> -Isaac Asimov
Lesley Weston
See my earlier post about the two kinds of flight, checked and
un-checked. Do you think the idea will take off?
Lesley Weston
A while back there was alarm among the Iranian community in Vancouver
because it had been revealed that the loonies now running Iran had
recruited a bunch of devoutly loonie Iranians to pose as refugees in
Vancouver and elsewhere. These (all men, of course), shaved off their
beards and dressed in immodest western clothes, drank alcohol and ate
pork, fornicated (when they got the chance, which probably wasn't
often), swore, avoided the Mosque and all the rest of it, by special
dispensation from their superior loonies. This put them in a position to
gather information on the real refugees hiding here and feed it back, so
that the real ones could be killed while thinking themselves safe here,
or their families back in Iran could be terrorised.
Lesley Weston
> Lesley Weston wrote:
>> SteveD wrote:
>>> On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 14:17:27 +0000, Bernard Peek <b...@shrdlu.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 03/01/2010 05:54, SteveD wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 19:10:34 -0600, Free Lunch<lu...@nofreelunch.us>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> TSA wants to make us feel like something is being done.
>>>>> TSA wants idiots to feel like something is being done. I doubt anyone here
>>>>> is particularly convinced.
>>>>>
>>>> The government has to handle two problems; terrorism and fear of
>>>> terrorism.
>>> And they're doing a great job of providing expansion opportunities in both
>>> sectors.
>> What They should do is set up two kinds of flights. The first kind would
>> have passengers and crews checked out thoroughly in every way we've
>> thought of so far and everything we think of in the future. The second
>> kind would have no checks at all, and would thus provide much shorter
>> and less-annoying flight times. The drawbacks to the second kind would
>> be that you would have trouble finding crews willing to fly them, and
>> that the fares would have to be huge to compensate for all the lost planes.
>
> I dunno how many rides you expect to get from one aeroplane anyway
> before it's junked. And they can be flown by remote control.
Nothing can possibly go wrong go wrong go wrong go...
Daniel Orner
> SteveD wrote:
>> On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 08:10:36 -0800, Lesley Weston
>> <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Still, I'd rather be uncomfortable than dead.
>>
>> I'd rather be able to fly where and when I wanted on short notice than
>> spend hours being patted, prodded, poked, scanned, eyeballed, undressed,
>> growled at, and robbed, when absolutely NONE of that would prevent me
>> being killed by a plane bomb in the first place.
>
> See my earlier post about the two kinds of flight, checked and
> un-checked. Do you think the idea will take off?
>
No, but there might be airlines who check /everything/ (current
restrictions) as opposed to those which just do a reasonable amount of
checking (i.e. metal detectors, people who have been flagged on whatever
list). Those who really really want to feel safe could go on the former,
while those who have enough confidence in reasonable checks could go on
the latter in more comfort.
Robert Carnegie
Is this for real? It seems... thorough.
It is the kind of information we were asking for - that they can do
that, I mean.
And, yeah, if Russia evidently likes to kill troublesome exiles in
London conspicuously (we're told that's the only way the plutonium
could have been obtained that was used), why not expect Iran to do the
same thing. But Russia went for someone who had actually caused them
trouble, although I don't know if he was still doing so or if he'd run
out.
And so what? President Bartlett had some guy assassinated.
Chris Zakes
caused Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> to write:
>Chris Zakes wrote:
>> On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 07:18:02 -0800, an orbital mind-control laser
>> caused Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> to write:
>>
>>> Chris Zakes wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> And to make matters even more worrisome, I heard a report today that
>>>> neither the body-scanners they're now touting or the "pat down"
>>>> technique the TSA uses would have caught the explosive used by
>>>> Abdulmutallab.
>>> I don't see how patting down can do anything but annoy people, but They
>>> had to be seen to be doing something immediately. The body-scanners
>>> probably would be effective,
>>
>> This article says they wouldn't:
>> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/are-planned-airport-scanners-just-a-scam-1856175.html
>> because the explosive powder isn't dense enough to show up on the
>> scan.
>>
>
>I wondered how the syringe came into it. This shows how completely daft
>the whole plan was - when you mix a substrate with its accelerant, you
>have to do a whole lot of mixing before it starts to become whatever it
>will be. That's probably our best defence after all: the stupidity of
>the would-be murderers and those who dupe them into carrying out their
>pathetic plans.
The news reports I read said the bomber spent something like 40
minutes in the bathroom just before igniting the bomb. Presumably
that's when he was trying to mix the accelerant with the explosive.
I don't have much of a body taboo thing either, so I agree with you.
But I suspect we're in the minority.
Chris Zakes
So if the entire USA had enough courage, then Bin Laden and his
cronies would just shrivel up and blow away? That seems rather
improbable.
SteveD
wrote:
>Maybe they can use trains in the UK or Europe, but that's not
>a viable option in the US, where, outside of the northeast, passenger
>rail transport is pretty much nonexistent.
Hmm. Use some of the money which would have been spent on planes and
security theatre on extending the rail network instead?
-SteveD
SteveD
<webm...@liberty-in-our-time.com> wrote:
>Terror is an emotion; the place to fight it is in the mind. The weapon
>is called "courage."
I prefer indifference and logic, but that's mostly because emotion and I
are somewhat awkward dance partners.
-SteveD
Richard Bos
> Of course in the other leg of the Trousers of Time, bereaved relatives
> had to wait for the Al Qaeda press office in Yemen to open after the
> Christmas break to find out just what happened, and nobody is flying
> anywhere, so it isn't entirely funny.
That would be the leg where physics works radically different from the
real world, and you can create a real explosion without a solid
container, then?
Richard
Richard Bos
> Taking the carbon dioxide thing into account, I'd avoid passenger
> planes getting wrecked during landing final approach by semi-regularly
> shooting 'em down on take-off and putting it on YouTube. You just
> don't know which. People should either stay someplace they want to be
> and not move, or walk. But nooo, apparently this plan is
> "unecessarily violent".
The violence doesn't really bother me, but I think you'll find that a
risk of dying isn't a very successful deterrant against suicide bombers.
Richard
Richard Bos
> Depends on the method used. The walk-through type where puffs of air
> were used to dislodge and then detect traces of explosives have
> significant maintenance problems--normal dirt and humidity meant they
> were always breaking down.
> There's a "wipe down" method I've seen where a cloth swab is wiped
> along the handle of any carry-on luggage, the analyzed. I don't know
> if that would pick up PETN sewn into the underwear or not.
My carry-on usually consists of a plain linen bag. Have fun swabbing
that. Besides, security forces should stop assuming that the terrorists
are as stupid as they are. If this method stops a single attempt, the
next ones will have the explosive applied by someone else than the
carrier, who will therefore have completely clean hands.
Richard
Chris Zakes
Maybe, but you're still talking a couple of years (at a minimum) to
get the infrastructure in place, build new trains, etc.
There's also this: the US is *big*. I'd mentioned that there is a
somewhat-functional passenger rail system in the northeastern US. That
corner of the country is about the size of Great Britain, maybe a
little bigger. But a train trip from New York to San Francisco (just
under 3000 miles) would take about two days if you travelled non-stop.
It can actually be done via Amtrak today, but it takes over three days
(76 hours and 10 minutes according to their website.) Oh yes, it
appears that there aren't any sleeper cars for that three-day
trip--you'd be in a regular seat the whole time.
For comparison purposes, a flight form New York to San Francisco is a
bit under 7 hours.
Lesley Weston
I heard it from several different Iranians living here, none of them
given to hyperbole. But of course that's not proof.
>
> It is the kind of information we were asking for - that they can do
> that, I mean.
It's hardly surprising, shirley?
>
> And, yeah, if Russia evidently likes to kill troublesome exiles in
> London conspicuously (we're told that's the only way the plutonium
> could have been obtained that was used), why not expect Iran to do the
> same thing. But Russia went for someone who had actually caused them
> trouble, although I don't know if he was still doing so or if he'd run
> out.
The Iranian loonie government believes that dissidents who succeed in
escaping have actually caused them trouble, and in some cases they're right.
>
> And so what? President Bartlett had some guy assassinated.
So willingness to eat a bacon sarnie is not definitive.
Lesley Weston
> Lesley Weston wrote:
>> SteveD wrote:
>>> On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 08:10:36 -0800, Lesley Weston
>>> <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Still, I'd rather be uncomfortable than dead.
>>>
>>> I'd rather be able to fly where and when I wanted on short notice than
>>> spend hours being patted, prodded, poked, scanned, eyeballed, undressed,
>>> growled at, and robbed, when absolutely NONE of that would prevent me
>>> being killed by a plane bomb in the first place.
>>
>> See my earlier post about the two kinds of flight, checked and
>> un-checked. Do you think the idea will take off?
>>
>
> No, but there might be airlines who check /everything/ (current
> restrictions) as opposed to those which just do a reasonable amount of
> checking (i.e. metal detectors, people who have been flagged on whatever
> list). Those who really really want to feel safe could go on the former,
> while those who have enough confidence in reasonable checks could go on
> the latter in more comfort.
>
the second type, and fares would have to be exorbitant to pay for all
the losses, even if the passengers signed waivers and so their families
would not be entitled to damages.
My job involved using sterile technique, which is a lot of obviously
sensible precautions that nobody disputes and a lot more that don't seem
justified. The reason for the latter is that you do everything you
possibly can to prevent your precious cell-cultures from becoming
contaminated with micro-organisms, even if it seems like overkill. The
difference between a successful experiment involving tissue-culture and
a failure is whether or not the second class of precautions are observed.
People don't seem to be able to make the connection between an annoying
delay at the airport and not being blown to pieces in mid-air. When
something happens like the Christmas thing, that just means that the
terrorists have found another loophole and now we must close it. The
fact that there haven't been any successful attacks lately means that
all these precautions are working, though "Plane does not explode"
doesn't make a good headline.
Daniel Orner
Except that people are now pointing to the Israeli method of doing
things, which relies on intelligence, interpersonal questions, at least
six layers of security, and some amount of profiling, to get their job
done. Despite the obvious fact that Israel has many enemies, there has
not been a successful hijacking in over 20 years. All this /without/
forcing their passengers to wait for hours or submit to embarrassing and
demeaning checks; traffic at Israeli airports move much faster than at
American/Canadian ones, and they don't have silly rules about whether or
not you're allowed to carry a water bottle or book aboard their flights.
For that matter, if a terrorist just wants to cause maximum havoc, one
of the Israeli security experts pointed out that this kind of mass
milling around in lines is /exactly/ the kind of situation they need.
They don't even have to /enter/ security to blow up a bomb in the
airport itself.
As has been mentioned earlier, the absolute best way of ensuring that
nothing untoward happens is simply stripping everyone naked and knocking
them unconscious for the duration of the flight. Scaling back to
reasonable checks is not a recipe for disaster; all it's doing is
bringing some common sense back.
Large Dave
<snip stuff that I mostly agree with>
> The fact that there haven't been any successful attacks lately means
> that all these precautions are working.
On a point of logic M'lud, this is a logical fallacy.
For example, I sprinkle Elephant Dust (TM) on the lawn and it keeps
elephants away - therefore elephant dust works.
ITYM *most* of the precautions are effective - and we don't get
elephants in the wild in UKia :-)
--
Large Dave
This space accidentally left blank
Large Dave
<snip>
> Except that people are now pointing to the Israeli method of doing
> things, which relies on intelligence, interpersonal questions, at least
> six layers of security, and some amount of profiling, to get their job
> done. Despite the obvious fact that Israel has many enemies, there has
> not been a successful hijacking in over 20 years. All this /without/
> forcing their passengers to wait for hours or submit to embarrassing and
> demeaning checks; traffic at Israeli airports move much faster than at
> American/Canadian ones, and they don't have silly rules about whether or
> not you're allowed to carry a water bottle or book aboard their flights.
A book?
In the UK airports I don't generally mind the security apart from a
couple of things
1) Being a 60 plus, grey haired, fat, tall Geordie, I strongly object to
being singled out for a pat down. How many terrorists fit that description?
2) Sorry sir, you can't take that water/soft drink into departures, you
must buy it on the other side of security for ten times the supermarket
price!
Rocky Frisco
My intention was to say that I am far more likely to die from falling
or fire or choking on a cheese sandwich than from Terrorism. Fear of
terrorists is destroying our way of life even though they are a very
minor matter.
Here's something to consider:
http://www.liberty-in-our-time.com/risks.html
Bernard Peek
You can certainly create a real explosion without a solid container but
it's almost impossible with gunpowder.
Daniel Orner
> Daniel Orner wrote:
> <snip>
>
>> Except that people are now pointing to the Israeli method of doing
>> things, which relies on intelligence, interpersonal questions, at
>> least six layers of security, and some amount of profiling, to get
>> their job done. Despite the obvious fact that Israel has many enemies,
>> there has not been a successful hijacking in over 20 years. All this
>> /without/ forcing their passengers to wait for hours or submit to
>> embarrassing and demeaning checks; traffic at Israeli airports move
>> much faster than at American/Canadian ones, and they don't have silly
>> rules about whether or not you're allowed to carry a water bottle or
>> book aboard their flights.
>
> A book?
From what I've read (and admittedly I'm getting very mixed signals from
various places - another problem with this whole issue) some airlines
going from Canada to the US are forbidding passengers from taking any
carry-on luggage whatsoever, and requiring them to keep their laps free
in the last hour of the flight, meaning no books, food, etc.
>
> In the UK airports I don't generally mind the security apart from a
> couple of things
>
> 1) Being a 60 plus, grey haired, fat, tall Geordie, I strongly object to
> being singled out for a pat down. How many terrorists fit that description?
>
> 2) Sorry sir, you can't take that water/soft drink into departures, you
> must buy it on the other side of security for ten times the supermarket
> price!
>
To avoid this, I take an /empty/ water bottle with me and fill it up
with the water fountains on the other side. 8-) From the lack of stares
I've gotten from officials, I'm far from the first person to think of
this. On the other hand, they have forbidden me from taking an apple
with me (because everyone knows Canadian apples have H1N1) so I have to
submit to being robbed on the other side when purchasing another one.
Orjan
>
> they have forbidden me from taking an apple
Well, yes, some do tend to take the story of the garden of Eden a bit
too literally.
Orjan
Large Dave
suicide is greater than death by terrorism - in other words you are a
greater danger to yourself than OBL. :-)
Winterbay
> A book?
>
> In the UK airports I don't generally mind the security apart from a
> couple of things
>
> 1) Being a 60 plus, grey haired, fat, tall Geordie, I strongly object to
> being singled out for a pat down. How many terrorists fit that description?
>
> 2) Sorry sir, you can't take that water/soft drink into departures, you
> must buy it on the other side of security for ten times the supermarket
> price!
>
>
I've run into airports where the things on the other side of the
security check point was actually cheaper than the things on the
outside. This amazed me to some extent :)
/Winterbay
Rocky Frisco
In that case, he is a greater danger to himself than he is to me. I
like that.
Alec Cawley
> Lesley Weston wrote:
>> SteveD wrote:
>>> On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 08:10:36 -0800, Lesley Weston
>>> <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Still, I'd rather be uncomfortable than dead.
>>>
>>> I'd rather be able to fly where and when I wanted on short notice than
>>> spend hours being patted, prodded, poked, scanned, eyeballed, undressed,
>>> growled at, and robbed, when absolutely NONE of that would prevent me
>>> being killed by a plane bomb in the first place.
>>
>> See my earlier post about the two kinds of flight, checked and
>> un-checked. Do you think the idea will take off?
>>
>
> No, but there might be airlines who check /everything/ (current
> restrictions) as opposed to those which just do a reasonable amount of
> checking (i.e. metal detectors, people who have been flagged on whatever
> list). Those who really really want to feel safe could go on the former,
> while those who have enough confidence in reasonable checks could go on
> the latter in more comfort.
The problem with the lists is that they are ridiculously large. It costs
little or nothing to a bureaucrat to put someone on a list, and they
will tend to do so on a "better safe than sorry" basis. No-one wants to
be the one found later to have missed someone who is a bad guy. It is
difficult to know if you are on one of the lesser lists, and almost
impossible to get off them - again, no-one wants to take responsibility.
So these lists turn up hundreds of false positives, and people do the
extra checking in a bored and careless way. By individually trying to be
safe, those who put people on the lists have made us unsafer by
devaluing those lists.
This is the generic trouble with all the schemes to pile up huge amounts
of data. If you pile up enough data, you will generate all sorts of
spurious correlations. A dictionary with every word in every language
would be useless for spell checking, because just about every
pronounceable combination means something in some language. And probably
many languages, which will bring confusion if you don't know the
language. What is needed is less bulk collection of data because it is
easy to collect, and more clever collection of filtered data.
Alec Cawley
>> A book?
>
> From what I've read (and admittedly I'm getting very mixed signals
> from various places - another problem with this whole issue) some
> airlines going from Canada to the US are forbidding passengers from
> taking any carry-on luggage whatsoever, and requiring them to keep their
> laps free in the last hour of the flight, meaning no books, food, etc.
According to a news item today, Transport Canada plans to switch to the
"everything not explicitly allowed is forbidden" model - and the 13
things they explicitly allowed did not include books or magazines. So
not only would you not be allowed them in the last hour, you wouldn't be
allowed them at all.
Chris Zakes
caused Daniel Orner <dmo...@gmail.com> to write:
>Large Dave wrote:
>> Daniel Orner wrote:
>> <snip>
>>
>>> Except that people are now pointing to the Israeli method of doing
>>> things, which relies on intelligence, interpersonal questions, at
>>> least six layers of security, and some amount of profiling, to get
>>> their job done. Despite the obvious fact that Israel has many enemies,
>>> there has not been a successful hijacking in over 20 years. All this
>>> /without/ forcing their passengers to wait for hours or submit to
>>> embarrassing and demeaning checks; traffic at Israeli airports move
>>> much faster than at American/Canadian ones, and they don't have silly
>>> rules about whether or not you're allowed to carry a water bottle or
>>> book aboard their flights.
>>
>> A book?
>
> From what I've read (and admittedly I'm getting very mixed signals from
>various places - another problem with this whole issue) some airlines
>going from Canada to the US are forbidding passengers from taking any
>carry-on luggage whatsoever, and requiring them to keep their laps free
>in the last hour of the flight, meaning no books, food, etc.
I don't mind most security rules, but this one is just stupid. What's
to stop Joe Terrorist from detonating his bomb just after takeoff, or
in mid-flight, or 61 minutes before landing, rather than in the last
hour?
Chris Zakes
caused Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> to write:
Well, yes and no. The only reason the plane didn't explode on
Christmas was because the bomber was incompetent. Remember that he'd
gotten the explosive through the security checkpoints and onto the
airplane. And apparently a similar technique was used in an attack on
a Saudi prince back in August, so it *should* have been on the
security folks' radar.
(On the other hand, I suppose it's a bit difficult to *practice* being
a suicide bomber.)
Chris Zakes
Okay, that makes more sense. On the other hand, fear of terrorists is
*not* destroying my life any more than fear of Swine Flu is (a much
greater possibility, since I'm a Massage Therapist.) But I only fly
once a year or so; these restrictions are an inconvenience on the same
order as waiting for my luggage to come out of the baggage carrousel,
not something really serious.
Robert Carnegie
Todbe quite clear. I'm not shooting at terrorists, I'm shooting at
planes. Basically to take all the fun out of passenger flying in
general.
And then, no planes means no terrorists on planes, but that's a
comparatively minor advantage.
SteveD
wrote:
>On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 14:53:53 +0800, an orbital mind-control laser
>caused SteveD <use...@vo.id.au> to write:
>
>>On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 07:01:17 -0600, Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Maybe they can use trains in the UK or Europe, but that's not
>>>a viable option in the US, where, outside of the northeast, passenger
>>>rail transport is pretty much nonexistent.
>>
>>Hmm. Use some of the money which would have been spent on planes and
>>security theatre on extending the rail network instead?
>>
>>
>>-SteveD
>
>Maybe, but you're still talking a couple of years (at a minimum) to
>get the infrastructure in place, build new trains, etc.
>
>There's also this: the US is *big*.
I'm in Australia. Looking at our mainlands - presumably what you'd want to
put a rail line across - we're about the same size, both in square mileage
and approximate dimensions. However, in terms of nation-founding, we're
half your age, and have one-fifteenth your population and GDP.
We've had coast-to-coast rail for forty years.
But, please, do keep telling us how it's so hard for the self-proclaimed
largest and best economy on the planet, with access to the most modern
materials and information systems, to implement something that a country
with the population of Greater New York managed back in the 1970s.
Hey, maybe we could compare home state sizes next. Only you'll have to
wait a moment - I put Texas down in my backyard for a minute and lost it
four times over already.
"Big". Pfui.
SteveD
<brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> People don't seem to be able to make the connection between an annoying
>delay at the airport and not being blown to pieces in mid-air.
There isn't one. Plenty of airlines manage to avoid being blown to pieces
in mid-air without having subjected their passengers to a three-hour strip
search.
Here's an idea. How about going and finding real figures - not from the
media, thank you - showing how many people were killed by non-domestic
terrorism in the USA in the last five years, and then chart it against all
other causes of death in the same time?
I suspect that there would be fewer airport delays tolerated if the
evening news reported "Terrorism moved up to 6,984th place today, narrowly
beating out 'falling on an alligator while wearing A-1 sauce' and becoming
almost as deadly as spontaneous combustion while in a clown suit."
-SteveD
Lawrence Watt-Evans
>On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 07:12:29 -0600, Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 14:53:53 +0800, an orbital mind-control laser
>>caused SteveD <use...@vo.id.au> to write:
>>
>>>On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 07:01:17 -0600, Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Maybe they can use trains in the UK or Europe, but that's not
>>>>a viable option in the US, where, outside of the northeast, passenger
>>>>rail transport is pretty much nonexistent.
>>>
>>>Hmm. Use some of the money which would have been spent on planes and
>>>security theatre on extending the rail network instead?
>>>
>>
>>Maybe, but you're still talking a couple of years (at a minimum) to
>>get the infrastructure in place, build new trains, etc.
>>
>>There's also this: the US is *big*.
>
>I'm in Australia. Looking at our mainlands - presumably what you'd want to
>put a rail line across - we're about the same size, both in square mileage
>and approximate dimensions. However, in terms of nation-founding, we're
>half your age, and have one-fifteenth your population and GDP.
>
>We've had coast-to-coast rail for forty years.
We've had it for a hundred and forty. It's SLOW, compared to air
travel.
I've taken the train from Oakland, California to Chicago, Illinois.
Three days. (It was supposed to be two and a half, but there was a
major forest fire between Truckee, California and Reno, Nevada.)
Pleasant, but not everyone can spare three days each way.
And that's between major cities. In Australia you have thousands of
miles with nobody living in it, and nowhere you'd want to go -- I
mean, seriously, other than Alice Springs, what IS there in the middle
of the country? You can get from Perth to Sydney just fine, but what
if you aren't in a major city?
I can take the train from New York to Los Angeles (changing trains in
Chicago -- there's no direct service at present), and it'll take about
four days, but if I want to take a train from Sioux Falls to Tulsa, or
from Boise to Tucson, I'm out of luck.
--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
I'm selling my comic collection -- see http://www.watt-evans.com/comics.html
I'm serializing a novel at http://www.watt-evans.com/realmsoflight0.html
Paul Jamison
"SteveD" <use...@vo.id.au> wrote in message
news:bepak556k6cjutual...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 07:12:29 -0600, Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 14:53:53 +0800, an orbital mind-control laser
>>caused SteveD <use...@vo.id.au> to write:
>>
>>>On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 07:01:17 -0600, Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Maybe they can use trains in the UK or Europe, but that's not
>>>>a viable option in the US, where, outside of the northeast, passenger
>>>>rail transport is pretty much nonexistent.
>>>
>>>Hmm. Use some of the money which would have been spent on planes and
>>>security theatre on extending the rail network instead?
>>>
>>>
>>>-SteveD
>>
>>Maybe, but you're still talking a couple of years (at a minimum) to
>>get the infrastructure in place, build new trains, etc.
>>
>>There's also this: the US is *big*.
>
> I'm in Australia. Looking at our mainlands - presumably what you'd want to
> put a rail line across - we're about the same size, both in square mileage
> and approximate dimensions. However, in terms of nation-founding, we're
> half your age, and have one-fifteenth your population and GDP.
>
> We've had coast-to-coast rail for forty years.
>
> But, please, do keep telling us how it's so hard for the self-proclaimed
> largest and best economy on the planet, with access to the most modern
> materials and information systems, to implement something that a country
> with the population of Greater New York managed back in the 1970s.
>
however, isn't who did it first. The point is we Yanks started to turn our
backs on rail travel at the beginning of our love affair with the
automobile, and what a twisted love affair it's been. Now the country is
criss-crossed by great big highways. Maybe if Australia was covered with big
highways, rail travel would fall off there, too. For God's sake, don't let
that happen. Look what it did to us.
I've traveled the rails across Cananananada. It was a nice, leisurely
journey, and I would love to travel that way here in the United States
someday. But the nearest passenger station is 15 miles away and I'd have to
board at about 3 in the morning - theoretically. The neglect we've shown for
our railroad infrastructure is appalling.
But we could bring passenger rail service back to its former glory if we
really, really wanted to. We could probably make it a going concern as well.
But people here love their cars and fast air travel too much.
> Hey, maybe we could compare home state sizes next. Only you'll have to
> wait a moment - I put Texas down in my backyard for a minute and lost it
> four times over already.
>
> "Big". Pfui.
Quite.
Paul
(By the way, I don't own a car.)
Thomas Zahr
> Daniel Orner wrote:
...
> People don't seem to be able to make the connection between an
> annoying
> delay at the airport and not being blown to pieces in mid-air. When
> something happens like the Christmas thing, that just means that the
> terrorists have found another loophole and now we must close it. The
> fact that there haven't been any successful attacks lately means that
> all these precautions are working, though "Plane does not explode"
> doesn't make a good headline.
As there are /many/ more flights everyday than there are suicide
bombers, the relationship between check and non-event isn't quite as
clear as you make out.
I doubt every airport having a permanent crew of terrorists just waiting
to exploit lapses in security.
Apart from that, I remember how security at UK airports changed after
9/11 - and the delays were not due to the extra security, but due to
incompetence. Queing through T2 could take a few hours, while Frankfurt
was much faster on the same level of security. But there clearly someone
integrated the checks into the embarkation process. In Heathrow they
just didn't care.
--
Cheers,
Thomas =:-)
Thomas Zahr
sorry, forgot to trim Daniel ...
Bernard Peek
> On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 08:00:47 -0800, Lesley Weston
> <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> People don't seem to be able to make the connection between an annoying
>> delay at the airport and not being blown to pieces in mid-air.
>
> There isn't one. Plenty of airlines manage to avoid being blown to pieces
> in mid-air without having subjected their passengers to a three-hour strip
> search.
There is no need for the delays at the airport to improve security, that
isn't what they are intended to do. The aim is to make people think that
the government is doing something about security, and so reduce the fear
of terrorism.
SteveD
wrote:
>On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 13:20:27 +0800, SteveD <use...@vo.id.au> wrote:
>>We've had coast-to-coast rail for forty years.
>
>We've had it for a hundred and forty. It's SLOW, compared to air
>travel.
Hmm. Maglev trains? They're about half jet speed, from what I recall.
>In Australia you have thousands of
>miles with nobody living in it, and nowhere you'd want to go -- I
>mean, seriously, other than Alice Springs, what IS there in the middle
>of the country?
A bloody big rock!
>You can get from Perth to Sydney just fine, but what if you aren't in
>a major city?
Kangaroos. They make great time.
>I can take the train from New York to Los Angeles (changing trains in
>Chicago -- there's no direct service at present), and it'll take about
>four days, but if I want to take a train from Sioux Falls to Tulsa, or
>from Boise to Tucson, I'm out of luck.
One of the major advantages of air - huge networks don't slow it down that
much and the longer the distance, the more accurate the aim. Even with a
car, you can get from A to B to Q, although it's slower.
Perhaps a high-speed rail network with carrier-cars you could drive your
car onto and off at stations? It'd have the advantage that it could be
seeded in high-traffic states at first, and then extended along the
national highway routes. Wherever it was up to, just ride it to that point
at 300mph, then zip over to the highway to continue at slower speeds.
It'd effectively be the current highway system, but four to six times
faster, no traffic jams, and you could let someone else do the driving for
the rail segment. Plus, of course, you could take along a carload of
luggage, food, and entertainment, and you'd have your own transport once
you got to your destination.
-SteveD
jester
<b...@shrdlu.com> wrote:
<snip>
>There is no need for the delays at the airport to improve security, that
>isn't what they are intended to do. The aim is to make people think that
>the government is doing something about security,
This I can believe.
>and so reduce the fear of terrorism.
This I doubt. All the indications are that an attempt has been made to
*increase* the fear of terrorism, thus giving an excuse for governments to
crack down on *everybody*
--
Andy Brown
Unix is an operating system, OS/2 is half an operating system, Windows
is a shell, and DOS is a boot partition virus.
-- Peter H. Coffin
Lesley Weston
I haven't flown El Al, so I don't know how their security affects
passengers. Do they really not worry about people taking liquids onto a
plane? It seems rather foolhardy.
>
> For that matter, if a terrorist just wants to cause maximum havoc,
> one of the Israeli security experts pointed out that this kind of mass
> milling around in lines is /exactly/ the kind of situation they need.
> They don't even have to /enter/ security to blow up a bomb in the
> airport itself.
It's been done several times, and a few lives have been lost. Which is
quite bad enough, but not really comparable to what happens when a
fully-loaded passenger plane explodes in the air.
>
> As has been mentioned earlier, the absolute best way of ensuring
> that nothing untoward happens is simply stripping everyone naked and
> knocking them unconscious for the duration of the flight. Scaling back
> to reasonable checks is not a recipe for disaster; all it's doing is
> bringing some common sense back.
Nonetheless, in the unlikely event that I'll be flying anywhere anytime
soon [1], I'll choose the first type of flight if there's a choice.
However inconvenient the checks are, they're still better than dying.
[1] Unlikely because of poverty, not fear.
--
Lesley Weston
The addy above is real, but I won't see anything posted to it for a long
time. To reach me, use leswes att shaw dott ca, adjusting as necessary.
Lesley Weston
I haven't seen that yet. It would be easy enough to check books and
magazines along with shoes and everything else, and anyway magazines
could be bought after passing the checks, so I don't see the point of
that. But there really isn't any need for carry-on luggage or things
carried in purses and pockets; people who need medications or special
foods during the flight can arrange beforehand for the airline to
provide them on the plane, and of course food, drink and other things
such as hand-wipes are already provided on flights long enough to need them.
Lesley Weston
> Lesley Weston wrote:
>
> <snip stuff that I mostly agree with>
>
>> The fact that there haven't been any successful attacks lately means
>
> On a point of logic M'lud, this is a logical fallacy.
> For example, I sprinkle Elephant Dust (TM) on the lawn and it keeps
> elephants away - therefore elephant dust works.
>
> ITYM *most* of the precautions are effective - and we don't get
> elephants in the wild in UKia :-)
>
Oh quite! However, there have never been elephants wild in the UK, while
there have been several terrorist attacks on planes, a couple of them
very recent.
Lesley Weston
But this discussion is about all the new precautions appearing as a
result of that failed attempt. The terrorists are incompetent, yes
(thank gods!), but each new device they try that fails has to be
countered in the future, or they'll get it right next time.
>
> (On the other hand, I suppose it's a bit difficult to *practice* being
> a suicide bomber.)
>
I'm in favour of them practicing all they want, so long as there's
nobody else around when they do. But I'm more in favour of treating
whatever lunacy leads them to become the tools of rather more sinister
people.
Daniel Orner
Welp, my chances of flying anywhere have just gone down significantly.
Again.
Daniel Orner
things are actually doing anything other than making all the passengers
miserable.
Daniel Orner
> Alec Cawley wrote:
>> Daniel Orner wrote:
>>
>>>> A book?
>>>
>>> From what I've read (and admittedly I'm getting very mixed
>>> signals from various places - another problem with this whole issue)
>>> some airlines going from Canada to the US are forbidding passengers
>>> from taking any carry-on luggage whatsoever, and requiring them to
>>> keep their laps free in the last hour of the flight, meaning no
>>> books, food, etc.
>>
>>
>> According to a news item today, Transport Canada plans to switch to
>> the "everything not explicitly allowed is forbidden" model - and the
>> 13 things they explicitly allowed did not include books or magazines.
>> So not only would you not be allowed them in the last hour, you
>> wouldn't be allowed them at all.
>
> I haven't seen that yet. It would be easy enough to check books and
> magazines along with shoes and everything else, and anyway magazines
> could be bought after passing the checks, so I don't see the point of
> that. But there really isn't any need for carry-on luggage or things
> carried in purses and pockets; people who need medications or special
> foods during the flight can arrange beforehand for the airline to
> provide them on the plane, and of course food, drink and other things
> such as hand-wipes are already provided on flights long enough to need
> them.
>
Oh yes, food is provided, as long as you don't mind eating disgusting food.
I personally need a carry-on bag. I keep my tefilin (phylacteries) in
them; they're $1500, and besides that, I need them every morning. If the
plane loses my luggage, I want to still have them with me. Ditto with
kosher food, which when provided by the airline is even worse than
regular food and often comes in smaller portions.
I also generally have at least two books and my DS and PSP with me. I
could just stick a whole bunch of that in my coat pockets, of course,
but /why/?
And in any case, part of the issue is not just carrying it with you but
/using it/ on the plane - hence that idea of, in the last hour, having
nothing whatsoever on your laps, and not being able to go to the bathroom.
Grahhhh!
Lesley Weston
> On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 12:58:57 +0000, Bernard Peek
> <b...@shrdlu.com> wrote:
> <snip>
>> There is no need for the delays at the airport to improve security, that
>> isn't what they are intended to do. The aim is to make people think that
>> the government is doing something about security,
>
> This I can believe.
>
>
>> and so reduce the fear of terrorism.
>
> This I doubt. All the indications are that an attempt has been made to
> *increase* the fear of terrorism, thus giving an excuse for governments to
> crack down on *everybody*
>
chain. "Artificially increasing the fear of terrorism" is one concept,
and "governments controlling the population" is another, each perfectly
valid though neither is at all desirable. But there's a large chunk
missing between the two - I really can't see how the one could possibly
lead to the other.
Lesley Weston
> Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> Daniel Orner wrote:
> ...
>> People don't seem to be able to make the connection between an
>> annoying
>> delay at the airport and not being blown to pieces in mid-air. When
>> something happens like the Christmas thing, that just means that the
>> terrorists have found another loophole and now we must close it. The
>> fact that there haven't been any successful attacks lately means that
>> all these precautions are working, though "Plane does not explode"
>> doesn't make a good headline.
>
> As there are /many/ more flights everyday than there are suicide
> bombers, the relationship between check and non-event isn't quite as
> clear as you make out.
>
> I doubt every airport having a permanent crew of terrorists just waiting
> to exploit lapses in security.
We don't know which flights will be targeted by terrorists, so we have
to protect all flights. It's the same with pathogens; we don't know
which species of bacteria might infect which cut, and we may well get
away with it altogether, but still it's much wiser to clean and
disinfect all cuts as a precaution. The analogy can be extended too: As
pathogens evolve they develop resistance to our antibiotics, so we
produce counter-measures to overcome that resistance which act as a
selection process for their next offensive, and so on.
But we're winning against pathogens, and we'll win against murderous
loonies too.
>
> Apart from that, I remember how security at UK airports changed after
> 9/11 - and the delays were not due to the extra security, but due to
> incompetence. Queing through T2 could take a few hours, while Frankfurt
> was much faster on the same level of security. But there clearly someone
> integrated the checks into the embarkation process. In Heathrow they
> just didn't care.
>
That's not something wrong with making checks; it's something wrong with
the way it was done, which can be fixed.
Lesley Weston
<snip>
> And that's between major cities. In Australia you have thousands of
> miles with nobody living in it, and nowhere you'd want to go -- I
> mean, seriously, other than Alice Springs, what IS there in the middle
> of the country?
Ask my son. He did a zoology field-trip into the desert recently (by
train, jeep and hiking) and fell in love with it. He's thinking now of
specialising in desert flora and fauna. I must say, the pictures he took
do make it look fascinating and quite extraordinarily beautiful.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
<brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> And that's between major cities. In Australia you have thousands of
>> miles with nobody living in it, and nowhere you'd want to go -- I
>> mean, seriously, other than Alice Springs, what IS there in the middle
>> of the country?
>
>Ask my son. He did a zoology field-trip into the desert recently (by
>train, jeep and hiking) and fell in love with it. He's thinking now of
>specialising in desert flora and fauna. I must say, the pictures he took
>do make it look fascinating and quite extraordinarily beautiful.
Deserts are like that. I've never been to Australia, but I've spent
time in the deserts of Arizona and California, and yeah, they're
beautiful.
SteveD
<brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>Whenever anybody raises that one I have trouble following the logic
>chain. "Artificially increasing the fear of terrorism" is one concept,
>and "governments controlling the population" is another, each perfectly
>valid though neither is at all desirable. But there's a large chunk
>missing between the two - I really can't see how the one could possibly
>lead to the other.
When people are scared, they turn to authority.
1) Government increases fear (of anything. Terrorism, foreigners, oil
prices, swine flu, economic collapse, the Other Party winning the next
election, etc).
2) People become scared.
3) People turn to known sources of authority for protection and
reassurance.
4) Known source of authority (government) now has greater control over
populace.
Also condensed as:
"Surrender your freedoms!"
"No!"
"Terrorists will eat your children!"
"OH NO! Here, have our freedoms!"
"Bwa ha ha."
-SteveD
Daniel Orner
The difference is that disinfecting cuts takes a small amount of time
and causes a small amount of discomfort. Here we're talking about a mode
of transportation which, up until now, supposedly valued the comfort of
their passengers and tried to make their already hectic trip easier.
Instead it looks like they are now dead-set on punishing not the
terrorists, but /everybody else/. None of these measures would actually
have prevented the incident that sparked them.
Israel's method does not involve preventing liquids from coming on
board; they do not have three-hour lineups and they do not search every
single passenger. They have no rules about what you can and can't carry
onboard other than the obvious (knives etc.). They have no rules about
when you can't go to the bathroom or what you can have on your lap.
And yet they're the place that, amazingly enough, has been the most
successful in their security arrangements.
That tells me that there's a solution that /doesn't/ inconvenience or
demean passengers, and /that/ is what should be pursued, not this
pointless and annoying theatre of the absurd.
>>
>> Apart from that, I remember how security at UK airports changed after
>> 9/11 - and the delays were not due to the extra security, but due to
>> incompetence. Queing through T2 could take a few hours, while Frankfurt
>> was much faster on the same level of security. But there clearly someone
>> integrated the checks into the embarkation process. In Heathrow they
>> just didn't care.
> That's not something wrong with making checks; it's something wrong with
> the way it was done, which can be fixed.
>
--