New York Times Editorial on Carry Ons
Aug 13th, 2006, 11:35 AM
#42
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
True Stu - but one can't go "tut tut" over road accident rates and post endless threads about chapstick - still i suppose we should be grateful that there haven't been any "should i take TC or change money when i get there" threads lately!
Aug 13th, 2006, 12:22 PM
#45
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 12,885
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last time I checked, ~45K Americans died on the roads in <b>US, EVERY YEAR!</b>
Last time I checked, ~100 died from airline terrorism in the <b>WHOLE WIDE WORLD in the LAST 5 years.</b>
so, 225K innocent lives lost in this country alone in the last 5 years due to our need to transport ourselves from point A to point B and no panicky legislations, rules, banning of certain cars, etc.... Sure, we enact more etringient drunk driving laws, but overall, it has not stopped the number of deaths on the road.
yet, with only the possibility of something happening during flights (just another way of getting from point A to point B), we are introducing new rules, prohibiting this and that, slowly taking many of our civil rights and freedoms away.....
makes me scratch my head, but YMMV!
yet, some of you are sheepishly following whatever <b>directive</b> comes from the one above.....amazing!
Last time I checked, ~100 died from airline terrorism in the <b>WHOLE WIDE WORLD in the LAST 5 years.</b>
so, 225K innocent lives lost in this country alone in the last 5 years due to our need to transport ourselves from point A to point B and no panicky legislations, rules, banning of certain cars, etc.... Sure, we enact more etringient drunk driving laws, but overall, it has not stopped the number of deaths on the road.
yet, with only the possibility of something happening during flights (just another way of getting from point A to point B), we are introducing new rules, prohibiting this and that, slowly taking many of our civil rights and freedoms away.....
makes me scratch my head, but YMMV!
yet, some of you are sheepishly following whatever <b>directive</b> comes from the one above.....amazing!
Aug 13th, 2006, 12:22 PM
#46
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 19,000
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you mean "sheep-like." "Sheepish" conveys an entirely different meaning.
There may be minute amounts of unused space within cell phones and personal audio players that could be used to secrete explosives, but I don't think that's what the prohibition is about. (By the way, I suggested to TSA that they stop allowing laptops on planes about four years ago. The spare battery compartment in the average computer can hold about a pound of Semtex - and the machine will boot up just fine.)
"What about using a cell-phone to call the cel-phone in the hold to detonate the explosive that is there?"
You don't know much about how cell phones work, do you? Both phones have to be registered on a network, which aren't found in mid-ocean (so far). Don't worry - your secret is safe.
By the way - the odds of being injured in a traffic accident are affected by your driving style and level of impairment. When you factor out all of the people who die doing stupid things and/or driving drunk or stoned, driving to the airport is one of the safer activities one can undertake. Yes, some die through the folly of others, but most vehicular fatalities are self-inflicted.
There may be minute amounts of unused space within cell phones and personal audio players that could be used to secrete explosives, but I don't think that's what the prohibition is about. (By the way, I suggested to TSA that they stop allowing laptops on planes about four years ago. The spare battery compartment in the average computer can hold about a pound of Semtex - and the machine will boot up just fine.)
"What about using a cell-phone to call the cel-phone in the hold to detonate the explosive that is there?"
You don't know much about how cell phones work, do you? Both phones have to be registered on a network, which aren't found in mid-ocean (so far). Don't worry - your secret is safe.
By the way - the odds of being injured in a traffic accident are affected by your driving style and level of impairment. When you factor out all of the people who die doing stupid things and/or driving drunk or stoned, driving to the airport is one of the safer activities one can undertake. Yes, some die through the folly of others, but most vehicular fatalities are self-inflicted.
Aug 13th, 2006, 12:36 PM
#47
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 12,885
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sheep·ish Audio pronunciation of "sheepishly" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (shpsh)
adj.
1. Embarrassed, as by consciousness of a fault: a sheepish grin.
2. Meek or stupid.
sheepish·ly adv.
sheepish·ness n.
[Download Now or Buy the Book]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
sheepishly
<b>adv : in a sheepish manner; "sheepishly he handed her back the money"</b>
I knew exactly what I was saying. I didn't accuse anybody of being stupid, just that they follow like sheep....
adj.
1. Embarrassed, as by consciousness of a fault: a sheepish grin.
2. Meek or stupid.
sheepish·ly adv.
sheepish·ness n.
[Download Now or Buy the Book]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
sheepishly
<b>adv : in a sheepish manner; "sheepishly he handed her back the money"</b>
I knew exactly what I was saying. I didn't accuse anybody of being stupid, just that they follow like sheep....
Aug 13th, 2006, 12:37 PM
#48
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 1,549
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would rather lose my laptop with all its data (backed up, of course, on my home computer) rather than lose my life.
The road accident analogy does not work for me. As someone else said, there I am in control. If I am a safe driver, I generally arrive at my destination. There is, however, no way of predicting whose laptop has a bomb where the extra battery should be.
These are the facts of the modern world where we are at war with a faction of religiously inspired fascists. You can travel with the risks and inconveniences or stay home.
The people making the safety rules have to constantly adapt to new threats and they are trying to keep all of us safe. This, "Why do I have to be so inconvenienced" angst is utterly inappropriate. Do you think the world revolves around your personal inconvenience over chapstick? I am very happy that the governments involved are more concerned about safety than anyone's personal convenience.
The road accident analogy does not work for me. As someone else said, there I am in control. If I am a safe driver, I generally arrive at my destination. There is, however, no way of predicting whose laptop has a bomb where the extra battery should be.
These are the facts of the modern world where we are at war with a faction of religiously inspired fascists. You can travel with the risks and inconveniences or stay home.
The people making the safety rules have to constantly adapt to new threats and they are trying to keep all of us safe. This, "Why do I have to be so inconvenienced" angst is utterly inappropriate. Do you think the world revolves around your personal inconvenience over chapstick? I am very happy that the governments involved are more concerned about safety than anyone's personal convenience.
Aug 13th, 2006, 12:44 PM
#49
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 12,885
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm out of here and this useless discussion, but before I go, I would like all the sheep to know that laptops are not banned, nor are cellphones, nor are I-Pods, etc....
The UK ban of any carry on is temporary as well, so get use to the idea that I will bring all my toys and working supplies with me on the plane next time I fly (1 week from tomorrow) and do what I need to do (about the liquids).
Also you may be interested that the useless TSA agency is lifting some restrictions as of today. Do a Google search.
The UK ban of any carry on is temporary as well, so get use to the idea that I will bring all my toys and working supplies with me on the plane next time I fly (1 week from tomorrow) and do what I need to do (about the liquids).
Also you may be interested that the useless TSA agency is lifting some restrictions as of today. Do a Google search.
Aug 13th, 2006, 01:51 PM
#52
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 19,000
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The context was "...some of you are <b>sheepishly</b> following whatever directive comes..."
Since the intent is to suggest that people obey rules unquestioningly (behaving like sheep), then "sheeplike" is the <i>mot juste</i>. I'd mark it on an undergraduate essay.
I don't know what "meak" means. Are you one of those people who have trouble with "sneak" and "peek?"
Since the intent is to suggest that people obey rules unquestioningly (behaving like sheep), then "sheeplike" is the <i>mot juste</i>. I'd mark it on an undergraduate essay.
I don't know what "meak" means. Are you one of those people who have trouble with "sneak" and "peek?"
Aug 13th, 2006, 01:53 PM
#53
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"What about using a cell-phone to call the cel-phone in the hold to detonate the explosive that is there?"
You don't know much about how cell phones work, do you? Both phones have to be registered on a network, which aren't found in mid-ocean (so far). Don't worry - your secret is safe.
So they bot have to be registered? Don't see why that is a problem - and agree that there aren't networks mid-ocean - but why does it have to happen mid-ocean? You are right I am not a techo-type but it it really impossible for someone to modify a transmitter (cell phone) to detonate an explosive device in the hold of a plane? My first google search on this revealed the folliwng quote:
"It's not rocket science," says John Pike of Globalsecurity.org, a Washington think tank. "Cell-phone detonators are pretty straightforward tradecraft."
You don't know much about how cell phones work, do you? Both phones have to be registered on a network, which aren't found in mid-ocean (so far). Don't worry - your secret is safe.
So they bot have to be registered? Don't see why that is a problem - and agree that there aren't networks mid-ocean - but why does it have to happen mid-ocean? You are right I am not a techo-type but it it really impossible for someone to modify a transmitter (cell phone) to detonate an explosive device in the hold of a plane? My first google search on this revealed the folliwng quote:
"It's not rocket science," says John Pike of Globalsecurity.org, a Washington think tank. "Cell-phone detonators are pretty straightforward tradecraft."
Aug 13th, 2006, 01:56 PM
#54
Guest
Posts: n/a
Replace the TSA and Homeland Security that have spent our taxes, with another level of "do nothings" and still have no sane security system. They're still reactive, rather than proactive.
To think, just a few months ago they removed knives from the "can't take on board" - give me a break.
For all the money that has gone into Homeland Security, would have been better spent on systems to scan all check cargo (still not done)... and who says liquid here with a cellphone couldn't blow us all out of the air. These guys have got to get real.
It's not the knitting needles, saline sprays, asthma inhalers, hand sanitizers, water, eye solution, or tubes of lipstick of little old ladies, children and with few exception, the rest of us, we have to worry about. If laptops, Ipods and cameras are allowed departing the US, they're not elsewhere. Duh!
What the heck has been done in the past five year? Nothing, folks! Ineptness, is their disease!
I'm waiting for a coup on one of those real long-haul flights (SFO/SYD, JFK/JNB, JFK/BKK) when the passengers are all up in arms screaming "we're not going to take it any more." Pity the crew. And, talking about crew, do they have to now check their bags? Or can they take their make-up, lotions, perfumes, etc. etc.?
AAFrequent Flyer is right on!
To think, just a few months ago they removed knives from the "can't take on board" - give me a break.
For all the money that has gone into Homeland Security, would have been better spent on systems to scan all check cargo (still not done)... and who says liquid here with a cellphone couldn't blow us all out of the air. These guys have got to get real.
It's not the knitting needles, saline sprays, asthma inhalers, hand sanitizers, water, eye solution, or tubes of lipstick of little old ladies, children and with few exception, the rest of us, we have to worry about. If laptops, Ipods and cameras are allowed departing the US, they're not elsewhere. Duh!
What the heck has been done in the past five year? Nothing, folks! Ineptness, is their disease!
I'm waiting for a coup on one of those real long-haul flights (SFO/SYD, JFK/JNB, JFK/BKK) when the passengers are all up in arms screaming "we're not going to take it any more." Pity the crew. And, talking about crew, do they have to now check their bags? Or can they take their make-up, lotions, perfumes, etc. etc.?
AAFrequent Flyer is right on!
Aug 13th, 2006, 01:59 PM
#55
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 19,000
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wiring a cell phone to make something blow up when it rings isn't rocket science. But as soon as the plane gains a little altitude after taking off, any cell phones on board lose their connection with the network.
This is because the terrestrial antennas' radiation patterns are deliberately kept parallel to the earth to concentrate the RF energy where the phones are expected to be. It would take many times more power if it weren't "beamed" in this manner. This applies equally to shipboard antennae.
You may well assume that the current threat will put the brakes on deployment of airborne picocells for a long, long time.
This is because the terrestrial antennas' radiation patterns are deliberately kept parallel to the earth to concentrate the RF energy where the phones are expected to be. It would take many times more power if it weren't "beamed" in this manner. This applies equally to shipboard antennae.
You may well assume that the current threat will put the brakes on deployment of airborne picocells for a long, long time.
Aug 13th, 2006, 02:04 PM
#56
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Robespierre, I'm am not familiar with cell phone technology, but I have a T-mobil samsung phone and when we took a transatlantic cruise with 5 days of nothing but ocean, I could call anybody even if they were not T-mobile customers. The ship had a tower.
Aug 13th, 2006, 02:16 PM
#58
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wombat has a good point. Although most cell phones (to work as they were intended) need to be registered on a cellualar network.
A Blackberry (which is also a cell phone for some models) is capable of sending messages from device to device directly without going through a network or server. This is call PIN messaging.
Also we are talking about people who will go to great lengths to create as much havoc as they can. These people are very technically savvy and it would not be beyond the realms of reason for one of these people to adapt a transmitter of any type into a detonator. The cell phone is mearly the disgise allowing it to be brought onto the plane.
A Blackberry (which is also a cell phone for some models) is capable of sending messages from device to device directly without going through a network or server. This is call PIN messaging.
Also we are talking about people who will go to great lengths to create as much havoc as they can. These people are very technically savvy and it would not be beyond the realms of reason for one of these people to adapt a transmitter of any type into a detonator. The cell phone is mearly the disgise allowing it to be brought onto the plane.
Aug 13th, 2006, 02:20 PM
#60
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
These people who try and sum it all up to "It's more dangerous to drive" are missing the point. If you blow up 10 airliners simultaneously, the impact on all of lives will be very huge. Have you noticed what happened when 4 were highjacked 5 years ago? Use your head and accept that this isn't your house or office you are boarding and you will have to follow the rules.
