TSA Wants You To Keep Your Seat, and Your Hands In Sight 888
An anonymous reader excerpts from an AP story as carried by Yahoo News about changes stemming from yesterday's foiled bombing attempt of a Northwest Airlines flight: "Some airlines were telling passengers on Saturday that new government security regulations prohibit them from leaving their seats beginning an hour before landing. The regulations are a response to a suspected terrorism incident on Christmas Day. Air Canada said in a statement that new rules imposed by the Transportation Security Administration limit on-board activities by passengers and crew in US airspace. ... Flight attendants on some domestic flights are informing passengers of similar rules. Passengers on a flight from New York to Tampa Saturday morning were also told they must remain in their seats and couldn't have items in their laps, including laptops and pillows." The TSA's list of prohibited items doesn't seem to have changed in the last day, though.
Oh, look! (Score:5, Informative)
Another reason for me not to fly. And another Al Qaeda success in disrupting the US economy and society beyond their wildest dreams.
Re:Oh, look! (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed. It's the streisand effect of terrorism... 9/11 could have been at most a minor annoyance but instead it became the rallying cry for numerous restrictions on freedom with questionable results at best.
Re:Oh, look! (Score:4, Insightful)
As much as I agree that the response to terrorism is often irrational, try to maintain some perspective. Thousands of people dying cannot reasonably be described as a "minor annoyance."
Re:Oh, look! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Oh, look! (Score:5, Interesting)
I agree, lets maintain some perspective.
almost 2 people die every second in the world.
over 100 people die every minute in the world.
That's 6000 every hour. 144000 every day. 1008000 every week. 52416000 every year.
9/11 didn't even have the power to change the average for a year.
lets continue to put things in 'perspective'
over 4 babies are born each second. 5760 born per day.
by the time it was 9/12, every person who died there, was replaced.
you are a drop of water in an ocean. you are insignificant.
no matter how much you tell yourself that 'thousands' of dead is important, it simply isn't.
Re:Oh, look! (Score:5, Insightful)
4 babies born per second... 5760 per day.
I don't understand this math.
Re:Oh, look! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Oh, look! (Score:5, Insightful)
9/11 had such a profound impact on the U.S. because it was spectacular, it was unprecedented, and it happened here. And, thanks to the 24/7 cable news cycle, we watched it unfolding, live, from our living rooms.
Anytime you have a large number of fatalities occurring from a single spectacular event, it will have a stronger emotional impact than a much higher cumulative tally of deaths over time. That's why airliner crashes, for example, are newsworthy and annual statistics are not -- those 100, 200, 300 deaths may be statistically a drop in the bucket compared to the annual deaths from car crashes, cancer, or whatever, but they occurred in a single, dramatic event.
The notion of using airplanes, and civilian airliners at that, as flying bombs was also not a possibility that was in the popular consciousness, not even as a plot element in an action movie. (How many people commented, on 9/11 and in the days following, that it all seemed unreal, like watching a movie and not reality?) And crash those planes into three of the most well-known, high-profile buildings in the world (the two WTC towers and the Pentagon), with a fourth crash into the White House or the Capitol (depending on who you believe) prematurely thwarted, and you have the ingredients for a real-life spectacular that will have a profound impact, regardless of how the numbers stack up statistically.
And it happened on U.S. soil. Prior to 9/11, with the possible exception of the OKC bombing, large scale terrorist attacks were something that happened in those "other" countries around the world. And with the perpetrators being "foreigners" (as opposed to a domestic malcontent like McVeigh and whatever conspirators he may or may not have had, depending on what you believe), and it's not hard to fathom the almost immediate adoption of the "America is under attack" and "we are at war" memes that were so adroitly exploited by the government.
Finally, the smug xenophobia and self-centeredness of Americans played a role. Why do you think a domestic plane crash, even a smaller commuter plane with fewer than 100 souls on board, gets hours of constant, live coverage on CNN while a jumbo jet with hundreds aboard crashing halfway around the world merits but a sentence or two at the hourly update? Think of the impact Hurricane Katrina had while killing fewer than 2000, compared to the Asian tsunami that killed 250,000 five years ago. Now consider how much attention, concern, and TV time were devoted to both. Sure, the Pacific tsunami did get some screen time, especially now that the ubiquitous presence of video cameras in average people's hands gave us some shaky, dramatic, horrifying footage to see. (Though I strongly suspect that if there had been no video at all, the event would have been even more marginalized on U.S. media.) But with the exception of a handful of Western tourists caught up in the disaster, those quarter million souls are "other" people..."fer'iners"...you know, them people that dress weird and talk funny and don't look like us. On the scale of emotional involvement, a couple thousand American lives merits an "OMG, this is horrible, something must be done" while 250,000 Indonesians, Sri Lankans, Thais, et. al. elicits an almost Seinfeldesque "Ah, that's a shame....wonder what's on HBO right now..."
So, it's not sheer numbers that determine what impact death has on a culture; it's all about context. Who got killed, where, how and why.
Re:Oh, look! (Score:4, Informative)
Hell, in 1945 a B-25 Bomber hit the Empire State building. Fourteen people were killed. Significant damage. One of the engines went through the building. And this was an ACCIDENT.
The timing and location of the actual event was a surprise, not the actual event. People also need to understand that it can happen again.
Lies, damn lies, and statistics. (Score:5, Insightful)
by the time it was 9/12, every person who died there, was replaced.
no matter how much you tell yourself that 'thousands' of dead is important, it simply isn't.
The 2500 who died at the WTC weren't infants or elders. They were firemen.
They were men and women in their most productive years. In the rarefied business of investment banking and world trade.
Death is universal. But Death is also particular.
Hit hard enough, your city, your world, can be wounded beyond all hope of recovery.
Re:Oh, look! (Score:5, Insightful)
Every life is important. Just because it's not possible to prevent deaths everywhere , doesn't mean you should be ok with unnecessary slaughter of innocent people.
In the real world, resources are limited. If spending 50 billion dollars on anti-terrorism saves 4000 lives, and spending 50 billion dollars on food aid saves 1 million lives, then the latter is clearly a better decision, notwithstanding the fact that every life is important.
Of course, in the real world, what we actually ended up doing is spending 1 trillion dollars fighting two deadly wars with heavy civilian casualties.
Re:Oh, look! (Score:5, Insightful)
That's true in the short term, but as long as you do the feeding in a responsible, adult, non-attention-seeking, non-empire-building, humanitarian way, then the long term results will differ considerably.
The reasons America is targeted by the terrorists is solely because of some, less than ideal policies regarding regime change. No-one cares what the Canadians (for example) do, they're not targeted for destruction by Al Quaeda, but then they never went charging in places shouting loudly that the locals had to change their political ways, and buy more coca cola.
If you fed the world's poor, there would be far fewer young men so ready to accept the brainwashing propaganda from the terrorist leaders (you know, the ones who don't do the suicide bombings themselves). If America could free itself from the self-made shackles of oil consumption and global corporate profiteering, the world would be a far better place.
Re:Which 4,000 vs. which 1 million? (Score:5, Informative)
WTF?!? The people I worked with on the 97th floor of 1 WTC were working stiffs like you & me, not "some of the wealthiest people on the planet". So were the people on 96, 95, 94, 93, 98, and 99. There were no "multi-millionaires" among them. (The multi-millionaires in the firm I worked for then stayed in the Midtown Manhattan office. WTC was for back office staff only.)
Don't talk about things you have no knowledge of.
Re:Oh, look! (Score:5, Insightful)
The death of one man is a tragedy — the death of a million is a statistic.
Re:Oh, look! (Score:5, Interesting)
How about the lives of all the innocent people caught in the crossfire in Iraq and Afghanistan? Over 100,000 people dead. Are those 3,000 that died on 9/11 worthless? Of course not. However, the cost of the ensuing wars were clearly not worth it. If we tackled any other causes of death in a similar fashion, we'd have a very very large bloodbath on our hands. Decisions need to be made in a calm, rational manner. This is extremely difficult if not impossible to do if emotions are allowed to take over. Which is why people need to step back from the situation away from the stron emotions involved in order to make the right decision.
Re:Oh, look! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Oh, look! (Score:4, Interesting)
So let's look at a couple hypothetical situations and you tell me if the actors involved are innocent.
Scenario 1: Big Country is waging war on Little Country. Big Countrians are paying taxes so that Big Country's military can afford munitions to use in said war. In said war some civilians are killed on both sides. Are Big Countrians innocent? They do pay money so said war is possible.
Scenario 2: Small Country has a few camps that are used by some people to wage war against Big Country. The people in those camps aren't militarily involved with Small Country but the government of Small Country allows them to be there. One of the camps is located by Small Town. Small Town has commerce with one of the camps. They supply food, basic materials for training (hey you think paper targets are free?), and other minor issues. Are the people of Small Town innocent? They provide some degree of support that makes the operation of the camp possible.
In my experience, there's one dude who I could call innocent in the current hostilities of his time: Henry David Thoreau. He all refused to pay taxes (not one penny) for the war of his time and promptly went to jail. He didn't think the war was a good idea and didn't want to do anything with it so he didn't do anything with it.
Re:Oh, look! (Score:5, Insightful)
And the lives of cancer victims, who are losing out on funding that instead goes to the war on terror, are just as important. Giving them medical treatment happens to save vastly more lives per dollar than antiterrorism.
Re:Oh, look! (Score:5, Insightful)
Terrorist attacks in Europe or Israel have taken far many more lives than they have in the US.. The planes flying into buildings happened, sure.. but "9/11" was created in the mind of the world by the US response to it.
Re:Oh, look! (Score:5, Insightful)
I can understand your thoughts, and I myself remember where I was on that day. I remember the discussions I had on that day.
BUT... What about all of those people that died in Spain? Or how about the ones in London? Have the Europeans decided to lock down all of their train stations and require body cavity searches?
Those people lost lives as much as anybody else, yet all we remember is 9/11. All we talk about is 9/11. All we have to endure are the endless lines of security searches, of taking off our shoes, belts, and what have you. Of me personally being searched for 45 minutes because Jolt decided it would be cute to introduce a brand new novel can of pop.
http://imstartintofeelit.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/jolt-blue-raspberry.jpg [wordpress.com]
Yes it was my mistake for taking fluids in my backpack. But was it my mistake that the TSA thought it was a brand new device? I am not blaming the TSA because they are doing their jobs. I am blaming the paranoia going through the American society...
Want to know what gets me even more, where are the twin towers V2? Want to know how inept parts of American society has become, just look at what has been built after the 9/11 attacks, NOTHING, NADA, ZIP! That is the tragedy. Think of it as follows, your enemy blows up your bridge, and yet nearly a decade later you still can't rebuild it. Who is weak I ask!!! (If it were up to me I would be forcing a mandate through to build a new set of towers to show them one is not weak...)
Re:Oh, look! (Score:4, Interesting)
BUT... What about all of those people that died in Spain? Or how about the ones in London? Have the Europeans decided to lock down all of their train stations and require body cavity searches?
Those people lost lives as much as anybody else, yet all we remember is 9/11. All we talk about is 9/11.
You don't actually expect the US to take notice, or care, of what happens in the "here be dragons"* areas of the world, do you ?
(*) as seen by a large portion of its population
Re:Oh, look! (Score:5, Informative)
Europe has locked down it's train stations a bit, especially London, and in the UK, largely, you won't find a bin in a train station. In Glasgow Central you have to throw your rubbish on the floor, and someone sweeps it up.
Airports are a different matter. Airlines used the one bag security restriction to limit people to one piece of hand luggage permanently (maybe this was only a UK restriction, and it's been largely lifted now, but I think it's still in place in some airports), so you can't even bring a handbag and a shopping bag, or a handbag and a piece of luggage aboard the plane (it does seem to unfairly target women).
There's also the restrictions on luggage, photos at the gates, searches etc, but it's been years since I flew to America, so I don't know how bad it is in comparison.
Elsewhere in Europe, it's not as bad, but the UK is Americanised in more ways than one.
Re:Oh, look! (Score:5, Informative)
Europe has locked down it's train stations a bit, especially London, and in the UK, largely, you won't find a bin in a train station. In Glasgow Central you have to throw your rubbish on the floor, and someone sweeps it up.
That happened long before 9/11 -- it was officially a response to Irish republican terrorism, although many of us suspect it was to save the cost of emptying the bins (bomb resistant bins were already available at the time the bins were withdrawn).
Therein lies a reason for a difference between the European and US responses, of course. Europe has lived with terrorism for centuries, from Guy Fawkes [wikipedia.org] to Basque separatists [wikipedia.org] so we're a bit more stoic about it. That doesn't stop politicians trying to deprive the public of more freedoms, but it makes it harder for them.
Re:Oh, look! (Score:5, Insightful)
American funded Irish republican terrorists murdered two innocent children on that day.
If we'd done our foreign policy then the way we and the US do now, we'd have responded by sending the troops into Mexico to force regime change...
Re:Oh, look! (Score:4, Informative)
Kinda like the quote which is often misattributed to Stalin:
The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic.
I don't know who actually said the above phrase, according to wikiquotes: "Mustering Most Memorable Quips" by Julia Solovyova, in The Moscow Times (28 October 1997) states: Russian historians have no record of the lines, "Death of one man is a tragedy. Death of a million is a statistic," commonly attributed by English-language dictionaries to Josef Stalin. Discussing the book by Konstantin Dushenko ( ) Dictionary of Modern Quotations ( : 4300 , , , ).
Re:Oh, look! (Score:5, Insightful)
Thousands of thousands of people die each day outside the US in wars that appear to be a 'minor' annoyance to the US. 4000 people died under the terror campaign by the IRA in Ireland - supported by most in the US.
Every year 15 million children die of hunger alone.
Perspective - it's a great thing. I also don't believe most democratic elections are won via terrorist attacks at home or abroad. And we still have not really made up our mind whether the US/UK invasion of Iraq was legal.
The 9/11 attacks were a tragedy. However by turning such a tragedy into an excuse to attack and govern another nation or not even disclose the full details on the attacks of that day then the event was not a 'minor annoyance' to the US at all - it was a convenient opportunity!
Re:Oh, look! (Score:4, Interesting)
4000 people died under the terror campaign by the IRA in Ireland - supported by most in the US.
And funded, to a large degree, by the good people of New York City. One of the benefits of the 9/11 attacks was that Giuliani suddenly decided terrorism wasn't cool anymore and the IRA, seeing its major source of funds dry up, became a lot more willing to negotiate.
Re:Oh, look! (Score:5, Informative)
snip...
the IRA, seeing its major source of funds dry up, became a lot more willing to negotiate.
Hmmm
Credit where credit is due, the republican movement had shown they were willing to negotiate several years before 9/11. The good friday peace agreement occurred in april 1998, negotiations had started under the previous conservative government led by John Major.
Re:Oh, look! (Score:5, Insightful)
The exact point of terrorism is to disrupt the target country. Now look at the situation - not only have the USA ruined their image over two wars, they (and everyone else) spend lots of money on harrassing innocent travellers in a way that doesn't even do anything, breeding contempt all the while. A few thousand deaths in an act that is extremely unlikely to ever be successfully repeated again should not be enough to let the most well-armed country in the world tumble head-first into raging paranoia against anyone and everyone, including its own citizens.
Regardless of the "if we don't X the terrorists have already won" rhethoric, the government of the States has done exactly what the terrorists wanted and it's still continuing to do so. The terrorists have already won and they keep wining because at the moment they and the government are working in the same direction: Away form the citizens towards ever greater surveillance and power concentration at the top. They're essentially using each other as PR agencies.
Re:Oh, look! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Oh, look! (Score:4, Interesting)
No, not 'self-hating, self-guilt-stricken liberals/progressives,' people with a sense of perspective. If you're a nationalist and believe that only American lives are important then let's compare it to traffic accidents. 42,196 people died in the USA in road traffic accidents in 2001. In September 2001, more people died in car crashes than died in terrorist attacks.
2,973 people dying is a tragedy, but it's not a statistically significant tragedy and it's far less of a tragedy than the much larger number of people who die from entirely preventable traffic accidents caused by idiots texting while driving or driving while intoxicated.
By the way, you're now up to around 5,000 American deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan (not counting other coalition forces, civilians or 'the bad guys'). So the War on Terror has cost more American lives so far than the 9/11 attacks. Good job guys!
Re:Oh, look! (Score:5, Interesting)
Indeed. It's the streisand effect of terrorism... 9/11 could have been at most a minor annoyance but instead it became the rallying cry for numerous restrictions on freedom with questionable results at best.
Not only that, but it's become a rather strong rallying cry in support of General Aviation - you know, private planes and all?
As a member of a flight club, I can fly a private Cessna 182 at 150 MPH (pretty much) anytime I want, at a cost that's perhaps 25% higher than driving. Typically, private planes get me there in somewhere between 25% and 33% the time to drive, and for trips between 100 and 750 miles is a very competitive way to go.
1) I don't land at big airports, I land at small ones that exist in nearly every community over 5,000 to 10,000 people or so. At these airports, delays really don't exist. There are usually not more than 2 or 3 other planes active at any given time, often none.
2) Small airports almost inevitably put me very close to where I want to go, anyway! Rather than drive 1.5 hours after landing, I get a taxi for the 3-5 mile ride.
3) Stupid security restrictions? Naw - back the car up to the side of the plane and throw your bags aboard! At larger airports, there are often security fences and the like, but even these are easily navigated, certainly without the stupid wands, shoes, and security theater.
The only real limit in going this way is weather - as a visual-only pilot, I'm grounded when the clouds get too low. (But even that won't be a limit for much longer)
Re:Oh, look! (Score:5, Funny)
As a member of a flight club, [ ... ]
But isn't the first rule of flight club that you don't...
Oh, wait, never mind.
Re:Oh, look! (Score:4, Informative)
First, IANAGAP (I am not a general aviation pilot) but I've considered getting my license and I paid pretty close attention when a friend was working on getting hers.
I'm sure it depends on your area, but it also depends on what licenses you need. Figure $3-5000 for a visual-only license, give or take a grand or so. Definitely not the same as getting a car license.
Depends on the plane and the car you're comparing. Obviously buying your own Learjet is going to be a lot more expensive than buying a used Honda. On the other hand, a used Cessna is much more affordable than a Bugatti Veyron. Most pilots don't own their own plane but instead own a portion of a plane with a number of other people. Unless you expect to fly each and every weekend, there's no reason not to get in on a co-op ownership rather than buying your own.
Re:Oh, look! (Score:4, Informative)
For a small plane I'd expect a few hundred mile effective range. They could actually fly upwards of 600 miles on a single tank, but you need to factor in reserves, hold time, wind, etc. You don't want to plan to land on empty.
On the other hand, if you've marked off a few small airfields along the way a fueling stop doesn't really take all that long - you plan to have to hold in case something odd comes up, but you're not going to need to do that in some field in the middle of farmland.
Gas prices seem to be about $4.25/gal right now, and small planes hold about 50 gallons. You'll definitely pay more in gas than you would for a car, but that really is one of the smallest expenses associated with a plane.
What hasn't been mentioned in this thread is the maintenance. Figure that it will cost you upwards of $80/hr to fly your plane. You can pay $100/hr or so and rent (often with limitations on being able to just take the plane somewhere), or you can buy and you end up with a "cheap hourly rate" coupled with periodic major expenses. YOU CANNOT SKIMP ON MAINTENANCE. Planes are very safe if properly cared for, and proper care costs money - at various intervals based on operational time you need to have it taken care of.
Then you have to factor in buying the plane in the first place - it costs quite a bit of money for something that you won't actually use all that often.
Unless you're up in the air all the time or just have to have your own plane, the best bet by far is a flying club of some kind. Essentially these are planes owned by lots of people, so that the overhead is shared efficiently. It still isn't what I'd call cheap, but it is fairly reasonable and you can usually reserve planes for longer periods of time. If you're doing rentals forget actually using a plane to go someplace, unless you plan to go, visit somebody for a few hours, and come home.
Note that I'm not a pilot but I've been investigating this stuff with interest - I could easily see myself going this route someday and I'm reasonably proficient on simulators now. (The /. crew types can easily benefit from simulators as they give you a chance to practice quite a few things for almost nothing. I have no illusions that they're a replacement for real-world experience, but if you fly them following real-world procedures you can get the hang of stuff like instrumentation and crosswinds without paying for time.)
Re:Oh, look! (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, he knew Japan would be attacked. He didn't expect the US to attack its own citizens.
So why is the Government attacking its own citizens?
Re:Oh, look! (Score:4, Insightful)
That depends on your perspective - more Americans died in car crashes in September 2001 than died in the attacks. What about them?
Where's the fiery indignation for those deaths?
No one is claiming that individual lives are insignificant, but the response to 9/11 has just been silly.
So you lost some buildings and some citizens in a terrorist attack. The buildings are nothing - rebuild them, as we've been doing in Europe for decades in the face of terrorism on multiple fronts. The people clearly cannot be replaced and it is tragic, but the response to 9/11 really isn't the way you want to remember/avenge/retaliate in their memory.
Re:Oh, look! (Score:5, Insightful)
When Yamamoto struck at Pearl Harbor, he knew exactly what the response would be.
When Yamamoto struck Pearl Harbor, he was flying a Japanese flag on a Japanese warship made in Japan. It's pretty easy to find the bud and nip it.
When the hijackers attacked, most of them were from Saudi Arabia, all from the middle east, all had proper Visas, all had been in the country for at least weeks if not months or years. They did not fly any flag and did not represent any country. They used box cutters and airplanes as weapons.
Both groups knew the effect of their attacks. I can promise you that bin Laden got exactly what he wanted. A cosmic war of Good and Evil, with Bush even saying as much on television, between Islam and the West. He got us to give up the liberty we fought and won over hundreds of years in less than two hours, with the loss of a lot property and 3,000 lives.
Imagine if instead of torturing people and invading two countries and starting two wars we had produced evidence, fought hard to extradite bin Laden from Afghanistan, tried him at the world court, and locked him up for the rest of his life. We would have said that the West is not barbaric, fundamentalist religious fanatics are. We are constitutionalists - we believe in the rule of law, equally applied to everyone. We may not achieve perfection, but we're the closest thing the world has got. We are genuinely here to make the world a better place, and we have learned from the mistakes of former world super powers.
Everyone says if you want to change the world, start with yourself. How about reminding everyone that freedom isn't free, not because you have to invade and sacrifice the lives of soldiers, but because sometimes you have to obey laws that your enemy does not. Sometimes you have to recognize that liberty and security are mutually exclusive.
If you let emotion and hate dictate your actions, not only do the terrorists get a recruiting tool to attract more followers, they remove the moral high ground where you once stood. Then it's just two barbarians at each other's throat, one with satellite guided weapons and tanks, and the other with suicide bombers and IEDs.
Is this a new gimmick from Ryanair? (Score:5, Insightful)
How ridiculous can flying become? Just say "F**K YOU" to terrorists, and fly as if nothing had happened. Otherwise they've won.
Re:Is this a new gimmick from Ryanair? (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe it's time to face the fact that the terrorist have won instead of pretending that the issue is unresolved.
They now need a "pee fee" - not what you think (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:They now need a "pee fee" - not what you think (Score:5, Insightful)
I have to agree with you. An hour? There's a lot of flights where I'd never have a chance to visit the lavatory.
And we wonder why the airlines are having so much trouble making a profit today?
I've been avoiding flying because of the TSA for ages now. First you have to go through massive amounts of trouble at the checkpoints, worry about your luggage, now you're even going to be interfered with on the flight itself.
My fear that eventually travelers will all have to fly wearing issued paper-tissue gowns and be sedated during the flight approaches...
Re:They now need a "pee fee" - not what you think (Score:5, Funny)
Re:They now need a "pee fee" - not what you think (Score:4, Insightful)
I was planning a vacation to the USA in 2010, as I did in 2006, 7 and 8. Entering America was already a royal pain in the neck (standing in line for 2 hours in Miami was really a joy, so was secondary screening in DC followed by a canceled flight), but these new measures make it increasingly unlikely I will go forward with my plans. There is a limit to what I will acccept. This notion that everything in society has to defer to security is insane.
Re:They now need a "pee fee" - not what you think (Score:5, Insightful)
I can understand where you're coming from but it's neither the fault of the flight attendants nor the cleaning crew that your country has such shitty regulations, but they're the only people who will suffer from your protest...
That's the "they are just doing their job" cop-out. If they aren't happy with the consequences of working for an organization that denies people their basic human dignities, then they should be looking for a new job. To give them a pass because they are just little people in the machinery of a big faceless organization is to give the big faceless organization a pass.
Re:They now need a "pee fee" - not what you think (Score:5, Insightful)
Sacrificing your quality of life for morality can be difficult. But sacrificing morality for quality of life is EVIL. It doesn't matter that these people are doing it on a small scale, they should be looked down on just like corrupt politicians.
How about not allowing direct flight from Nigeria? (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously. Make every passenger from Nigeria go out through security in Amsterdam, then back in. And while you are at it if some guy in Nigeria goes to the US embassy and says look out for my son here is his name then bloody look out for that name in visa requests and think twice before granting it.
Oh and another thing. US security seems to focus on detaining the bad guys after they have landed in the US. We have heard of this happening to plenty of people. How about recognising that they can get up to bad stuff while still in the air over Detroit, and trying to keep the bad guys from even getting on the plane.
Re:How about not allowing direct flight from Niger (Score:5, Interesting)
Make every passenger from Nigeria go out through security in Amsterdam, then back in.
Amsterdam already does this, not just for Nigeria, but for every passenger arriving from every country.
You have clearly never been to the Amsterdam airport. The security checkpoints in Amsterdam are at the departure gates, not at the terminal entrance. Every single departure gate has an individual security checkpoint, with metal detector and x-ray machine. Every passenger boarding the flight is screened, regardless of their point of origin.
My first reaction upon seeing this setup was that it was a waste of resources for every gate to have a separate checkpoint. But it makes sense in a lot of ways. It prevents long lines from building up in any single checkpoint (important if you're concerned about terrorists setting off bombs while waiting in a densely packed line). Also, unlike US airports, if a passenger escapes through the checkpoint, it's very easy to find him afterward, since there's nowhere to go beyond the checkpoint except onto the plane. Hence you never see the entire airport closing down because one passenger ran through the checkpoint the wrong way. My guess is that the cost saved by avoiding 2-3 security related airport closures in this way makes up for the cost of the extra hardware.
Re:How about not allowing direct flight from Niger (Score:5, Interesting)
Prohibited Items (Score:3, Insightful)
The TSA's list of prohibited items doesn't seem to have changed in the last day, though.
Explosive devices aren't already listed?
Re:Prohibited Items (Score:5, Insightful)
Fireworks in specific are banned too! And he was in his seat.
Basically there should be no rules because of this, because everything he did was already sufficiently covered.
Any policy changes because of this are 100% "Looking like your doing something" and/or fear.
Re:Prohibited Items (Score:5, Insightful)
Well duh. If you're already hopelessly worthless at enforcing the rules you've always had, well just make more rules!
Of course they're listed. (Score:5, Insightful)
Scroll down -- there's a clearly-labeled section detailing which kinds of explosive are allowed and which aren't.
But see, this is one truly moronic result of security theater -- first, the explicit list of specific stuff you can't bring is also an implicit list of stuff you can. If I were an aspiring terrorist, I'd be reading through that thinking, "Hmm, a golf club would be really useful, but they're banned... I'll just bring a stick of rebar instead." That's the problem with security theater in general -- you're preparing for specific attacks, and by publicly preparing for those, you guarantee that the terrorists won't use that attack -- they'll use something else.
The second problem is that the list in itself is a list of ideas if you can manage to sneak that stuff past security. "Hmm, a spillable battery -- that's a good idea. I just have to put it in a wheelchair and pretend to be disabled..."
My Theory (Score:5, Interesting)
I am starting to think the airlines want this.
If government rules make it impossible to have comfortable flight, why should an airline even try to make the flight comfortable?
(fedex can ship 200 pounds of meat cheaper than american airlines)*
*might not actually be true, but I am sure some bean counter is thinking it
One hour? Seriously? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because apparently the only possible time to detonate something and bring down an airplane is in the last hour before landing. So THAT is why the shoe bomber failed....he did it too early!
How about we have a reasoned response to this instead of just blindly making shit up based on the last attack?
Re:One hour? Seriously? (Score:5, Interesting)
Elsewhere in the world the focus is steadily shifting to protecting of IT resources both in the air and on the ground for flight operations and administration, ensuring Business Continuity and Recovery Plans are up to code and auditing processes are proper and functioning and yet in the US they can't even handle the basic preventative measures during the screening process and even terminal logistics. I went to LAX last year and I saw regular breaches of baggage quarantine, lack of functioning access control mechanisms allowing access to restricted airside operations and various other absurdities. Now I'm sure some fool here is going to yell "Don't give the terrorists ideas!", unless these terrorists are blind in both eyes these problems are immediately apparent and those in charge of devising policy consistently ignore the experts advising them not only about these issues but what treatments are available. What are people like me to do? In the US people like me are ignored when we take the proper routes and if we go public we are immediately shunned and treated like criminals for "exposing weaknesses and threatening national security". The whole thing is a joke and in my experience the current state of the saga which is called "aviation security" originates in the US.
Re:One hour? Seriously? (Score:4, Informative)
However, security theater serves a purpose
Yes. It keeps TSA people employed. But then again, breaking windows serves a purpose too. However that's not an EFFICIENT use of funds.
Yesterday's "foiled" bombing attempt? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yesterday's "foiled" bombing attempt? (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What this incident proved... (Score:5, Insightful)
It is notable that the person who reportedly subdued the suspect individual was NOT an American. He was Dutch.
Re:What this incident proved... (Score:5, Funny)
Congrats TSA/Al Queda (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it's that in response to this sliver of a threat, you're guaranteeing that I'll spend twice the time in line, and the flight will be as miserable as you can make it. This will cost literally billions of dollars (at 300 million hours, about 450 lifetimes) of productive passenger time per year. And all because some twat might set his crotch on fire-- good thing you don't allow us to have water anymore.
Alright. Fine. Let the airlines go out of business; this nation of cowards deserves it. I suppose we'll need another bailout, to pay the airlines to leave their aircraft on the tarmac.
Those who would sacrifice essential liberty for imaginary security are assholes.
Re:Congrats TSA/Al Queda (Score:5, Informative)
I flew from Las Vegas to LA today so I have yet to see these tightened up rules. At LAS I couldn't detect anything different and it was as though nothing unusual had happened yesterday. The only unusual thing I experienced was a family so dense--in line ahead of me--that they couldn't get it together enough to get through the security scan in under 10 minutes while everyone waited behind them. And oddly enough the TSA folks were unflinchingly polite about it all. It took so long that I finally gathered up my bins and went to another line.
So, despite all the talk here it's not like it's instant crackdown in TSA land.
Re:Congrats TSA/Al Queda (Score:4, Insightful)
I flew from Las Vegas to LA today so I have yet to see these tightened up rules.
The reason you have yet to see these tightened up rules is because they only appear to apply to international flights entering the US. Missing that detail is a forgivable mistake though, seeing as it makes no fucking sense.
Re:Congrats TSA/Al Queda (Score:4, Insightful)
Or in other words, the terrorists have won. If their goal was to make the lives of Americans more miserable, it seems they succeeded.
But worse yet, if air travel gets much worse, perhaps the airlines will need a bailout? We've seen how 'well' it worked for the financial institutions.
The question is, is the solution to this problem more security, or is it trying to find the root cause of why things like this happens?
Re:Congrats TSA/Al Queda (Score:5, Insightful)
oh, right, when restrictions come in small amounts, people will get used to them. just like you have.
if i have to arrive an hour early for a 30 minute flight and waste half an hour of that on ridiculous procedures like taking off my boots (which is annoying as hell in winter, as i have to spend a minute to get them back on), walk over dirty floor in my socks, take out my belt, very often be touched by some man in uniform all over.
i had nail clippers taken from me. the pointy part was ~ 5 or 6 millimeters long. i had hunted for ones i like for several years and found them on lithuanian market - i still haven't found a replacement that's as good. fucking plastic forks they give out on the flight are more dangerous.
i'm not allowed to take any drinks with me that i like. more specifically, i'm not allowed to take beer back from germany :)
i'm not allowed to take photos of taking off or landing (which was just fine for decades before, and those times are when you are most likely to get a nice photo). i'm not allowed to FUCKING LISTED TO MUSIC. i've had flight attendants wake me up if i just as much as have headphones on my ears with the player off. i don't like being waken up unless necessary.
my girlfriend was denied a blanket because "we are taking off". the plane was awfully cold, even i might have preferred a blanket - and i'm the person who wears shorts at zero degrees.
now that's all europe only. for usa, so i hear, i have to fill forms where required level of stupidity to create them just is not comprehensible to me (do you plan to commit acts of terrorism ?), give fingerprints, subject oneself to arrogant and rude questioning, possibly give out all passwords for any it related devices and maybe even have them confiscated, without any compensation.
i don't know firsthand, as i have refused to travel to usa several times in recent past because of this.
i suppose it all goes down to what level dignity you expect to have. unfortunately, that seems to be way low for too many people.
now let's see what all these measures help, if any. let's look at the plastic already inside the airplane - i'm sure most of it could be melted with a lighter to create damn efficient knife.
talking about what improvised weapons one could bring on the airplane - let's see, it should be trivial to make legs of the glasses very sturdy and with pointy ends to create a very nice weapon.
let's look at camera tripods. they already have decent diameter tube. take off the plastic/rubber cap, make the ending a bit sharper, replace the cap - that's an awfully scary weapon, it has a shallow ending to increase bleeding.
i'm sure slashdot crowd could come up with ways to transform majority of everyday items into weapons, and i'm sure skeery terrirists aren't as dumb and stone age as your media might want to portray them. there has to be some reason why every flight is not terrorised by some whacko with handmade pointy thing.
This is kind of rediculous (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm all for security but now this all nonsensical. Instead of actually making actual changes they just impose extremely annoying rules that have no actual security improvement. What does it matter whether or not it is the last hour...can't the terrorist just set off a bomb...I dunno before the last hour. I don't understand what the actual point of this rule is.
So if I want to pee, read a book, put something away, or so much as even flinch I'm gonna be threatened with an arrest. Simply inconveniencing people isn't gonna make security any better...
Re:This is kind of rediculous (Score:5, Informative)
Ok, I'm game. What's been implemented post-9/11 that's made us more secure?
I agree with Bruce Schneier [schneier.com] on this: "Only two things have made flying safer [since 9/11]: the reinforcement of cockpit doors, and the fact that passengers know now to resist hijackers."
To make stupid people feel more secure by appearing to do something.
Sadly, most people confuse "activity" with "progress".
Enough of this shit already (Score:5, Interesting)
Number of people dead from car accidents this year: tens of thousands
Number of people dead from cancer this year: hundreds of thousands
Number of people inconvenienced because of stupid airline regulations: millions
Number of people losing their livelihood due to reduced tourism to the USA: probably tens of thousands
Number of people dieing as an indirect cause of airline regulations: probably more than the victims of terrorism this year
Number of people failing to comprehend basic statistics: hundreds of millions
Seriously, enough of this madness. It was a foiled bombing attempt that came with the usual Al Quaeda franchise branding. I certainly don't care about the original news more than a few brief lines about it on some buried page on the BBC's website, however it's pissing me off in a major way that a lot of people seem to think this is a big deal. It's not!
Typical cop response (Score:5, Insightful)
You beat terrorists by raising a middle finger in their direction, mocking them mercilessly and accepting casualties once in a while. You kiss terrorist arse when you pull this kind of crap. What's next, handcuff passengers to their seats and have police strutting up and down the aisles during flights? Give me an effin' break!
Re:Typical cop response (Score:4, Insightful)
Whats next? Mandatory sedation. Sure a few people won't wake up, but thats a small* price to pay to stop someone from trying to blow up the plane they are on.
* For point of reference, a medical report I found rates anesthesia to result in 10 to 100 times more deaths than air travel per hour of exposure. So the small price is 10 to 100 flights worth of passengers killed per fractional flight loss prevented, fractional since the vast majority of flight loss are not from internal terrorism.
Question (Score:5, Insightful)
So, during this time when you aren't allowed to get out of your seat, aren't allowed to use the bathroom (explicitly mentioned in an article I read):
What happens if you have to crap? Like really have to? I have a feeling if someone started yelling about how they were gonna shit their pants, a flight attendant would let them to the bathroom, although I think if you're at the point where passengers are having to yell about needing to take a crap (in front of dozens of passengers), you are opening yourself up to a lawsuit.
As the parent of a 1 year old. I say good luck (Score:5, Insightful)
I have trouble keeping my son in his high chair with his hands in plain site in a high chair. Good luck getting infants to sit still.
I don't know who's stupider: The idiots at the TSA who come up with the rules, the politicians that give them this power, or the dickheads that allow the politicians to be elected.
I'll stay well out of your country. I only wish your fucked up rules didn't get copied by our own government and idiotic organisations. We just had some ridiculous security restrictions lifted in Australia. What's the bet that all gets reversed thanks to you crazy as fuck yanks?
OK, this is stupid. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's stupid not because it's exaggerated, but because it's ineffective. It's BS. I went to a conference in the US at the end of November, and was reminded just how bad it is to fly to and from the US. I have also flown to and from Israel, a country very much in the crosshairs of terrorists, and the security procedure was MUCH more humane, both on the flights and at boarding. (in fact, I didn't even need a visa for Israel, while I need to go through an incredibly complicated and expensive procedure to get a US visa... but this is a different story (or is it?)) The Israelis do have some security processes in place, but they are mostly stealth and unobtrusive. Well, in any case, they must be doing something right, because there has not been a hijacked or otherwise terror-affected flight to or from Israel in decades now.
Re:OK, this is stupid. (re: Israel) (Score:5, Interesting)
I've been to Israel only once -- earlier this year; beautiful and interesting place to visit! -- and while I agree with you that their procedures seemed more humane, I wouldn't say that they (speaking only of the visible parts) were any less visible / overt than in the U.S., but rather the opposite.
My demographic (perhaps the same as yours, I don't know) I'm sure contributed to the scrutiny I received on both sides of my 3-week trip -- I didn't *notice* any extra attention paid to me during my actual time in the country, which doesn't prove there wasn't any. (That is, as male under 40, traveling alone with no checked baggage, and no strong connections to Israel in the form of family, culture, previous visits, etc.)
I was approached and questioned (not unpleasant -- agent was cute) even on arrival, right on the stairs leading from the plane to the hallway to the main terminal, who called me out by name. Was it partly because I was taking the stairs (two at a time) instead of the escalator, or blind chance? I dunno. All visitors (there are separate lines for Israeli passport holders, and I'm not sure how they're treated) on arrival must clear passport control with a small interview about the purpose of the visit, schedule, etc. I have visited a handful of countries overall (8, I think), but it was by far the most thoroughly and frankly I ever remember being examined. Very different from most of my experiences with TSA in the US, and seemed to be more thoughtful / alert even than what I found in German and American airports when I flew to Berlin from the U.S. in October, 2001 -- a pretty tense time to fly.
On departure from Israel, was engaged in pointed conversation by three different security people in the initial line at the airport, too, before even checking in for my flight, and that's before I reached the two X-ray stations, pat-down station, and chemical sniffer. Asked to spell the names, and give the address, of the friends with whom I had stayed in Jerusalem, to name and describe the place I'd stayed in Haifa, to describe in detail (more than once) the purpose of my trip, my itinerary, etc, and prompted to agree -- again, more than once -- that perhaps someone had supplied me with a package to carry on my flight, etc. "No, this is all my own luggage, and I have had control of it the whole time. Yes, I packed it. Correct, this is my luggage for the entire trip. Yes, I visited Jordan for one day, to visit Petra. No, I don't know anyone in Jordan. Yes, I met some interesting people while I've been in Israel, but No, none of them asked me to carry anything in my luggage. I was in Haifa to give a small talk and to see the city." (etc.) Thought it was a bit much even given my expectations of hard-nosed vigilance, it was all fairly polite and respectful* -- just insistent. It also buoyed my confidence that people who seemed competent and thoughtful were visibly involved, and actually enjoyed it as an interesting cultural experience. If I flew there every month, I might feel a lot differently about it.
This is not to say that I am aware of all the security stuff going on in the background, there or in the U.S. -- I figure (and hope) that there's more to it than what I see ;)
Cheers,
timothy
* This is certainly not my experience with TSA, though I'm sure some of their agents are competent, polite, and alert. I've just seen, or at least taken note of, more of the other kind. My horror stories aren't even campfire ghost stories compared to the people who've really gotten screwed over by TSA, and so aren't worth recounting at this time of night, so I'll just leave it at that.
The "Terrorists" win again... (Score:5, Insightful)
Go "BOO" enough times and the US will spend itself into financial ruin. Wait -- that's happening NOW!
This rule murders people (Score:5, Insightful)
After this rule more people will die from blood clots.
Sane airlines actually encourage people to get up from their seats at regular intervals.
E.g. Edelweiss Air used to show a video explaining the issue (I haven't flown with them in a while so I don't know about the current situation), Emirates has some pictures on how to keep circulation intact etc.
ok, @#$% this (Score:4, Insightful)
The TSA losers failed to prevent him from getting on the plane with a firecracker.
Now they are saying "well we need to treat you all like prisoners now."
You know what, the terrorists just won, with a @#$%ing firecracker.
Contact the TSA/airlines/Congress (Score:5, Insightful)
We all make grandiose statements about "security theater," how worthless new rules are going to be, vowing never to fly again, etc. etc etc...but how many of us take our comments beyond a Slashdot post? How many comments about knee-jerk reactions are knee-jerk posts? I'll admit to the same, having sworn off flying if at all possible and driving to my desired destinations.
I'm not saying "quit whining." Far from it--what is being said needs to be said, but it needs to be said in the proper forum. Contact the TSA, the airlines, and your Congressional representation. Tell them the same things (with a dash of proper grammar and spelling and a certain amount of decor, of course) that, as the flying (or former flying) public, you object to tax dollars being wasted on what is perceived to be ineffective security measures. Make it a voting issue when the next election comes rolling around. Let those who make the rules know that they are having an effect--a negative effect. Tell the airline about that road trip you took and how much more enjoyable it was without having to submit to a bunch of BS screening.
I'll grant you that the most you can hope for, as an individual, is some sort of form-letter response from your Congressional representation. The airlines won't care because, frankly, if you don't buy the ticket, somebody else will. The TSA won't care because, well, they don't have to care. (Yes, I'm a little cynical.) En masse, however, somebody, somewhere, might start to pay attention.
I'll take my own advice right now, and after reading up on the actual event and the ensuing rules changes, make it clear to my representation my position, and what I expect to be done about it. I ask direct questions, in hopes of getting something other than a form-letter response. That way if I get a canned response that doesn't address the question, I have a reason to ask it again.
My deep thought for the day.
The DHS are the terrorists (Score:5, Funny)
DOCTOROW, Schneier, Sunday — After the Detroit Christmas firecracker incident, the Transport Security Administration now requires all US airline passengers to be strapped into their seats naked with catheters fitted, for their comfort and convenience [newstechnica.com].
"It's the most efficient way to keep the country moving and let the TERRORISTS know they haven't won," said TSA head Gale Rossides. "We're just trying to work out what to do when the TERRORISTS work out how to set off bombs by clenching their butt cheeks together."
Passengers are advised not to bother with laptops ("You could explode the batteries with your urine!"), iPods or the vile containers of sedition such as "books." "Carriage of any carryon item will result in lengthy security delays for the customer," said a TSA advisory, "but, in response to customer concerns, the TSA officer with the latex glove will give you a box of chocolates and promises to respect you in the morning, and will definitely call you later in the week. Honestly."
US tourism offices have finally given up and shut up shop. "I hear Afghanistan is pretty nice this time of year. Iran's pretty good too."
Officials at Amtrak did not give a comment on the phone, just the sound of dancing around their offices singing "We're In The Money."
The passenger who allegedly set off the firecracker has mounted a stern defense, showing his paycheck from the Department of Homeland Security's Subdepartment of Job Preservation.
Re:NO! (Score:4, Interesting)
In fact, the only person who seems to have left his seat is the guy who got up to stop the attack. So, should he have remained seated instead?
Re:NO! (Score:4, Informative)
Especially because the terrorist in question remained in his seat the whole time.
No he spent 20 minutes in the toilet possibly preparing for the explosion. Then he covered himself with a blanket and tried to set it off.
Re:NO! (Score:5, Insightful)
Right, and as there's obviously no way this guy could have spent 20 minutes in the bathroom 61 minutes before landing, this new policy by the TSA is surly just another feather in the cap of the worlds most effective security organization.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:NO! (Score:5, Insightful)
What kind of brainwashing and delusions made him think he could take down an airliner with a bag of stuff he regurgitated and cooked up in a plane toilet? This guy was a clown.
His own father had warned the US authorities about his extremism already, but they had basically opened a file then ignored him. Perhaps they made a realistic assessment that this guy was only a threat to his own trousers?
Re:NO! (Score:5, Insightful)
If he had set it off in the toilet, then the restrictions introduced would probably be worse. They would probably have banned the use of the toilet on planes.
Re:NO! (Score:5, Insightful)
Either way, "the terrorists win."
Terrorists are just spoiled children. They throw very big and dangerous tantrums for attention. Their acts and our responses are all attention.
Terrorists, like spoiled children, are best discouraged by ignoring them. Will there always be spoiled children? Yes. It's a fact of life. Can't stop life.
Re:NO! (Score:5, Insightful)
You're right - dismantling your own democracy as a response to terrorists is definitely not the right response. Particularly when the countermeasures are so stupid. Worth noting that there *is* an effective way of combating terrorists however. Remove their community support. They don't come from nowhere and they don't arrange all these plans and have these beliefs without some friends and neighbours wondering. But a people that see occupations of their countries or US support for regimes like the Saudis are a people that are angry enough that they become less willing to stop such individuals themselves. And these communities are the best defense against terrorists.
Re:NO! (Score:4, Informative)
That's not necessarily a good idea. What demand was Al Quaeda making when they attacked the World Trade Centre? They wanted the US to stop propping up the undemocratic Saudi regime which survives due to US support. If more people of the USA understood just how bad that regime is and how their government supports it in their name, they might stop it and then you'd get less extremists striking out at the US. Ignoring the motivations of terrorists does nobody any good. But instead the US media wants to portray these people as if they are some evil that just comes out of nowhere.
Re:NO! (Score:5, Informative)
Firstly, the Saudi's have a great deal of influence over world oil prices which affects the US economy greatly. Secondly, the Saudis are an ally of the US in the Middle East (at least the ruling regime is, the people are a different matter). For example, the Saudi's are fighting an on-off proxy war with Iran in Yemen (a small country on the Southern border of Saudi). They fly US supplied F-15s. The US navy has intervened at their request to carry out bombings. Up until 2003, (i.e. post 9/11) the US had around 4,500 troops stationed in the country. I hate to pull out Wikipedia as its often used as a lazy way to find facts that support ones case out of context, but in this case I'm going to post a link: US & Saudi Relations [wikipedia.org]. Note that the US provided both training and modern weaponry to the Saudi military in order to "combat shiite extremism". Extremism of course means revolutionaries that you don't like. Bahrain isn't legally part of Saudi Arabia, but I think you'll forgive me if I roll them in together given their indivisible strategic and military circumstances and united political positions. The US Fifth Fleet is based there (normally). If you think those forces wouldn't (and haven't) got involved in putting down any revolutionary efforts, you're mistaken.
I think that demonstrates US support for the Saudi regime. The US wants a strong presence in the Middle East and the Saudi regime is happy to be their loyal ally and base of operations at the expense of the people. It's a fucking monarchy for fucks sake. As regards your statement that Al Quaeda being "a big baby using the excuse of "OMG they stepped on our sand, get em'", Bin Laden himself stated that their one of their main motivations was US presence in Saudi. Why should that be false? Al Quaeda wanted to overthrow the Saudi regime. The US protects the Saudi regime. What is your reason for disputing their given motivations? It's a piss-poor sort of terrorist that goes about striking terror for causes other than their own.
Re:NO! (Score:5, Funny)
Ah bacon: the cornerstone of any Islamic fundamentalist terrorist breakfast!
Re:NO! (Score:5, Interesting)
Once in a while I get an awful urge to find a toilet really quickly. Waiting an hour to use a restroom might cause a lot of people to lose their lunch from the stink of what might occur.
Frankly we have gone insane. At the price of our current wars against terror we might be better off to let the loonies pick a large American building and two large passenger jest to blow up every year. We would save money for sure compared to the cost of using our military.
Or we could cut lose and use the big weapons and see if any survivors still want to fight.
passengers (Score:5, Funny)
I wonder if more interaction between passengers would actually help matters.
I'm sure keeping people from the toilet won't help anybody though, as people simply cannot always be forced to hold their pee.
If an airline ever holds you in your seat when you need to pee, simply call an attendant to explain that you likely cannot hold it, and offer that they may either (a) bring you a bucket, or (b) frisk you and let you go. I bet the airline must ground the plane for longer if you pee in your seat or on the floor.
If you carry a pee bottle, then explain what your doing to nearby passengers first, as you don't want them attacking you for "mixing stuff".
The art of copmpromise (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly - how on earth did the TSA come up with such seemingly braindead directive?
Sounds like they put the problem to a committee (I won't use the traditional metaphor becase it is a baseless slander against the noble camel).
Stopping people from going to the toilet or having stuff on their lap for the whole flight might actually help with the problem, but would be unworkable for other reasons (anybody want to invent a pants-mouted bomb detonated by urine?) So they reach for the political compromise: a time limit. Completey defeats the object, but hey, they're seen to be doing something - whereas pointing out that what we really have here is more evidence of the inefficacy of amateur binary explosives would be totally unacceptable.
Re:Boy, flying just keeps getting better! (Score:5, Insightful)
Impacting our day to day to lives = terrorism has succeeded.
Its psychological warfare. The mind is infinitely more powerful than any bomb.
Re:This makes perfect sense (Score:5, Interesting)
To keep the rule makers employed.
"On every second Tuesday, you will strap a sausage to your nose, hope on one foot and shout 'I am a pretty wittle princess!'"
"But why? How will this rule solve anything?"
"Silence! Are you on the side of the drug smugglers/pedophiles/terrorists! Submit to us, and demonstrate it by quacking like a duck."
Re:10,000,000+ U.S. commerical flights annually... (Score:5, Informative)
Has anybody provided any evidence that the guy had anything remotely like a bomb?
From this article: [bbc.co.uk]
High explosives are believed to have been moulded to his body and sewn in to his underpants.
...
A preliminary FBI analysis has found that the device allegedly found on Mr Abdulmutallab contained the high explosive PETN, also known as pentaerythritol.
It sounds pretty full on to me. I think we dodged a bullet.
Re:10,000,000+ U.S. commerical flights annually... (Score:4, Informative)
Nope. We didn't dodge a damn thing. A pile of explosives goes poof with a flash and some flame. That's it. Even a really big pile. A pile of explosives in a very solid tube with one end open is a gun, which can shoot stuff out of the open end. A pile of explosives in a sealed container is a bomb, and can build up enough pressure to blow holes in things.
Sure, he had a great explosive. But without a sealed, solid container to put them in, he's only going to burn his dick off.
And I'm pretty sure that if you took a threaded steel container through security, they'd take an extra look at the rest of what you're carrying.
Re:Its never going to work (Score:4, Funny)
start with the plastic forks