Slashdot Mirror


Is Your Laptop At Risk While Traveling?

Editorgirl35 writes "Here's an interesting story on DesignNews.com With last week's announcement that the British government thwarted an alleged terrorist attack planned for flights from the U.K. to the U.S., news that travelers are required to check their laptops as baggage on some flights has raised a new level of panic as they try to figure out the best way to protect their laptops."

413 comments

  1. Baggage Check? by nurb432 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Wow, thats really safe..

    Some laptops ( and most pdas ) can turn them selves on at a predetermined time.. Just estimate the time for maximum impact, laptop turns on and detonates the 'extra' battery that is made up of C4.. now you have a nice big hole in the bottom of the plane..

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:Baggage Check? by tsq · · Score: 2, Funny

      Unless, of course, your flight is delayed.

      --
      This sig is Y2K compliant.
    2. Re:Baggage Check? by Aadain2001 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If that happens, instead of the plane blowing up you get the airport terminal. Either one causes damange, loss of life, and really hurts the international economy (extra 'security' at the airports). We just need to face it, there is no silver bullet or extra security measure we can take that will guarenty safty from terrorist attacks. At this point, we are getting zero returns on the extra effort and cost. I would rather go back to more customer friendly airports than have this illusion of protection we have right now.

      --
      Space for rent, inquire within
    3. Re:Baggage Check? by megaditto · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      iBooks have a tilt sensor... So one could set it to wait until the departure time, then activate the sensor and wait for tilt AFTER the departure is scheduled (to prevent baggage handler triggering).

      Oh, even better, an Ahmed can check in the iBook, then not even show up for the flight! And 4 hour battery uptime should cover the delays.

      Why does Apple help terrorists?

      --
      Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
    4. Re:Baggage Check? by andrewman327 · · Score: 1
      It is not that hard to wire an altimeter to a laptop through an RS-232 or USB port to detonate at high altitude, but that is beside the point. There will never be absolute security on airliners, but we can try our best. The only alternative left would be to ban all electronics in checked baggage which would be impossible.


      You have to worry about two kinds of security: physical protection from damage and theft deterence. For both functions I recomend using multiple layers. Those those free Priority Mail boxes work well for small laptops. Also use some bubble wrap inside. Put that inside of another bag with lots of clothing and other padding around it and a TSA approved luggage lock on the outside.

      --
      Information wants a fueled airplane waiting at the hangar and no one gets hurt.
    5. Re:Baggage Check? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahmed had better show up for his flight or his baggage will be unloaded from the hold. This rule has been in place for years.

    6. Re:Baggage Check? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, even better, an Ahmed can check in the iBook, then not even show up for the flight!

      You must have not traveled internationally in a long time. If Ahmed (or John or whatever) does not board the plane, his luggage gets unloaded - and you can bet that it will get an extra security check afterwards.

    7. Re:Baggage Check? by eebra82 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's just silly. Yes, you can blow up any building in the world but it's a lot easier to fly a Boeing 767 into a building than delivering explosives to a tightly secured area. I agree that nothing is certain, but at least it will keep the odds down significantly. Additionally, it is hard to match the power of a large plane crashing into a building. You don't want 10 shoe bombers ruining your flight every day, do you?

      I would personally wait the extra hour to live under the illusion (your description, not mine) that I'm safe.

    8. Re:Baggage Check? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Pretty funny about the primary concern being vibration. My company had a person check their laptop on a flight a few years back, and SURPRISE it never appeared at the other end of the flight. THAT is my main concern about checking a laptop. You are checking in a relatively small item worth $1200-$2000 that is easily resellable. If checking in laptops becomes a requirement, airlines will need to have a special procedures for doing so, in my opinion. Its worth a lot more than a bag of clothes.

    9. Re:Baggage Check? by Danga · · Score: 1

      Just estimate the time for maximum impact, laptop turns on and detonates the 'extra' battery that is made up of C4.. now you have a nice big hole in the bottom of the plane..

      This most likely would not work since most airports (100% in the US) use explosive detection systems such as CTX scanners like the following: http://www.gesecurity.com/portal/site/GESecurity/m enuitem.f76d98ccce4cabed5efa421766030730?selectedI D=2728&seriesyn=true

      They do have false positives but I would much rather have some false positives occur if it prevents real bombs from getting by. Basically how I understand these systems work is partially by checking the density and volume of the materials (using X-ray's and a CT scanner) within the bag to compare to known densities of explosives and if a "match" occurs they flag the bag and then a security employee must hand check it. If these machines are as good as the claims I have heard then I am very happy they are around and I think they would catch your bomb in a laptop/pda device in a heartbeat.

      --
      Hey, there is only one Return and it's not of the King, it's of the Jedi.
    10. Re:Baggage Check? by larpon · · Score: 1

      Just have the laptop in your hand luggage... Nobody whould be stupid enough to carry C4 so close to them selves... Oh wait...

    11. Re:Baggage Check? by Class+Act+Dynamo · · Score: 1

      I think they flag and hold bags associated with passengers who do not board the flight.

      --
      My other computer is a Jacquard loom.
    12. Re:Baggage Check? by topham · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Who needs C4?

      A carefully constructed Lithium Ion battery ought to be enough to cause serious damage and look like an accident.

      I give it 6 months before Laptops with batteries are entirely banned.

    13. Re:Baggage Check? by megaditto · · Score: 1

      Really? They delay the flight to unload the baggage, then go through it to find one bad? Didn't know that.

      I don't remember them ever delaying a flight by more than 20 minutes to wait up on no-shows.

      --
      Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
    14. Re:Baggage Check? by Danga · · Score: 1

      I was about to say the same thing. If a passenger does not board a flight then their luggage is not put on the plane.

      --
      Hey, there is only one Return and it's not of the King, it's of the Jedi.
    15. Re:Baggage Check? by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      why bother using the laptop? just put a 9 volt battery and a mechanical barometer inside the "battery" when the pressure drops below %X kaboom

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    16. Re:Baggage Check? by imuffin · · Score: 5, Funny

      C4? That's a lot of work. I just use a Dell.

    17. Re:Baggage Check? by topham · · Score: 1


      And in that 20 minutes the bag is either not-loaded, or unloaded.

      It is a violation of FAA rules to fly with the baggage.

    18. Re:Baggage Check? by tacocat · · Score: 1

      I'm sure Amtrak wouldn't mind...

    19. Re:Baggage Check? by Danga · · Score: 1

      Really? They delay the flight to unload the baggage, then go through it to find one bad? Didn't know that.

      I don't remember them ever delaying a flight by more than 20 minutes to wait up on no-shows.


      Yes, they really would delay the flight if they had to to find the bag. I think the reason you never have noticed a delay for a no show is because you may not have noticed but they usually wait to load the luggage until people start boarding. I do not know exactly how the process works but since the bags all have tags on them it would not be that hard to use a scanner on a bag before sending it up the loading belt. If the bag scan reports that the person has not yet boarded the plane then set the bag aside to rescan after the other bags are checked. There should not be a delay using a system similar to that.

      --
      Hey, there is only one Return and it's not of the King, it's of the Jedi.
    20. Re:Baggage Check? by noidentity · · Score: 1

      I don't know if I'm exaggerating, but...

      I'm sorry sir, you'll have to come with me for suggesting a terrorist plot, including plans. In the future, keep your thoughts to yourself and keep your head down. Thank you for playing.

      (maybe it's just me, but that's the kind of climate I detect nowadays)

    21. Re:Baggage Check? by bursch-X · · Score: 1

      The railroads still understand customer service

      You lucky bastard. In Germany this does definitely not apply. And just you wait until those damn communist, fashist, hisbollaist, djihadist and whateverist terrorists start bombing your trains!

      And while I'm at it, I live in Japan. Do you know of a convenient way to get from there to Germany by train in less than, say, two weeks? ;-)

      --
      There are two rules for success:
      1. Never tell everything you know.
    22. Re:Baggage Check? by bangenge · · Score: 3, Funny

      has anyone already made the obligatory dell laptop joke?

      --
      . o O ( TwO hEaDs ArE mOrE tHaN oNe... )
    23. Re:Baggage Check? by Baloo+Ursidae · · Score: 2, Interesting
      And just you wait until those damn communist, fashist, hisbollaist, djihadist and whateverist terrorists start bombing your trains!

      The terrorist strategy for trains is for high amounts of damage, and trains in North America just aren't high capacity enough for today's terrorist on the go. Plus, it's not like North America doesn't have a long and colorful history of train robberies and hijackings: Arguably, America invented rail-based terrorism and knows how to deal with it better than most countries. We've only had those running transcontinentally for ~150 years now...

      And while I'm at it, I live in Japan. Do you know of a convenient way to get from there to Germany by train in less than, say, two weeks? ;-)

      You can get there today or you can get there without surprise security butt-secks. Pick one.

      --
      Help us build a better map!
    24. Re:Baggage Check? by Alien+Being · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The most important thing with regard to protection against airline terrorism is that the bad guy not be allowed to take control of a 3.3 terajoule aircraft (guided missile). The solution is to lock the cockpit door. El Al understood this 30 years ago and the FAA realized that it was true on the morning of 9/11.

      energy density of jet fuel
      fuel capacity of a 767

      ( 5.62 million btu/ barrel ) * 23980 gallons == 3.3 terajoules

    25. Re:Baggage Check? by Anarchitect_in_oz · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Wouldn't a battery with a battery and a mechanical barometer inside it look suspect on the X-ray, as the bag passes inspection.

      --
      "Call us when the New age is old enough to drink" Beck
    26. Re:Baggage Check? by advs89 · · Score: 0

      Wow, thats really safe..

      Some laptops ( and most pdas ) can turn them selves on at a predetermined time.. Just estimate the time for maximum impact, laptop turns on and detonates the 'extra' battery that is made up of C4.. now you have a nice big hole in the bottom of the plane..


      You must be referring to a Dell laptop...
      --
      Rirelobql xabjf gung EBG-13 vf gur yrnfg frpher rapelcgvba rire, ohg jbhyq lbh jnfgr lbhe gvzr npghnyyl qrpelcgvat vg???
    27. Re:Baggage Check? by Aadain2001 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's the problem with actually paying attention: once you learn just how easy the systems are to defeat, you stop buying the illusion and acknowledge the reality of our security. If someone like Bin Laden wants to attack the US again, they will. And it won't be with an airplane, it will be from a cargo ship (*cough*Seattle*cough*). Or it will be some people hiking into the US from Canada or from Mexico. It will be a home-grown terrorist (Oklahoma) or someone on the inside (USPO). However it happens, all the money and effort put into the illusion won't stop it.

      --
      Space for rent, inquire within
    28. Re:Baggage Check? by LoadWB · · Score: 2, Funny

      Dell and Sony have been doing the same thing.

    29. Re:Baggage Check? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How can you be so insensitive to us Americans? We're stuck with Amtrak, which may understand customer service, but is by law unable to actually provide it.

    30. Re:Baggage Check? by faffod · · Score: 1

      I hadn't heard about the TSA approved locks - it bothers me that I have to hand my luggage over with no ability to prevent someone from taking anything of value. I didn't care for the combo lock and your link mentioned dual key locks. A quick spin through google led me to an amazon page where there were two reviews (for a combo lock). Both reviewers stated that their TSA "approved" locks had been cut rather than opened. Does anyone have first hand experience with these locks? Do they get cut or opened often? Until then, I have holiday season colored zip-ties (I figure that the white ones are too comon - sue me if I'm too paranoid) amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0009XLBSI/002-23 20945-5358457?v=glance&n=1036592

    31. Re:Baggage Check? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you sure there isn't a silver bullet, cause I'm pretty sure if we just killed everyone at the checkpoint that would prevent any deaths from terrorism. Now the tricky part is that it might be too expensive for the airlines to do it, so I propose we offer a deault death by beating with pointy stick and if the passenger pays extra they get a bullet to the head. It's sorta like the window seat thingy.

    32. Re:Baggage Check? by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      i would presume the battery would be lined in metal so nothing inside would be visable to the scanner

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    33. Re:Baggage Check? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Oh, even better, an Ahmed can check in the iBook, then not even show up for the flight! And 4 hour battery uptime should cover the delays.

      Not today he couldn't - because failure to board a flight your luggage is on will get the flight held until the luggage is removed. (Yes - they do compare passenger counts to the number that should be there.)
    34. Re:Baggage Check? by Gunny101 · · Score: 1

      If Ahmed didn't show up for a flight, his baggage would be removed, as this is the law.

    35. Re:Baggage Check? by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, you can blow up any building in the world but it's a lot easier to fly a Boeing 767 into a building than delivering explosives to a tightly secured area.

      Just you try it. It's actually very hard.

      Additionally, it is hard to match the power of a large plane crashing into a building.

      So what. Shot placement beats power.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    36. Re:Baggage Check? by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      the bad guy not be allowed to take control of a 3.3 terajoule aircraft (guided missile).

      Where's the warhead? Sure, you can burn the fuel and set a building on fire, but it's not like you can release all that energy at once. More likely, it'll burn at 5-600C, which will at best soften steel.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    37. Re:Baggage Check? by Knuckles · · Score: 1

      check in the iBook, then not even show up for the flight

      I had numerous flights being delayed because one guy checked in luggage but then did't show up, which lead to his luggage having to be unloaded. That's standard procedure in Germany, not in US?

      --
      "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
    38. Re:Baggage Check? by gbobeck · · Score: 1
      ...laptop turns on and detonates the 'extra' battery that is made up of C4...


      Why bother... just buy a Dell and use batteries produced by Sony.
      --
      Navicula hydraulica plena anguilarum est. Omnes castelli tuus nostri sunt. Ed elli avea del cul fatto trombetta.
    39. Re:Baggage Check? by ultrasound · · Score: 1

      I think perhaps a suicide bomber wouldn't mind being on the flight, thats how he gets to heaven

    40. Re:Baggage Check? by darkmeridian · · Score: 1

      Pan Am Flight 103 was brought down over Lockerbie, Scotland in a similar fashion. The bomb was disguised as a boombox and its plastic explosives were shaped as "batteries". There was about 12 to 16 ounces of explosive and that was enough to bring down a crowded airliner.

      That's why airines screen luggage now. The fear is that terrorists are moving to explosives which are not based on nitrogen-contained compounds now being screened for. TATP, the agent allegedly chosen by the London airline terrorists, does not contain nitrogen and explodes in an endothermic reaction. C4 in a luggage is not a huge fear because it is being screened for, and that was because someone blew up an airplane to make their point.

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    41. Re:Baggage Check? by tumbleweedsi · · Score: 1

      Who needs a battery made from C4 when you can just use one of these: https://www.dellbatteryprogram.com/

      --
      Be nice, sponsor me: http://jailbreak.ragabonds.org.uk
    42. Re:Baggage Check? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I know this was meant as a joke but C4 is very stable so would be perfectly safe to carry near you. From the Wikipedia arcticle on C4:
      It will not explode even if hit by a bullet, punched, cut, or thrown into a fire. The only reliable method for detonation is via a detonator or blasting cap. However, applying pressure in combination with heat can often cause detonation.
    43. Re:Baggage Check? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slightly offtopic: Does that mean that the luggage of people who board early is the first on the plane and thus the last to be unloaded at the destination? Seems like boarding at the last minute is a good way of ensuring that you don't have to wait long at the baggage claim.

    44. Re:Baggage Check? by realnowhereman · · Score: 1

      In that case, why is the first security measure the airports in the UK introduced to ban hand luggage? If we're worried about bombs, why does it matter whether the bomb is hand luggage or cargo?

      I know! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_theatre

      --
      Carpe Daemon
    45. Re:Baggage Check? by realnowhereman · · Score: 1

      It's been a while since chemistry class but: isn't an explosion by definition an exothermic reaction :-)

      --
      Carpe Daemon
    46. Re:Baggage Check? by gnasher719 · · Score: 2, Funny

      '' Pretty funny about the primary concern being vibration. My company had a person check their laptop on a flight a few years back, and SURPRISE it never appeared at the other end of the flight. ''

      One eBay Powerseller with more than twelve thousand happy customers was the wife of a Heathrow baggage handler.

      Took them 2 1/2 years to find out.

    47. Re:Baggage Check? by hughk · · Score: 1
      Pan Am 103 probably wouldn't have crashed under a number of alternate scenarios. Ordinarily, you may have had a bang, lost some of controls (the standby should have taken over and a hole would have appeared in the side. If the pilots had then dropped rapidly to a safe altitude, there may not have been any fatalities.

      The bomb was placed up against the forward bulkhead and the luggage container effectively gave extra tamping. There are luggage container now with pressure burst plates but I haven't seen them being used yet. The end result was when the luggage container burst, the bulkhead was blown out and the nose section was effectively split from the rest of the plane.

      The example of the TATP bomb we have seen deployed, i.e., by the shoe-bomber was just a few ounces. You would have to be very unlucky for such an explosive to cause more than a couple of fatalities. A plane doesn't suddenly burst when there is a hole in the fuselage.

      --
      See my journal, I write things there
    48. Re:Baggage Check? by dgatwood · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'd give it six months before LiPo and LiIon batteries are banned for air shipment or cargo hold carriage. In the belly of a plane, they can do a lot of damage. In the passenger compartment, it is just a fire which can be extinguished... but not with the fire extinguishers that are carried on airplanes, which is the real problem.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    49. Re:Baggage Check? by Ctrl-Z · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Sorry to burst your bubble, but it doesn't always work that way. I speak from personal experience. Something about "we already packed your baggage and it's behind everything else".

      --
      www.timcoleman.com is a total waste of your time. Never go there.
    50. Re:Baggage Check? by Gunny101 · · Score: 1

      Maybe it's a Canadian law, but I know it's a law here. My girlfriend is a flight attendant for Air Canada.

    51. Re:Baggage Check? by marytmac · · Score: 1

      Funny, how'd our bags get to Heathrow three flights before we got sent to London City then?

    52. Re:Baggage Check? by Pulzar · · Score: 1

      In that case, why is the first security measure the airports in the UK introduced to ban hand luggage? If we're worried about bombs, why does it matter whether the bomb is hand luggage or cargo?

      Because the plan was to bring in two non-explosive substances and mix them in the washroom, creating an explosive on board. Checking them in makes them harmless, since you can't get to them to mix them up...

      --
      Never underestimate the bandwidth of a 747 filled with CD-ROMs.
    53. Re:Baggage Check? by marshmeli · · Score: 1


      The terrorist strategy for trains is for high amounts of damage, and trains in North America just aren't high capacity enough for today's terrorist on the go. Plus, it's not like North America doesn't have a long and colorful history of train robberies and hijackings: Arguably, America invented rail-based terrorism and knows how to deal with it better than most countries. We've only had those running transcontinentally for ~150 years now...

      Yes, but commuter trains sure do. Like the PATH Trains, NJ Transit, LIRR, Subway, Metro-North of the NYC area. There was a plan (I believe a pretty weak one) to blow up the PATH trains, that would have destroyed the train tunnel and lots of lives lost and big damages as many commuters would not be able to go between NJ/NYC as easily. So your average Amtrak train that travels across the country may not be a good target but many the commuter trains would be and the infrastructure damages would be huge. The Northeast Corridor train line would also be a good target since it is the most heavily traveled line in the US.

    54. Re:Baggage Check? by yurnotsoeviltwin · · Score: 1

      Well, it brought down the twin towers, so that says something.

    55. Re:Baggage Check? by Dare+nMc · · Score: 1

      > Just you try it. It's actually very hard.
      forget to hit the post anonymously button? first you encourage a terrorist act, then you basically claim to have attempted said terrorist act yourself.

      I will say only limited by access to $$$, and a little patience. After all I am sure anyone who owns/has access to a private jet (how many thousands of people is that?) can get 5000 lbs of diesiel into the air tomorow. Anyone of which could also get a couple months of time at a flight simulator to do the rest. I personally would fit in with over a 1/4 of the US population in that I could get my hands on ~$250,000 for a couple months, with some creative finances... with that I think I could easily get control of a flying tank with enough boom, with that, if that was my last wish. I would guess a 10% chance of getting caught before takeoff...

      I don't think it's easy, but doable by well over half of your typical slasdot nerds. If that extream of a dedication were present.

      now no amount of screening of comercial passangers would slow the easiest attempts at a building. They could instead put a end to the middle classes vacation flying though, with a lott less cach outflow.

    56. Re:Baggage Check? by jZnat · · Score: 1

      ...it's a lot easier to fly a Boeing 767 into a building...

      Do you know how to fly a 767? Or a Boeing airplane? Or even an airplane in general? It takes far more than a couple hours to figure it out, even with proper training. Now if you've flown airplanes before, sure, you should be able to figure it out pretty quickly, but my guess is that it'd be easier to sneak in and blow yourself up than somehow jack an airplane and fly the damn thing. Even the 9/11 jackers at least had a lot of flying experience beforehand.

      --
      'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
    57. Re:Baggage Check? by jZnat · · Score: 1

      Same in the US, same in most countries. Besides being a safety problem, you'd think the person would want their baggage back if they're not going on that plane.

      --
      'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
    58. Re:Baggage Check? by jZnat · · Score: 1

      Oh, oh, is that a jab at Dell? ;p

      --
      'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
    59. Re:Baggage Check? by yakumo.unr · · Score: 1

      Havn't seen "lose change 2nd ed" have you?

      http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=71671514 89146455453&q=loose+change+2nd

      I know I'm only quoting it, but I'm pretty sure it's right. aircraft fuel doesn't burn at a high enough temperature to melt the girders used in the twin towers construction, and isn't it interesting how other similarly constructed buildings burnt for far, far longer, across more floors, without miraculously, and cleaning folding in on themselves perfectly as only otherwise seen in controlled building demolitions ?

    60. Re:Baggage Check? by jZnat · · Score: 1

      I think an endothermic reaction in this case would be an implosion. Muahaha

      --
      'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
    61. Re:Baggage Check? by Kuxman · · Score: 1

      Not true from my experience (could just be piss-poor-airline?). Multiple times my bags have beaten me to my final destination. Especially apparent when I fly out to visit my grandparents with a stop over in Mini-Haha.

      --
      http://www.asti-usa.com
    62. Re:Baggage Check? by multisync · · Score: 1
      Who needs C4?


      Indeed
      --
      I don't care why you're posting AC
    63. Re:Baggage Check? by Eccles · · Score: 1

      9/11 conspiracy theory is idiocy. You think a conspiracy could and would fake 9/11, yet they couldn't make a reasonably convincing garage-full of WMDs in occupied Iraq? Please.

      --
      Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
    64. Re:Baggage Check? by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      Do you know how to fly a 767? Or a Boeing airplane? Or even an airplane in general?

      Up is down, down is up, left and right are the same. Once in the air, is there REALLY a whole lot needed to keep the plane moving?

    65. Re:Baggage Check? by jallen02 · · Score: 1

      You conspiracy theorists don't ever give up do you?

      Never mind that "softening" the key structures of a building is more than enough to cause the building to fold up on itself. You gratify those that destroyed the twin towers every time you turn the suspicion back to our government. I will blame our government for any number of ills. In fact I am very quick to assume the government is out to get me and no longer cares about the common man. The loose change movie has been debunked so soundly you do yourself and others and intellectual disservice to even mention it with any seriousness.

      It really is amusing, though. Carry on.

      Jeremy

    66. Re:Baggage Check? by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      The problem is that in Iraq, other nations can see. We aren't the only ones with satilite imagery. Any nation could track somebody going into a 'WMD store' shortly before the US says 'Hey, we found it!' The world would then ask... who went in with all that equipment just before you?

    67. Re:Baggage Check? by lerxstz · · Score: 1

      ...and now the NSA, CIA, and FBI will all be in touch with you very shortly.

      --
      I chose to end my comments, not with a rim shot, but a long decaying F#7sus4
    68. Re:Baggage Check? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I know I'm only quoting it, but I'm pretty sure it's right. aircraft fuel doesn't burn at a high enough temperature to melt the girders used in the twin towers construction, and isn't it interesting how other similarly constructed buildings burnt for far, far longer, across more floors, without miraculously, and cleaning folding in on themselves perfectly as only otherwise seen in controlled building demolitions ?

      Well, if you can make it through that pile of crap, you have more tolerance than me. They have a thing from FEMA with the WTC listed as a target implying the US government might target it. Well, do you think that it could be that multiple attacks have been launched against it in the past? No, obviously it's because the government itself is trying to target it, and they wanted to warn everyone with their press release telling everyone that they would be targeting it later. That's good Secret Conspiracy protocol.

      I'm presuming you aren't a mechanical or civil engineer, nor are the nuts that put that video together, but I guess you've heard that hot things expand and cool things contract. And you may know that some materials, like metals, become softer with heat (like tar does) before they actually melt into a liquid. In addition, the only things burning in the towers are not just the fuel.

      I could go into the material science that explains it all, but it is useless to bother, because people that have made up their mind won't be open to the truth of some structural engineering lessons. Ok, I managed to skip into the middle and see what they were spewing, and their claims are directly in contradiction to what was captured on video. Well, I guess that the governemnt found everyone with a camera on that day (including all the people that watched the second plane strike live) and re-wrote the tapes and our memories. But I guess that it's easy for the government to use mind control. That's another thing that's on the list that the wack jobs think the government has/can/will/does do.

    69. Re:Baggage Check? by bhadreshl · · Score: 1

      An ideal solution would be to seperate people from their luggage, but the practicality of it may not be feasable.

    70. Re:Baggage Check? by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      After all I am sure anyone who owns/has access to a private jet (how many thousands of people is that?) can get 5000 lbs of diesiel into the air tomorow.

      And do what with it? Set an office building on fire?

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    71. Re:Baggage Check? by Miertam · · Score: 1

      That seems to be going to a lot of trouble to produce a bomb that might not make it through the checked baggage screening process. I predict the next rash of bombings are going to be in the terminals themselves. Right outside of the security gates where you have huge crowds of people standing in line with their shoes off. The political impact is the same, the amount of destruction is in the same general range, and you don't have to bother with trying to get to a hardened target like an airplane.

    72. Re:Baggage Check? by tilde_e · · Score: 1

      > However it happens, all the money and effort put into the illusion won't stop it.

      This reminds me of an allergic reaction, in the sense of a useless over reaction. Is the US now allergic to terrorism?

    73. Re:Baggage Check? by clarkcox3 · · Score: 1

      Let's see:

      • Since they're hijacking the plane mid-flight, the regular pilots handle the takeoff part of the flight.
      • Since they never intend to land the plane, they don't need to know how to land.

      Ignoring takeoff and landing or dealing with dangerous weather, flying any plane is pretty simple; especially when your aim is to hit a massive building.

      --
      There are no tiger attacks in my area and it's all because this rock I'm holding keeps the tigers away.
    74. Re:Baggage Check? by NastyGnat · · Score: 1

      or someone on the inside (USPO).

      I've always suspected the Patent Office was terrorising us

      I know, it's the uspto, but patents were the first thing that came to mind with the acronym

      --
      -- this space for rent --
    75. Re:Baggage Check? by Eccles · · Score: 1

      Riiiiiight. Do you know how big a country is? Do you know how satellites work? (Hint: they orbit, they do not hang over the same spot. Still pics only. "Patriot Games" was a MOVIE.) And it's not like we don't know where the satellites are, heck, you can run an app tracking them.

      Google can't even get a half-decent pic of York, PA, and you think other countries have high-res movies of every U.S. soldier.

      --
      Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
    76. Re:Baggage Check? by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      Yes, Iraq is 437,072 SQ KM. The US is 9,631,418 sq km, for comparison. There's a lot more to watch in the US, plus our government kindly tells us how far we can zoom in and still release pictures. Spy satilites can see much more, and in Iraq have to watch a MUCH smaller area. (Yes, our government DOES have sats. that can see the licence plate on your car).

      I know how satilites works; there are two I use to get a radio signal, yet they are always over the US only.. hmm..

      At any rate, the US isn't the only nation with sats. The French spy sat. might not be looking at Iraq right now, but the Russian one just might be.

  2. If a dell laptop exploded on a plane... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    would it be a terrorist attack?

    1. Re:If a dell laptop exploded on a plane... by MustardMan · · Score: 4, Funny

      So, hippies use apples... and... terroists use dells?

    2. Re:If a dell laptop exploded on a plane... by d3am0n · · Score: 1

      Wait, if they use the n-series and run linux, are they hippie terrorists?

    3. Re:If a dell laptop exploded on a plane... by falken0905 · · Score: 0

      When the aircraft goes ka boom and then ka-plop in the ocean, who will know for sure. Well, except for George Bush, of course. Fsck, anything that blows up that he doesn't like is IOTTMCO a terrorist action.

    4. Re:If a dell laptop exploded on a plane... by laffer1 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps RMS should add another clause to the GPL 3 to "prevent" that. :)

    5. Re:If a dell laptop exploded on a plane... by isorox · · Score: 1

      So, hippies use apples... and... terroists use dells?

      First season of 24, all the bad guys used Dells, all the good guys used Apples. Nina used a Dell, so it was obvious who the bad guy was.

    6. Re:If a dell laptop exploded on a plane... by acb · · Score: 1

      Doesn't Jack Bauer use a Dell?

  3. Check your laptop? by interiot · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'd rather take 10 minutes for the baggage screeners to give a laptop a "full cavity serch" than to be without a laptop on an international flight.

  4. How about as hand-luggage? by aslate · · Score: 5, Informative

    That's right, you're able to take them onboard the plane again. Baggage advice for UK passengers.

  5. by 2010... by rahrens · · Score: 4, Funny

    Only nudists will be allowed to fly!

    --
    "Money is truthful. If a man speaks of his honor, make him pay cash." Notebooks of Lazarus Long, Robert A. Heinlein
    1. Re:by 2010... by TheSystemHasFailed · · Score: 2, Funny

      Considering some of the less... attractive... physical attributes of some of the passengers, do you *really* want to suggest nude-only flights? I thought not.

    2. Re:by 2010... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...but only after they've been turned completely inside-out. Can't take any chances, you know.

    3. Re:by 2010... by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      that will cause more incidents, not fewer! I want off the plane NOW!!!

    4. Re:by 2010... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny
      Only nudists will be allowed to fly!

      Yet another reason to limit the weight of passengers.

    5. Re:by 2010... by Mir322 · · Score: 1

      You know, i'm now starting to wait for the mile high club humor to commence.

      --
      "There is always some madness in love. But there is also always some reason in madness."- Friedrich Nietzsche
    6. Re:by 2010... by lkypnk · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Parent may be moded funny but it's almost plausible. In 2010, will all passengers be required to change into airliner provided jumpsuits with no pockets to hide things and little paper slippers for footwear? No carry on luggage; sorry sir, you'll just have to risk hypoglycemia, no insulin allowed? How about a rectal search while were at it. You could probably fit enough explosive in there to take down a plane, or a ceramic knife (in some sort of container). Lots of possibilities. So how far do we take it?

    7. Re:by 2010... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hope your nudist flight doesn't have to evacuate the plane via slides!! It gets hot sliding down that rubberized canvass. On the other hand if you are ditching in the ocean in the tropics you are dressed for the occasion.

    8. Re:by 2010... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      I don't think I've EVER been on a flight without at at least a couple of decent looking girls though. Of course I've also never been on one without someone who I really don't want to see naked. It's usually a toss up which one sits next to me. Tough choice.....

    9. Re:by 2010... by rahrens · · Score: 1

      Oooooo - crashing into a cold climate would be a bummer, too! I think a cold slide wouldn't be any better than a hot one...

      --
      "Money is truthful. If a man speaks of his honor, make him pay cash." Notebooks of Lazarus Long, Robert A. Heinlein
    10. Re:by 2010... by Deliveranc3 · · Score: 1

      Solution, (Disclaimer everyone seems to hate this)

      Knock people out for the flight!

      I'm totally serious sleeping coffins and some kind of drug to knock people out, it would make flights really really cheap and safe.

      Drugs could be set up to wake you every 8 hours for food and washrooms on intercontinental flights (staggered passenger wakeups could actually negate the need for stewardesses and fewer washrooms).

      Best part, drugs controlling your wakeup time could totally destroy jet lag!

    11. Re:by 2010... by acb · · Score: 1

      Or just strap passengers into seats, plumbed into waste-evacuation systems like the ones fighter pilots have, with immersive entertainment goggles to distract them from the fact that they're basically flying prison-class.

    12. Re:by 2010... by jZnat · · Score: 1

      People probably hate the idea due to the drugs part. The airliners would get the cheapest drugs they could legally use, and you'd have much more to worry about than a terrorist attack...

      --
      'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
  6. Travelling with Electronics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Man, fucking slashvertisements. For Halliburton, no less. Why doesn't Taco come out and say he's GOP?

    1. Re:Travelling with Electronics by Graff · · Score: 1

      Bzzt, you lose. It's a totally different corporation. ZERO Halliburton is part of Zero Corperation which has nothing to do with the Halliburton of Vice President Dick Cheney fame.

    2. Re:Travelling with Electronics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gee. I seem to remember that the Halliburton briefcase was designed by an oil exec who wanted a really rugged case for travelling. Heck of a coicidence, huh? (Perhaps another legal entity, i.e. corporation, though.)

    3. Re:Travelling with Electronics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bzzt, you lose. It's a totally different corporation. ZERO Halliburton is part of Zero Corperation which has nothing to do with the Halliburton of Vice President Dick Cheney fame.

      I wouldn't say "nothing." Haliburton's founder (Earl Halliburton) developed the impervious case for his own needs; his business being exploration and drilling for oil I think you can see the reasoning there. The Halliburton corporation sold the manufacturing rights to the Zero corporation about 15 years ago.

    4. Re:Travelling with Electronics by Graff · · Score: 1

      Of course I meant that the two corporations are completely separate entities. Even if the case was developed by Earl Halliburton and thus has his name associated with that model of case that doesn't mean that the Zero Corporation has anything to do with the Dubai Ports situation.

      Obviously the original poster who mentioned this just has an axe to grind and will stop at nothing to make a point.

      It's like someone saying "Hitler lived on Earth and George Bush lives on Earth! George Bush must be evil!" That statement may turn out to be true or it might be false, but the statement itself is a fallacy.

  7. Laptop flight by ralph1 · · Score: 0

    fedex it and insure. twice as much baggage now so less care taken.

    1. Re:Laptop flight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FedEx.... hahahaha...laptop....hahahaha.....insure....hahaha ...you guys kill me.
      What do you mean you weren't kidding?

  8. The ban has already been lifted. by Kristoph · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Although the article propably still has some merit the actual ban on laptops has now been lifted in the UK.

    http://www.fcw.com/article95659-08-14-06-Web

    ]{

  9. Screw laptops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Why travel with a laptop? A high-end PDA is cheaper, smaller, more robust and has a better battery life. Even with a fold-up keyboard, you can safely stow it in your checked luggage and not lose any sleep over cracked screens or damaged hard drives. The PDAs support high-capacity flash cards, so you can carry a LOT of information with you.

    Have a presentation to make when you arrive at your destination? Slap it on a USB flash key or DVD/CD, and off you go. I'm sure the place where you're going will have a computer available for the presentation. Programming an piece of equipment using your laptop? Even the old Handsprings had attachments for different interfaces.

    So leave the laptop at home and save yourself some headaches.

    1. Re:Screw laptops by Kristoph · · Score: 1

      Well, umm, what about WoW?

      And before you say business people don't play games I would like to point out that I am, in fact, a business person (in the general definition of that term). We don't spend our free time looking at spreadsheets you know ;-)

      ]{

    2. Re:Screw laptops by heptapod · · Score: 1

      You can't play NetHack on a PDA.

    3. Re:Screw laptops by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      for most traveling people their notebook is their office. They hit VPN at least 3 times a day to check email back at the office... silly poster, just because you're "out of the office" doesn't mean people don't expect you to handle things back home.. that's so 90's. That said, the other reason is that laptops don't leave your sight!! Even if I don't turn the thing on, I'm not trusting it to unknown baggage handlers. If it gets damaged in traveling, I'll do it myself thank you!

    4. Re:Screw laptops by theredmenace · · Score: 1

      ...because I am a college student who can't afford a PDA and a laptop. This is where the "it's better than that time I was so bored I did the crossword on the back of the World Weekly News since I couldn't sleep because I had a center seat and was sandwiched between two creeps on a trans-Atlantic flight" principle kicks in.

    5. Re:Screw laptops by one_red_eye · · Score: 1

      $600 worth of PDA accessories or a $300 notebook?

    6. Re:Screw laptops by TheDugong · · Score: 1

      So bored? So bored? You don't know what bored is! When I were a lad, during t'cold war, we lived in PNG. To fly there from London we 'ad to fly London -> Abu Dhabi/Bahrain -> Singapore/Hong Kong (-> Brisbane maybe) -> Port Moresby. This took 28-36 hours a day - and thats if there were no you-can-leave-the-terminal type stop overs. No "12 hour, oh I don't 'ave me laptop" flights for us! "What's a laptop?" we would say! And them were the days when you 'ad to pay for t'head phones too, which were no more 'an two plastic tubes. We 'ad to quickly unplug our brother's 'eadphones an' blow up the plug before 'e 'ad time to take 'em from 'is ears for entertainment.

    7. Re:Screw laptops by zlogic · · Score: 1

      Well, in my university computers are really crappy (celeron-1500 with 256 megs of RAM and 20Gb HDDs) and have horrible mechanical mice. And bringing your own keyboard & mouse (as well as installing any software) is forbidden. And most tasks performed on these machines need lots of RAM and CPU power, so bringing my own laptop is the only option.
      And you can't seriously take a PDA to Starbucks and do some debugging while drinking your favorite coffee, because of the tiny screen, no full-size keyboard and the embedded OS.

    8. Re:Screw laptops by clickclickdrone · · Score: 1

      >You can't play NetHack on a PDA.
      I play it all the time on my Psion 5 PDA. Well, not *all* the time, I do eat, sleep, talk to the family, work etc. too.

      --
      I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
    9. Re:Screw laptops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess if your work revolves around powerpoint and solitaire that'll do, but some of us have expensive applications that don't work on a PDA and cannot be easily moved from one computer to another.

    10. Re:Screw laptops by GotenXiao · · Score: 1

      It's hard to do web development on a PDA. It's also hard to write a presentation on a PDA. It's impossible to be paying Unreal Tournament 2004 on a PDA.

      PDAs are good, sure; but a laptop is far more flexible, far more powerful and can do far more than a PDA. You can get far more done in 7-8 hours on a flight with a laptop than with a PDA.

      --
      Goten Xiao
  10. No Laptop - No Fly by sauge · · Score: 1, Troll

    That said, I haven't flown since 2001. Just to much nonsense to go through. I haven't missed flying yet either.

    1. Re:No Laptop - No Fly by Danga · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So if you wanted to make the trip between say Chicago and Amsterdam how exactly would you go about it besides flying and do so in a timely matter? You might be happy never seeing anywhere but the continent you live on but most people don't have your same mindset.

      --
      Hey, there is only one Return and it's not of the King, it's of the Jedi.
    2. Re:No Laptop - No Fly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's where you're wrong. The average american has no interest in leaving their continent, or even their state in a lot of cases.. there's nothing outside of the US that's of any value..

    3. Re:No Laptop - No Fly by theLOUDroom · · Score: 1

      So if you wanted to make the trip between say Chicago and Amsterdam how exactly would you go about it besides flying and do so in a timely matter?

      And why do you have to get there inside a day?

      I think I'd rather take a cruise ship and have lots of drinks than take a plane and not be allowed any.

      --
      Life is too short to proofread.
    4. Re:No Laptop - No Fly by Skater · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure what the security restrictions are where you are, but in the US the only restrictions for drinks are that you can't take them through security and you can't board the plane with one - but the airline can give you a drink once you're on board (as happened to me Tuesday) and you can buy a drink from the vendors behind security as long as you finish it before boarding (as I did yesterday).

      Besides - what company is going to give you 2 or 3 extra days at each end of the trip so you can take a cruise instead of flying? My employer would also check the cost of the cruise versus the airline and you'd take whichever is more advantageous to them - almost certainly the airline.

    5. Re:No Laptop - No Fly by jZnat · · Score: 1

      Don't forget that if you're on a non-American airline (e.g. Lufthansa), you'll be offered far more liquer than you can probably handle. Well, they do offer rum and coke, wine, beer, and other non-liquers, but my point still stands: you can get piss-drunk on an airplane if you wish.

      --
      'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
    6. Re:No Laptop - No Fly by Danga · · Score: 1

      And why do you have to get there inside a day?

      Maybe because I want to spend the maximum time possible in the country I would like to visit and I don't have unlimited amounts of vacation days? Crossing the Atlantic takes around a week, that is a whole week that could be spent seeing and experiencing new sights, cultures, and food. I think the vast majority of people would agree that a week is much to long to spend travelling to the place you want your primary vacation to be at, not to mention that would be a whole week of nothing to see but the ship (after about the 2nd day the ship is boring). It also is much cheaper to fly so more money can be spent in the country the vacation is in.

      I think I'd rather take a cruise ship and have lots of drinks than take a plane and not be allowed any.

      Every plane I have ever flown on served drinks so that is not an issue. Sure you can't get obnoxious and out of control drunk but they always served me enough to make me happy and never have cut me off. Cruise ships are also expensive (the transatlantic cruises I could find from the US to Europe ranged from $3,000-10,000 and take a long time to get to their destination). Sure, it would be interesting to go on one of those cruises but I would rather spend a week or two travelling all over Europe rather then spend the majority of my time crossing the Atlantic with nothing to see but the ship (even on the Caribbean cruises I have been on that stopped almost daily at new islands I got sick of being on the ship). I guess if you don't have to worry about vacation days and are rich your way may be feasable but to most people it is not.

      --
      Hey, there is only one Return and it's not of the King, it's of the Jedi.
    7. Re:No Laptop - No Fly by Jerf · · Score: 1

      Along with the other problems mentioned by repliers, there's the problem that if we all retreat to boat-based transportation, the terrorists will do the same with boat-based transportation as they did to planes.

      Both sides of the situation react. Terrorists aren't stuck on "attacking planes", they are attacking society. And if it seems to you like society is "overreacting", that's because it's going to keep stepping up the pressure on the terrorists until they go away. (Mind you, I'm not saying the pressure chosen will be "right" or "effective", just that it will increase as long as the terrorists stimulate it.) You can't react by, for example, moving to boat-based transportation and think you've solved the problem, because there will be second-order effects, such as terrorists attacking boats.

      In fact, boats are a lot easier to attack; remember the USS Cole? The equivalent attack on a military plane is certainly possible but much harder. Getting "a missle" is much harder than getting "a boat and some explosives".

  11. Not so chic, but equality protective by dgerman · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Pelican Cases have a good reputation, but they don't look as chick as the Halliburton. LowePro also makes some hard cases for cameras, but they don't take a computer (yet, I am sure it will very soon); they are a hardcase and a matching bag inside it.

    The reality is that you don't want attention on your bag, as it might be stolen. I just recommended a person
    to take the Styrofoam that came with the laptop to get to Heathrow. At least the laptop arrived in a working
    condition.

    I think the optimal solution is to find something that looks like regular luggage. Perhaps buying a cheap, beaten up luggage bag (garage sale?) to put the computer inside. Use duct tape and dirt for extra effect, and geek chicness.

    1. Re:Not so chic, but equality protective by ScentCone · · Score: 3, Funny

      I recall reading about a guy who put all of his gear in a strap-locked Coleman cooler labeled with stickers saying "Orangutan Fecal Samples." Problem solved.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    2. Re:Not so chic, but equality protective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget to throw in a primed Claymore.
      To prevent theft, you know.

    3. Re:Not so chic, but equality protective by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      and when the xray of the fecal samples shows dark spots and electronics the whole cooler is sent to the bomb squad for a "controlled detonation" using a small charge

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    4. Re:Not so chic, but equality protective by ScentCone · · Score: 2, Insightful

      and when the xray of the fecal samples shows dark spots and electronics the whole cooler is sent to the bomb squad for a "controlled detonation" using a small charge

      I think that tip was aimed more at not having stuff ripped off from your vehicle, etc., now that I think about it. Honestly, I think I were to travel far with my camera gear, I'd probably put it all in a Pelican and FedEx it ahead of myself. I just don't trust the checked baggage these days. Not because of the handling (those cases are tough) but because of the theft risk.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    5. Re:Not so chic, but equality protective by Auntie+Virus · · Score: 1

      "Pelican. Our designs scream 'Steal me!'"

      --
      Why yes, I *AM* new here. Why?
    6. Re:Not so chic, but equality protective by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      Pelican Cases have a good reputation,


      Indeed they do. My cave-diving friends are reasonably evenly split between moving their demand valves through the caves using Pelican cases, or ex-army ammunition cases (covered in airport-friendly "Explosives - Danger!!" stickers), or just carrying them in their own hands as much as possible. [Hint - if your demand valves fail in a dive, you die. This encourages care in their transport.) The cave photographers have a similar opinion of the merits of Peli-cases and bomb boxes.

      If you do have Pelican cases that are used for caving work, you don't need to worry about baggage handlers thinking that they're full of posh, expensive equipment. You're more likely to get complaints from the people in the queue with you about all the mud and scratches on your case damaging theirs.
      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  12. If the ban persisted, business would suffer by rufusdufus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The ban was lifted already. As it had to be. Business travellers routinely carry laptop computers with confidential client information on them, they would be negligent if they checked them into the current baggage handling system. Forget about the laptop being damaged since it is possible to package it safely, but the possibility of lost client data would be too high of a risk.
    While a permanent laptop ban would have a serious impact on certain types of businesses and travellers, it would have an even more serious impact on the airlines when their primary client base was forced to use charter aircraft.

    1. Re:If the ban persisted, business would suffer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If your laptop contains unencrypted confidential data then you're already being negligent.

    2. Re:If the ban persisted, business would suffer by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1
      As it had to be. Business travellers routinely carry laptop computers with confidential client information on them, they would be negligent if they checked them into the current baggage handling system.

      ...and then most of them leave it in their rental car or unattended in a 3rd party meeting room when they head out for lunch. Later, they leave it in their hotel room while they go out for dinner and drinks.

      To not be negligent, they really need to keep any sensitive data in a laptop encrypted.

    3. Re:If the ban persisted, business would suffer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Business travellers routinely carry laptop computers with confidential client information on them, they would be negligent if they checked them into the current baggage handling system.
      Nonsense. If the confidential client information was not cryptographically secure, they are already negligent by putting it on a laptop and carrying it in public.
    4. Re:If the ban persisted, business would suffer by Greyfox · · Score: 1
      They would also be negligent if they didn't encrypt their hard drives but that's never stopped them before.

      The airlines know they can't ban laptops on flights because that would pretty much dry up the business travellers that have been their bread and butter since the dawn of commercial air travel. Although it WOULD render jets a rather unenticing target for terrorists -- doesn't make much sense to blow up a plane when you're the only guys on it.

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    5. Re:If the ban persisted, business would suffer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      the possibility of lost client data would be too high of a risk.

      Please delete as appropriate:

      1. I'm new here

      2. I'm not an American

      3. I do not have an MBA

      4. I believe in Sanity Clause

    6. Re:If the ban persisted, business would suffer by cortana · · Score: 1

      If you rely on the encryption as the only security measure then you also are being negligent.

    7. Re:If the ban persisted, business would suffer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >If your laptop contains unencrypted confidential data then you're already being negligent.

      Yes, but this ban is (was) in the UK. And in the UK, the authorities are permitted to force you to unencrypt and make public anything they see fit. Which makes encryption a little pointless for companies, considering I doubt their employees are willing to undergo jail time to keep trade secrets.

  13. I am not opposed by the new regulations at all! by eebra82 · · Score: 1, Funny

    "Jenn... Uhh Mam, please remove your bra for further security inspection. Yes, you can stand over there next to the.. Uhh.. X-ray camera."

    1. Re:I am not opposed by the new regulations at all! by sasdrtx · · Score: 1
      From the horse's mouth (TSA: Permitted and Prohibited Items):

      Can I Take It?

      Due to enhanced security measures liquids, gels, lotions and other items of similar consistency will not be permitted in carry-on baggage. These types of items must be packed in your checked baggage.

      Additionally, liquids, gels and lotions purchased beyond the checkpoint but must be disposed of before boarding the aircraft.

      To ensure the health and welfare of certain air travelers the following items are permitted.
      • Small amounts of Baby formula and breast milk if a baby or small child is traveling
      • Liquid prescription medicine with a name that matches the passenger's ticket
      • Up to 5 oz. (148ml) of liquid or gel low blood sugar treatment
      • Up to 4 oz. of essential non-prescription liquid medications
      • Gel-filled bras and similar prostethics worn for medical reasons


      TSA ... VIGILANT, EFFECTIVE, EFFICIENT.

      I dunno... sounds like implants will have to be removed, checked, and re-inserted at your destination.

      ANFSCD, How about that tag line?
      --
      Most people don't even think inside the box.
  14. Long Lines by dduardo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    People should be more concerned about the long lines being created by all the security. There is nothing stopping terrorists from taking out all the people standing around waiting to get through security. High concentration of people in one area == prime oportunity.

    1. Re:Long Lines by Drakin020 · · Score: 0

      Nah you see because of thoes long lines you will miss your flight...then when ol' 747 explodes on take off your gana think..."Damn im glad for airport security....if they were any faster i would have been on that flight!"

      --
      The greatest revenge in life is massive success.
    2. Re:Long Lines by rufusdufus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is how we know that that 'terrorusts' don't want to 'kill amerkuns'. If killing was their primary goal, they could start blowing up any sort of public event that have no security like concerts, movies, town meetings, carnivals, or krispy kreme openings.
      The goal is to blow up symbols to inspire fear in the populace by use of mass media. There have been bombs set in discos and the past, but those didn't effect public behavior much at all, people kept on dancin.

    3. Re:Long Lines by voice_of_all_reason · · Score: 1

      People should be completely unconcerned because the chance of dying from a terrorist attack is insignificant

      Fixed.

    4. Re:Long Lines by evilviper · · Score: 2, Informative
      There is nothing stopping terrorists from taking out all the people standing around waiting to get through security.

      "nothing" == "The Laws of Physics"

      Small ammounts of exploives are of great concern only in confined spaces (being pressurized helps, too). In a nice wide open space, as in airport terminals, much of the force of the blast will go upwards and outwards torwards the ceiling, and be harmlessly dissapated over that distance.

      To harm numbers of people in open spaces, you need serious ammounts of explosives. Suicide bombers who detonate a themselves in crowded shopping malls in Israel, more often than not, only kill a couple people. They have much better odds in more confined areas, such as inside buses, trains, and certainly airplanes.

      You should really be FAR more concerned about crowded places, which don't have the numbers of security personelle that airports have. Crowded public places, like the DMV or post office, are far more likely targets.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    5. Re:Long Lines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very true. However, you get more 'bang for your buck' if you detonate in midair. You get everyone on the plane, you might torch off the fuel, and you get a immense projectile to hit the earth, quite probably killing whoever's on the ground where it hits. Also, it's less expensive to fix the airport than it is to build another plane.

    6. Re:Long Lines by Duhavid · · Score: 1

      Na.

      What you really need is that stewardess that says

      "Room for one more, Honey" as you are getting on
      the plane.

      Then you can know, and run screaming from the plane.

      --
      emt 377 emt 4
    7. Re:Long Lines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And why aren't you afraid? Do you like dead children?

    8. Re:Long Lines by DataCannibal · · Score: 1

      Then surely football (soccer) matches would be an ideal target.Over 60,000 people inside Old Trafford during a match. But that would be almost too easy. The whole point about the aircraft is that it makes a big flash and bang and is seen on news channels all over the world and you have to be "cleverer" in beating the security that is in place. I would imagine an aircraft also represents in some way Western technological supiriority. Bin Laden's wet dream is probably to blow up the space shuttle.

      --
      No but, yeah but, no but...
    9. Re:Long Lines by the_womble · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Their primary aim is to manipulate the media - and of course the media happily play along.

      Terrorism gets media attention far out of proportion to its real impact - the number of people terrorist kill is far fewer than cars kill.

      The best thing to do is to ignore terrorism.

    10. Re:Long Lines by Deliveranc3 · · Score: 1

      World Trade Centre = Centre of imperialist American commerce (Think world bank but without the illusion of humanitarianism, this is the place where child labour comes from).

      Pentagon = Centre of American military system.

      If those are your symbols then you've got some pretty serious problems.

  15. Oh really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting
    1. Re:Oh really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed. It's exactly what I've done on the last several flights I've taken

  16. Carry-On or Not At All by ewhac · · Score: 5, Insightful
    "I refuse to participate in your shared hallucination." -- Dilbert

    Fortunately I don't travel by air very often. And, as has been pointed out by others, the laptop ban has been lifted (wealthier, more powerful people than I have likely already informed the appropriate scaremongers what a losing proposition this was). Even so, there's no way I'm putting a laptop through checked baggage. Luggage gets lost. Luggage gets tossed around very roughly. And items are known to go "missing" from luggage.

    No. Not my laptop. It stays with me, or it stays home.

    Schwab

    1. Re:Carry-On or Not At All by Viper+Daimao · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yeah, why take it? Just have your assistant send you an internet. It make take a while for it to get through the tubes, but it is safer than giving up your laptop.

      --
      "In the game of life, someone always has to lose. To me, if life were fair, that someone would always be Oklahoma." -DKR
    2. Re:Carry-On or Not At All by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 1

      I agree... especially since many times security will no longer allow you to lock your luggage so that it can be searched after you check it in (if need be). Because of this I am way more concerned about theives. It is not uncommon to hear about something being stolen by unscrupulous baggage handlers. A laptop is a prime target. On the other hand, if they ban laptop from carry on again, and for say, a few months... well by that time, all the unscrupulous baggage handlers will already have good laptops...

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    3. Re:Carry-On or Not At All by grcumb · · Score: 4, Insightful
      '"I refuse to participate in your shared hallucination." -- Dilbert'

      Wise words. I wish more people would live by them

      I would find this whole airport security thing rather amusing, if it weren't such a pain in the tuckus. I think Bruce Schneier summed it up rather nicely in his latest Crypto-gram when he characterised all these draconian restrictions as 'Security Theatre' - something that looks like security to those who don't know any better, but ultimately has no real effect.

      He also points out that if we're to learn anything from this event, it's that classical police/intelligence operations work. Authorities knew about the would-be bombers well in advance, they learned as much as they could about the cell, then shut it down before it could do damage. Biometric IDs, airport baggage checks, no-fly lists and other kinds of security theatre contributed nothing whatsoever to the outcome.

      --
      Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
    4. Re:Carry-On or Not At All by timeOday · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I would find this whole airport security thing rather amusing, if it weren't such a pain in the tuckus. I think Bruce Schneier summed it up rather nicely in his latest Crypto-gram [schneier.com] when he characterised all these draconian restrictions as 'Security Theatre' - something that looks like security to those who don't know any better, but ultimately has no real effect.
      I tend to agree. Blocking off one small avenue of attack doesn't really do much to improve security when there are so many possible ways to kill people. And yet, I don't think public officials have any other choice. If terrorists were to launch some creative new attack tomorrow, everybody would say "wow, those terrorists never stop dreaming up ways to kill us," and would be understanding. But if they were now to hit us with bombs made from mixed liquids, even after we knew they were trying to do just that, can you imagine the outcry?
    5. Re:Carry-On or Not At All by bdo19 · · Score: 1
      Luggage gets lost. Luggage gets tossed around very roughly. And items are known to go "missing" from luggage.


      And items have been known to get stolen in airport terminals. Or set down. Or dropped. Or have coffee spilled on them while in-use on the plane. All while in the possession of their owner.

      I'm not saying you're better off checking your laptop. But there are risks either way. You are not eliminating risk by keeping it with you. If you can't afford the risk, leave it at home.
    6. Re:Carry-On or Not At All by faffod · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Also, even if there is a mixed liquid attact that succeeded because of some crafty new way of smuggling the liquids on board - the officials can point to the "security" measures and say "See we did everything we could". This is similar to some managers that I've had who forced mandatory overtime. We all knew that the project would slip, but with the mandatory over time he could tell his boss that "well we tried everything". Never mind that we were so fried from the death march that our productivity was les than 50%. The apperance of doing something is what is needed to placate the boss [unwashed voting masses]

    7. Re:Carry-On or Not At All by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      Well duh, you always have risk. The whole point is that my laptop is safer with me than in the cargo hold. No laptop/carryon = no flying for me. Business travellers are different - they'd kill the airline industry if this ban was made permanent.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    8. Re:Carry-On or Not At All by SoulRider · · Score: 1

      Biometric IDs, airport baggage checks, no-fly lists and other kinds of security theatre contributed nothing whatsoever to the outcome.

      Those are in place only to constantly remind us that we are at war and should be afraid.

      Kennedy was spot on when he said: "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."

    9. Re:Carry-On or Not At All by sgtrock · · Score: 1

      He was quoting FDR. :)

    10. Re:Carry-On or Not At All by SoulRider · · Score: 1

      Doh! I was just reading something about Kennedy before posting, got my presidents mixed up :0

    11. Re:Carry-On or Not At All by Hap76 · · Score: 1

      Gavin de Becker said it best: Bad security fools everyone but the bad guys.

    12. Re:Carry-On or Not At All by garwain · · Score: 1
      Luggage gets tossed around very roughly
      That's an understatement. Last time I flew somewhere, I was just behind the wing, so I could watch the loading process... One guy in the cart tossing the bags to the guy on the ground who would slam them onto a conveyor... At that point I was very worried about the cans of Maple Syrup in my luggage, and quite relieved that my laptop was in a soft case, under the next seat with my camera, and a good book.

      If I can't carry the important, expensive, hard to replace stuff with me, then I'll find a different way to travel. Clothing and toiletry supplies, I really don't care. If my luggage gets lost/stolen/destroyed somehow, I can easily replace everything I really need for under $100 at walmart.I wear my suit, and pack casual clothes, so all I'd really have to replace are undergarments, shirts and a pair of jeans for casual wear if I have any free time on the trip. Then there's a razor, shaving cream, aftershave, toothbrush and toothpaste, and a backsack to carry the extras home... If someone wants to steal my dirty clothes on the return trip, the can enjoy them...

  17. My laptop has liquid fuel cells... by crazyjeremy · · Score: 1

    My laptop has liquid fuel cells... I guess now I can't take it on the plane...

    1. Re:My laptop has liquid fuel cells... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then why not just ride it across country?

  18. Physical damage by Saxophonist · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There's no way I would check a laptop due to the potential for physical damage. I've never tried that, but I had the experience almost a decade ago of sitting on an airplane in Atlanta on the return trip from a music tour to Europe. We had to check larger instruments (including my saxophone) given the amount of other stuff we needed. The baggage handlers were doing things like opening cases and playing instruments while we watched, in horror, out the window. Of course, they were not particularly careful in handling the luggage either, and nearly everyone had damage to get repaired when we made it home. I was lucky enough to escape with only a $30 repair for a bent key rod. Most laptops anymore are fairly rugged, but even if reasonably well-packed (knowing good and well that you'll probably have to unpack your bag for security screening), I cannot see most laptops surviving that kind of handling.

    1. Re:Physical damage by nbauman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yeah, I stopped off in Atlanta too and I was watching the baggage handlers through the picture window in the passenger lounge -- in horror.

      They had these big wheeled carts to carry the baggage to the planes, and the baggage was stacked on 2 levels of the cart. I saw the baggage handler stand on top of the cart, and throw a bag down to the concrete tarmack, a drop that I estimated at 10 feet (physics majors, get out your slide rules).

      Of course I wouldn't check my laptop, but I had gotten these really neat plastic carrying cases in Singapore that all the high school kids use to carry their books. They were just right for carrying my laptop accessories. They were pretty sturdy but no match for the baggage handler. When I unpacked they were broken, and I couldn't even fix them with duct tape. And I couldn't find them in the U.S.

      My friend stopped traveling by air because they were hassling her about her flute (she likes to play in her hotel at night). You've seen Mozart's Zauberflute -- they just start playing their magic flute, and silver bells, and take over the plane.

    2. Re:Physical damage by Saxophonist · · Score: 1
      My friend stopped traveling by air because they were hassling her about her flute (she likes to play in her hotel at night).

      Her flute? You couldn't ask for an instrument easier to inspect or to fit into an overhead compartment or under a seat (neither of which might be ideal anyway -- turbulence, etc.). She didn't seriously have to check the thing, did she?

      Common sense on the part of baggage screeners might be a good thing...

    3. Re:Physical damage by Auntie+Virus · · Score: 2, Funny

      ,i."Atlanta on the return trip from a music tour to Europe. We had to check larger instruments (including my saxophone)" And one time, coming back from band camp, my trumpet smelled really funny....

      --
      Why yes, I *AM* new here. Why?
  19. Ship it ahead by gooman · · Score: 4, Informative

    I used to do a lot of travel for work, lugging product samples all over the world.
    I always travel with carry-on only. Since 9-11, I won't even bother trying to bring samples.
    The airport experience is simply the worst part of traveling.

    Pick a carrier any carrier (UPS, FedEX, DHL, etc.) and ship what you need to your hotel.
    As long as you pack it well (and insure it, of course) it will be waiting for you in your room when you arrive.
    Trust me, it seems like a lot of extra trouble at first, but its worth it.

    --
    "Kittens give Morbo gas!"
    1. Re:Ship it ahead by theLOUDroom · · Score: 1

      As long as you pack it well (and insure it, of course) it will be waiting for you in your room when you arrive.

      Of course it may be there in many, many more pices than when you last saw it.....


      --
      Life is too short to proofread.
  20. Would the airline insurance cover it? by origamy · · Score: 1
    Once I was asked to check my hand luggage. I told them I had a laptop and they said it was OK. I then asked for written proof that they would be responsible for the laptop in case something happened. They refused to give me one, so I told them I was not checking it.

    Taking a look at United's "Damaged baggage" information:

    For international travels, including the domestic portions, subject to the Warsaw Convention, the liability limit for delay, damage or loss is approximately $9.07 per pound ($20.00 per kg) for checked baggage and approximately $400 per passenger for unchecked baggage.
    United is not liable for damage to fragile items, spoilage of perishables, loss/damage/delay of money, jewelry, cameras, electronic/video/photographic equipment, computer equipment, heirlooms, antiques, artwork, silverware, precious metals, negotiable papers/securities, commercial effects, valuable papers, or other irreplaceable items and/or any item where a liability release was signed by the passenger.

    If that's the case, then a laptop would not be covered by their insurance, so I think they're in trouble asking people to check it in.

    1. Re:Would the airline insurance cover it? by mikael · · Score: 1

      Ryanair are the same - no airline is going to accept any liability on electronic products like iPods, laptops and cameras because they know people would just use them as a cash cow to get upgraded hardware.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    2. Re:Would the airline insurance cover it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why don't you just leave your laptop at home when traveling? If you can't go without a computer while you're traveling then that is pretty sad. WoW addiction? Go find an Internet cafe to check your e-mail.

    3. Re:Would the airline insurance cover it? by bwy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      no airline is going to accept any liability on electronic products like iPods, laptops and cameras because they know people would just use them as a cash cow to get upgraded hardware.

      No airline is going to accept any liability on electronic products like iPods, laptops and cameras because they know they do not handle baggage carefully and it would cost them a fortune.

    4. Re:Would the airline insurance cover it? by bwy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Once in Honolulu a plane full of passengers at the gate (including myself) watched an entire cart full of luggage sit through one of the worst rain storms I have ever seen. A couple of workers were watching it. You might think that it would be a minor problem solved by drying your clothes out when you got to your hotel. Not true. Everything was ruined. Books, smaller electronics that had been packed, and even our clothes. We had a couple of red garmets that hadn't be washed and they soaked our clothes with red dye.

      The airline didn't give a shit and wouldn't help us- they said TSA handles all baggage problems now. Well, you can imagine how well TSA (a government agency) handles this. It is just like if something breaks while a professional mover is moving your stuff. On paper you are covered, but in reality they make it so incredibly difficult to file a claim and prove damage that it realistically isn't even possible.

    5. Re:Would the airline insurance cover it? by mikael · · Score: 1

      That is true - I had to travel from a French airport to England. Due to a security alert, the check-in staff insisted that I had to check in my laptop (inside a neoprene laptop bag) as hold luggage. Nothing external was damaged, but the fluorescent tube inside the LCD screen had been cracked. Cost me around 100 pounds to get it repaired, and even then the repair didn't last long.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    6. Re:Would the airline insurance cover it? by ShapeGSX · · Score: 1

      What if you are travelling on business? Not every flight is a vacation. I bring my laptop on vacations so we can load the pictures that we take onto it and free up the memory cards for the next day. It is also nice to view the pictures in the hotel after a day of fun.

    7. Re:Would the airline insurance cover it? by Ullteppe · · Score: 1

      What I don't understand is why people don't buy hardcase luggage these days. Soft luggage is OK for carry-on, but for checked luggage, you need something that can withstand a forklift (I've seen a bag impaled on a forklift). If you have the dough, aluminium luggage would be the way to go... Still, high-impact plastic hardcase luggage is pretty damn robust, and doesn't really weigh that much either.

    8. Re:Would the airline insurance cover it? by Ullteppe · · Score: 1

      And, of course it keeps the rain out (if you get hardcase luggage with rubber sealing around the edges)

  21. 10 minutes * 60 passengers by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Please arrive at your gate 10 hours early so that our one certified laptop cavity searcher can accomodate everyone...

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
  22. Air pressure by mnemonic_ · · Score: 1

    It'd be more robust to trigger a bomb using the air pressure drop in the cargo hold. The cabin and cargo hold of course are pressurized at significantly less than 1 atm. Fill up pen ink cartridges with hypergolic chemicals, let them burst at altitude and you've got your fuse. No suspicious electronics necessary.

  23. Otterbox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Otterbox makes a rugged laptop case as well: http://www.otterbox.com/products/pc_cases/laptop_c ase/index.htm

    Ive used their products before to store documents (passport, wallet, etc) while snorkling - they are completely waterproof and usually float.

  24. Not worried about damage, but theft... by Hamster+Lover · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I fly quite a bit in Canada and would never check my laptop, iPod, digital camera or anything else valuable as I would be afraid of theft more than damage. I've never had a theft, but I have heard horror stories from people, mainly international travelers, that have returned home only to find a video camera, liquor, jewelery or some other item stolen from checked luggage.

    I do have a friend that works on the ramp, as it's called, stowing and retrieving bags from aircraft. He told me that theft isn't a problem domestically because they're watched so carefully with video cameras and security, but most importantly they just don't have the time or opportunity to pull someone's bag aside and rifle through it. He said international flights are a different story as bags are checked hours before the flight actually leaves, but he still doesn't think it's a big problem. I won't take my chances though and will continue to carry my digital/video camera and laptop onboard.

    1. Re:Not worried about damage, but theft... by abscissa · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yup, you should be modded up.

      I had a Palm Tunsgten PDA and an Apple iBook (old G3 blueberry model) stolen out of my luggage at La Guardia. Only reason I put it in there was because it was broken. I had also just bought a new iPod (thanksfully I carried it with me) but the stupid fucks stole all the iPod cables and dock, which I'm sure were worthless to them.

      At the end of the day I was out the Palm PDA and the iPod stuff, and the laptop was probably worth something. Then of course, the airline folded. I suspect the only reason I lost the PDA was because the (broken) laptop was in there so the thieves decided to look harder, and of course stole the iPod power cables...

      DO NOT, I repeat DO NOT, EVER put anything of any value in your luggage!!

    2. Re:Not worried about damage, but theft... by guyo26 · · Score: 1

      I fly in the US an average of once every week or so. Monday I flew to Canada for a presentation, Boston to Toronto to Edmonton. Got to Edmonton, my glasses (!?) and 2 packs of cigarettes were stolen from my checked luggage (presumably my slashdot shirt wasn't as appealing as prescription glasses that would be useless to those theiving bastards).

      I suppose it's possible that the items were stolen in Boston, but I've never, ever had an item lost/stolen in a US only airport or flight and based on the price of cigarettes in Canada I'm sure it happened there.

      I guess if I start using baking soda to brush my teeth I won't have to check my bag, but I prefer Crest thanks very much. It was nice not having to watch people take 20 minutes to realize that their 4'x6' rollerbag won't fit in overhead though.

    3. Re:Not worried about damage, but theft... by b1t+r0t · · Score: 1

      Okay, here's a crazy idea. If they're stealing things OUT of luggage, how about using your laptop's locking cable (not the kind with the worthless round-key locks) to lock the laptop to the actual luggage itself? That would at least make them have to put more effort into stealing your stuff. And since it's only locking it TO the baggage, there is no need for a "TSA Approved" lock, because you're not blocking access to inspect the luggage.

      For smaller items like PDAs, get a small cable lock designed to have a long cable strung through it.

      Of course the best thing is to simply not check such baggage (duh), but if you have to check something, this could help.

      --

      --
      "Open source is good." - Steve Jobs
      "Open source is evil." - Microsoft
    4. Re:Not worried about damage, but theft... by fishbowl · · Score: 3, Interesting


      >DO NOT, I repeat DO NOT, EVER put anything of any value in your luggage!!

      If you can prove that you own it, and you can prove the purchase price, there is a straightforward way to
      get direct compensation for losses due to airport security. It works, I've done it. In fact, it works surprisingly well, because it falls in the category of "allowing a functionary to perform his function."

      There is a form -- I'm sorry, but my copy is deep in the piles of papers on my desk -- which the TSA manager will give you. You fill it out with the description of your damaged or lost items, essentially swearing that you lost it. You provide the proof of its value, and the proof that you owned it (the only hard part). You mail it to DC. About the time you decide to give up on it, a check arrives from the US Treasury in the amount you claimed. Surprised the hell out of me, but the US Government paid for a belt (the buckle got broken on the conveyor belt) and paid the repair costs for my laptop screen, no questions asked (except for the questions on the form).

      Never just walk away from a claim against the TSA. They will compensate you for your losses. Don't confront the people at the airport, just do the paperwork and be quietly paid off by the bureaucrats in DC.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    5. Re:Not worried about damage, but theft... by 14CharUsername · · Score: 1

      Likely it was stolen in Boston since they would inspect the luggage before it got on the plane, wouldn't they? They probably wouldn't bother inspecting it in Toronto because (hopefully) if they are hauling a bag off a plane they would just conclude its already been inspected, and if it weren't, its already gone one flight without blowing up, so its probably safe for another one.

      And the baking powder idea wouldn't fly because OH NOES!!! Mysterious white powder!!!

    6. Re:Not worried about damage, but theft... by guyo26 · · Score: 1

      No, that would make too much sense :)

      Had to pick up my bag in Toronto, go through immigration in Toronto with the bag, then check it again there. Thus giving me TWO chances to put evil things in the checked luggage (which went on a conveyor belt both times, didn't have to open it or anything)

      Yeah, dangerous white substance is bad too. Hmmmm .... hickory twigs?

    7. Re:Not worried about damage, but theft... by Mistah+Blue · · Score: 1

      Last year I flew to Korea through Narita. I was dead tired and never listened to my iPod (which I left in the seat pocket in front). I realized I forgot my iPod on the plane (from Narita) when I was unpacking at my hotel in Seoul. I called JAL first thing the next morning, and had my iPod delivered that afternoon (and gladly paid the delivery fee). Asia is the only place in the world (IMO) where that was a feasible outcome.

  25. Without my laptop by Van+Cutter+Romney · · Score: 1

    I just came back from India last week and had to put my company laptop along with the check-in luggage. I don't mind anything happening to the laptop (in terms of damage) but my life would have been hell if it got lost as it contained company confidential data including client databases.
    br I've never been so worried in my life. Thankfully, it came safe.

    --
    Help a man when he is in trouble and he will remember you when he is in trouble again.
    1. Re:Without my laptop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With all the high-profile stories about stolen computers containing confidential information, I can't believe you are still traveling around with "company confidential information" in an unprotected format.

      I hope this was a wake-up call for you to change your habits.

    2. Re:Without my laptop by bronney · · Score: 1

      Your harddisk could already have been copied. It's just too risky dude.

    3. Re:Without my laptop by The_Mr_Flibble · · Score: 1

      Your lucky, in our company security policy it states that no device containing confidential data is to be left unattended. I could get into serious trouble if I checked my company laptop in as baggage. (I'm sure there's also a clause in there that says I have to sleep with it if I take it home but then, that's not a big problem.)

    4. Re:Without my laptop by Van+Cutter+Romney · · Score: 1

      Well, this was all last moment when I found out I had to travel without my laptop. Yet, I managed to bubble wrap the laptop, put it in my laptop case, lock that, put the laptop case in a bigger suitcase cushioned between clothes and the lock that too...

      --
      Help a man when he is in trouble and he will remember you when he is in trouble again.
    5. Re:Without my laptop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I'm sure there's also a clause in there that says I have to sleep with [my laptop] if I take it home but then, that's not a big problem." ...yeah, but do you have to buy your laptop a drink first?

  26. Wait, what? by Jeian · · Score: 1

    I'd heard earlier today that you were going to be required to bring laptops as carry-ons. Which one is it?

    I have to fly back to college next week too, dangit.

    1. Re:Wait, what? by Beelub · · Score: 1

      Yes, it's true. From now on no one will be allowed on a plane unless they are carrying a laptop computer.

  27. Re: TSA stealing from luggage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You aren't paranoid if they really are out to get you...or your stuff:
    TSA Under Fire for Rising Theft by Baggage Screeners

    "It's a huge security threat," said aviation industry consultant Michael Boyd. "If we've got the kind of people who would steal things out of bags, we're not sure if we have people on the job who will put things into bags. And obviously we don't have enough scrutiny of the bags once they're checked. It's huge."

  28. No, I'm not a terrorist... by Pollux · · Score: 3, Interesting

    But I really feel the need to ask this question, and hope someone out there in /. might work for the TSA or other security company, and/or hardware manufacturing, and might give a good answer to this question.

    The parent poster mentioned sneaking C4 in a laptop battery. I was wondering the same thing about a hard drive. When you think about it, both are small, but certainly have enough volume to put explosives inside of the casing that would cause a very significant detonation onboard an airplane. And would screeners really see that on their scanners? I'd imagine that to the lazy eye, it would just be another object like any other inside a laptop. I doubt most screeners would be particular about looking for the platters inside a hard drive, let alone know that a hard drive is a necessary part of a laptop. I'm sure that if you were to hand these explosive laptops to 20 terrorists, at least one would get through, and it only takes one. I've gone on a number of domestic and international flights, and the laptop is a carry-on object. I've never seen any bomb-sniffing dogs sniff my carry-on luggage, so I think the TSA are the only checkpoint for an attack such as this.

    Now, I've never seen all of what those modern x-ray scanners are able to detect, so if there's anybody with knowledge on the subject, I'd sure appreciate an explination of whether or not this is feasable.

    Oh, and for anybody who wants to try and accuse me of aiding terrorists, I get my information from the six-o'clock news. They give me all these great ideas each and every day on how to cause devistation to America (blow up the Hoover Dam, San Fransisco bridge, Alaska Oil pipeline, the Lincoln tunnel ... thank you Dan Rathers). America can't always be 100% secure, and I think most /. readers are intelligent enough to know that when there's a will, there's always going to be a way. Does anybody honestly think we can keep every port of entry secure? If you truly do, do some reading on the Akwesasne reservation.

    1. Re:No, I'm not a terrorist... by ross.w · · Score: 1

      A lot of the time, the airport security people make you turn on the laptop in front of them to make sure it runs.

      Would suck if you had a dodgy battery.

      --
      If my call is important, why am I talking to a recording?
    2. Re:No, I'm not a terrorist... by quanticle · · Score: 1
      A lot of the time, the airport security people make you turn on the laptop in front of them to make sure it runs. Would suck if you had a dodgy battery.
      Yeah, and it still doesn't prevent you from concealing a bomb in a second or spare battery, like the original poster suggested. Or, if you were really ambitious, you could take out 1/2 the cells in the battery and replace them with explosives. The laptop would still turn on, and your explosives would be easily concealed.
      --
      We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
    3. Re:No, I'm not a terrorist... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Laptops are pretty compact and low on extra space, but there still must be some in there. I bet you could cover the motherboard with plastic wrap and then squeeze some plastic explosives over it, which might be better than just using the battery space (unless there is something about the way plastic explosive explodes I'm not taking into consideration).

    4. Re:No, I'm not a terrorist... by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      Many laptop models can take an extra battery by replacing the CD/DVD/floppy drive.

    5. Re:No, I'm not a terrorist... by baggins2001 · · Score: 1

      The time before last when I flew they took one of my laptops and put it in a screening device to test whether it had explosive material in it. I'm sure they would have detected C4.
      They don't do this all of the time, its a random check. I've flown about eight times in the last 3 months and they have only done this once.

      --
      He who said 1,000,000 monkeys on 1,000,000 typewriters would eventually type the great novel, never saw an AOL chat room
    6. Re:No, I'm not a terrorist... by b1t+r0t · · Score: 1

      Many laptop models can take an extra battery by replacing the CD/DVD/floppy drive.

      My old Powerbook G3 Firewire (aka Pismo) was designed to do this. It even came with an empty battery module designed to fit in the hole if you didn't want the extra weight of the optical drive. It was hollow, with only a thick plastic label on top, which could be pried open with a fingernail. It would have made a great smuggler's compartment.

      --

      --
      "Open source is good." - Steve Jobs
      "Open source is evil." - Microsoft
    7. Re:No, I'm not a terrorist... by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 1

      And would screeners really see that on their scanners? I'd imagine that to the lazy eye, it would just be another object like any other inside a laptop.

      Every time I've travelled by air in the past 4 years or so, the TSA screeners have not only sent carry-on (and checked) luggage through the X-ray machine, but also scanned every laptop computer and case with a wand, presumably of a type that detects chemical fingerprints of explosive materials. That vector of attack is already being protected against (though I couldn't say with any certainty how effectively).

    8. Re:No, I'm not a terrorist... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Akwesasne...$15 a carton smokes, discount liquor and cocaine going one way, Chinese immigrants and Quebec Gold going the other! And because it's Soverign Mohawk Terrtory, enforcment is a bitch.

      Just watch for bullets when you're down by the river at night...

    9. Re:No, I'm not a terrorist... by Miertam · · Score: 1

      It's not the X rays they have to get past it's the chemical sniffers that detect the trace amounts of gas that a block of explosive gives off.

  29. Soln: Profile passengers, or go on pretending. by JonTurner · · Score: 1, Insightful

    >>there is no silver bullet or extra security measure we can take that will guarenty safty from terrorist attacks.

    Guarantee? No, but prohibiting Muslims from flying (or at least giving them an extra-thorough level of scrutiny) will make a huge improvement. Religion is the single defining characteristic of modern terrorists who use aircraft as weapons or seek to destroy aircraft full of passengers. And it's not Scientologists or Mormans we're talking about here, it's Muslims.

    Not all Muslims are terrorists, but nearly all terrorists are Muslims. And quite a large percentage are sympathizers as demonstrated by recent polls in London showing support for the recently foiled plot to kill a few thousand westerners in-flight UK->US. Call it flamebait if you want, but it is true. Nearly all airplane hijackings and intentional attacks on civilians have been done in the name of Islam. The world can go on pretending that's not the case, but until we are willing to at least identify the well-defined group of people responsible for most of this mayhem, increased security will be a pipe dream.

    Or you moderators can just mod this 'flamebait' and go on pretending. Call me racist. Hit the cultural 'snooze' button... roll over & go back to sleep. Whatever. Maybe once an attack affects you personally, your family, or your country you'll wake up. Sleep well.

    1. Re:Soln: Profile passengers, or go on pretending. by bursch-X · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not all Muslims are terrorists, but nearly all terrorists are Muslims.

      Sure, and everyone eating Sauerkraut and wearing Lederhosen must be a German, if you see someone wearing a ten-gallon hat and chew chewing gum it must be an American, Asian in school uniform an naked? It's definitely a Japanese.

      To adjust your splendid world view, here's some food for thought http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_org anisations.

      --
      There are two rules for success:
      1. Never tell everything you know.
    2. Re:Soln: Profile passengers, or go on pretending. by RodgerDodger · · Score: 2, Funny

      Terrorists being Muslims is just the current fad. In the '80s, the terrorists were communist revolutionaries.

      Furthermore, the terrorists aren't idiots. All an Arabic terrorist would have to do to get around such a ban would be to wear jeans, work on their accent, use hair dye to lighten their hair a bit, and make out that they've been to a tanning salon.

      --
      "Software is too expensive to build cheaply"
    3. Re:Soln: Profile passengers, or go on pretending. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      McVeigh, thats got a nice Muslim ring to it, right? Only the second biggest terrorist attack in America. What about the Christian Fundie group in Texas who was arrested a few years back with potassium cyanide bombs? Should we be banning Christians too, after all, they DO worship the same God? And how about that guy from Oklahoma, the one who tried to carry the pipe bomb on board?

      Your proposal is equivalent to relying on a jockstrap to protect your private parts. Sure, it works against quite a lot of threats, and then you get raped from behind.

    4. Re:Soln: Profile passengers, or go on pretending. by Arivia · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because everyone knows the IRA are just really big fuzzy bunnies.

      --
      The role of the writer is not to say what we can all say, but what we are unable to say. -Anais Nin
    5. Re:Soln: Profile passengers, or go on pretending. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The simple solution to prevent Muslims from getting on airplanes is to make everybody eat a piece of bacon before getting on any flight.... If you don't eat the bacon, you don't get on the airplane....

      VERY simple security measure!

    6. Re:Soln: Profile passengers, or go on pretending. by Jeffrey+Baker · · Score: 1
    7. Re:Soln: Profile passengers, or go on pretending. by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Of course, the problem with that is that you'd catch Jews in that net too.

      You'd also catch vegetarians/vegans, for that matter, but no one cares about them besides other vegetarians/vegans. ;)

    8. Re:Soln: Profile passengers, or go on pretending. by LuminaireX · · Score: 1

      I can't say I disagree, but how does one identify a Muslim without the person telling you outright? At that point, you must either resort to hearsay or routine surveillance of anyone who "looks" Muslim, or enters a mosque. Yet not all Muslims are good Muslims, just as all Christians aren't good Christians. It's racial profiling at its finest.

    9. Re:Soln: Profile passengers, or go on pretending. by 1u3hr · · Score: 3, Insightful
      ... prohibiting Muslims from flying ...

      Idiotic. Then all the terrorists just give up? There are plenty of Muslims who don't look like your stereotypical Arab. And there are plenty of Middle Eastern Jews and Christians who could supply ID, or have it stolen from them. There are plenty of US citizens who are Muslim, it would be interesting to try to get a ban on their travelling through court. Not to mention the huge backlash the US would suffer.

      Think of it like spam. A couple of years ago, you were getting lots of spam with the word "Viagra" in it. Simple. Filter out all messages with the word "Viagra". Two weeks later, you start to get spam about "V1agra", "V;agra", "Viiagra"....

    10. Re:Soln: Profile passengers, or go on pretending. by robogun · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      AC said:
      McVeigh, thats got a nice Muslim ring to it, right?

      Yeah, let's whip out all the lone wolves and their deacdes ago one off attacks.

      The simple fact of the matter is the CURRENT problem is ISLAMIC extremists who have PUBLICLY VOWED they will kill us any way possible, however long it takes, however many times they have to try. And they will try even if they have to kill themselves in the process, an exclusively Islamic trait you conveniently leave out with your little list.

      In every thread like this there is some academic robot defending that with that obsolete PC attitude, and it is going to take some unspeakable Islamic horror before you wake up. Or do you advocate acceding to their demands which are 1) Destroy Israel and 2) Convert to Islam

    11. Re:Soln: Profile passengers, or go on pretending. by Aadain2001 · · Score: 2

      Are you saying you condone the other extreme: kill all Muslims and nuke all Islamic countries? Because either you admit that it's not Islam that is the problem, but Extremists who happen to Muslims that are causing problems, you we just outlaw all religions and shoot anyone for having one. As soon as you start taking people out for their religion you have a new crusade. And if the West decides to follow your line of thought to its conclusion, then we have the more horrible massacure of people in the history of the world (yes, even bigger than Hitler and Holocust). It would be a war that makes all the previous wars seem like trips to the park. It's one thing to attack a government, which you can change pretty easily. But once you target people based on faith, and you have a Holy War, the kind the Bible talked about.

      --
      Space for rent, inquire within
    12. Re:Soln: Profile passengers, or go on pretending. by smitingpurpleemu · · Score: 1

      Sure, the IRA were once terrorists. But now that they've made themselves a "partner in the peace process" they are no longer a terrorist group, but they essentially will get their way. This seems to be what has happened with the PLO/Fatah and Hamas (sort of, the Israelis and Americans must deal with them even though they don't want to) and what could happen with Hizbollah in the future.

    13. Re:Soln: Profile passengers, or go on pretending. by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      The simple fact of the matter is the CURRENT problem is ISLAMIC extremists

      That's more or less true. But of the billion Muslims in the world, how many are "extremists"? How many are bombers? A few hundred.

      All the 9/11 bombers were males under 40. Simple. Ban all males under 40 from flying. Just as effective.

      When I'm on holiday in Thailand I often get profiled as a pedophile, because most of the pedophiles in the news there happen to be of my race and age. Under your rules I'd be castrated and locked up just to be safe.

    14. Re:Soln: Profile passengers, or go on pretending. by EtherealStrife · · Score: 1
      You sir are a bigot. Blacks make up the largest ethnic group of criminals, so lets just cut to the chase and fry em all! Oh wait...that's racism.


      Polls are useless (see: 2000 and 2004 elections), as they only survey a small portion of the whole. If a survey is conducted at an anti-capitalism rally for example, I would be shocked to see more than a fraction of a percent in favor of capitalism.

      Continuing the you sir are a bigot (and more) line of thought:
      Have you stopped to consider the fact that there are MULTIPLE BRANCHES OF ISLAM? All of the 9/11 hijackers were wahabists and (mostly) saudi arabian. They make up a small portion of sunni islam, which itself is only one of the three main branches. If we're going to start pulling this shit with Islam, you'll have to toss in the IRA...after all, their terrorist cell structure and attack methods are virtually identical to those used by al qaeda (except the IRA was *not* created and funded by the united states, unlike al qaeda). If we stop the madness at this point, all christians and muslims are banned from flying. We of the Atheist/Buddhist/Jewish/Hindu/etc remainder thank you for the extreme reduction in airtraffic! But wait! There are terrorist cells among the remainder as well!!!

      Lets just cut to the chase and ban airtravel altogether. And to reduce the risk of conflict between ethnicities and religious groups, each religious group of each ethnic group of each political group of each hair color (natural) can have its very own biodome to live in isolation from the world around it, oblivious to everyone else. w00t! I've managed to attain a viable plan for world peace! [note: sarcasm]

    15. Re:Soln: Profile passengers, or go on pretending. by Skrynesaver · · Score: 4, Insightful
      To bring up a bit of history, (Those who don't learn it are forced to repeat it and all that).
      • The IRA were a small group of nutters in the mid 60's.
      • The civil rights movement were demanding all sorts of outrageous things like equal access to education, employment and housing.
      • The Northern Ireland statelet was discriminatory to it's core.
      • Police and pseudo-military police were used to baton charge peaceful civil rights protestors
      • The IRA "was standing up to them" unlike those dippy civil rights types
      • The IRA gained lots of angry young recruits
      • After 30 years of pointless bloodshed the civil rights demands are being met. Though a lot of hatred has been alowed to develop in the interm

      If were honest about the way Palestinians have been treated we'd realise that we in the west are setting up a similar scenario on a larger scale and as a previous poster said in the end we'll have to talk to Hezbolah & Hamas, or if we hang on a while longer a more extreme group will be sure to come along.
      --
      "Linux is for noobs"-The new MS fud strategy
    16. Re:Soln: Profile passengers, or go on pretending. by atomicstrawberry · · Score: 5, Funny
      Asian in school uniform an naked?

      Is this some new, more appealing take on Schrodinger's Cat?

    17. Re:Soln: Profile passengers, or go on pretending. by beoswulf · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Nah, racial profiling doesn't work with Muslims. Islamists are bloodthirsty and ruthless. These Muslims will kill their own children if it means they can murder non-muslims too. Read about this Muslim that wanted to blow up a plane but knew he couldn't get a bomb past Israel's racial profiling based security. So he seduced an Irish woman and got her pregnant, to complete his cover story he even got engaged to her. Then the Muslim put her on a plane and snuck a bomb into her luggage. He knew the weakness to racial profiling. A pregnant Irish woman could get past Israeli security, a young Arab from the Middle East couldn't. The Irish gf had no idea she was being used as part of a terrorist plot, she thought she was going to meet her fiance's parents. The fact is he was willing to kill his fiance and his own unborn child to blow up some infidels. Oh, and he wasn't planning to even be on that flight. You can read more about this case here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindawi_Affair

    18. Re:Soln: Profile passengers, or go on pretending. by iangoldby · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Religion is the single defining characteristic of modern terrorists... nearly all terrorists are Muslims... Nearly all airplane hijackings and intentional attacks on civilians have been done in the name of Islam.

      Let's stop just a minute...

      Let's also leave aside that the above is simply wrong as a matter of fact...

      Do you really think that doing something 'in the name of Islam' (or Christianity, or the Free Software Foundation, etc) automatically makes you a Muslim (or Christian, or Free Software advocate)?

      I don't know where you stand on the FSF, but assuming you are broadly sympathetic to its aims, how would you feel if I suddenly started blowing up planes 'in the name of the FSF'?

      Let's be rational about this. Anyone can claim to be associated with a particular movement or organisation. Whether you actually are can only be decided from whether your actions are in keeping with that organisation's goals.
    19. Re:Soln: Profile passengers, or go on pretending. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Well, the IRA was funded by America quite extensively, mainly through Noraid and other prominent Irish-American organisations. Not the government, but the US didn't clamp down on fundraising for terrorist organisations.

    20. Re:Soln: Profile passengers, or go on pretending. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One sided viewpoints like yours are what kept bullets flying during the troubles. If the IRA were such saviours to the Catholic community, why did I spend a few hours one afternoon with my (Catholic) girlfriend in the ruins of home town looking for her mother who was working in the town when the IRA blew up a car bomb there?

      http://www.ruc.police.uk/press/1998/aug/banbridge. htm

    21. Re:Soln: Profile passengers, or go on pretending. by iainl · · Score: 1

      Which is rather good news for the citizens of New York, given that it's now standard operating procedure to carpet-bomb the shit out of whatever place terrorists get their funding from.

      --
      "I Know You Are But What Am I?"
    22. Re:Soln: Profile passengers, or go on pretending. by isorox · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In the '80s, the terrorists were communist revolutionaries.

      No, they were American-funded minority Irish sepratists that indiscriminatly killed innocent men, women and children, as well as attempting to kill the UK Prime Minister, and succeded in killing half the cabinet.

      What would happen if an Iranian citizen, a member of Al-Queda, managed to blow up the annual Republican bash, killing half the seceratries, and Bush only escaped by a fluke, and to top it all, British citizens were funding them?

    23. Re:Soln: Profile passengers, or go on pretending. by aallan · · Score: 3, Informative

      ...except the IRA was *not* created and funded by the united states, unlike al qaeda

      Actually the bulk of the funding for the IRA did come from the US...

      Al.
      --
      The Daily ACK - Eclectic posts by yet another hacker
    24. Re:Soln: Profile passengers, or go on pretending. by gutnor · · Score: 1

      I would like to add, police spends most of its time looking for men in case of rape. That's what I call sexism.

      Step back in real world the GP was a troll ok. However, most active terrorist group (i.e. the one that killed massively during the last 5 years) are muslim extremist. So yes, police job is to find a way to spot Muslim Extremist because they are much more likely to blow a plane.

      Seriously now, if you are muslim and taking the plane on a regular basis with your wife a kids, who are you most afraid to blow the plane ? A muslim extremist or a IRA extremist ? Hell, if people of my ethnicity or religion were more likely to blow a plane, I would be more than happy if the police do its job and double check on me. ( Doesn't mean it would not piss me. I was living for a while in an area known for drug "business". Very often when I took the plane or international train I had my hand luggage checked manually or a longer than usual quiz. )

    25. Re:Soln: Profile passengers, or go on pretending. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Schrodinger's Pussy ?

    26. Re:Soln: Profile passengers, or go on pretending. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There were plenty of incidents like that on both sides of the conflict, but you still can't deny the origins of the troubles. Catholics in Northern Ireland were being treated as second-class citizens. I'm not saying that justifies violence or terrorism, but you seem to be making out that the IRA were the only ones at fault.

    27. Re:Soln: Profile passengers, or go on pretending. by rishistar · · Score: 1

      Actually a lot of the Afgan based terrorists were getting training and money from the CIA back in the 80s (including Bin Laden)...and why? Because they were fighting the Soviet Communists. So presumably terrorists were OK for the US to support back then. And don't forget the numerous US-back revolutionaries in South American countries with democratically elected Socialist governments (often replaing them with murderous facists such as Pinochet) because McCarthy et al didn't appreciate the difference between socialism and communism. The US supports terrorism when it suits its own needs.

      --
      Professor Karmadillo Songs of Science
    28. Re:Soln: Profile passengers, or go on pretending. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for saying it - because it is true. I was going to say that these Islamic extremists are ruining the world for the rest of us, but the problem is that they are not really extremists - that's Muslim propaganda trying to convince us otherwise.

      Everyone should also read the book "While Europe Slept":
      http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0385514727/sr=1-1 /qid=1155814187/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-4046653-8897741?i e=UTF8&s=books

      And as the recent ceasefire reminds us of the Munich Agreement of 1938, and as we attempt to duplicate the appeasements made as a build up to WWII, there will be no peace in our time. Rest in peace, Neville Chamberlain. It's happening again.

    29. Re:Soln: Profile passengers, or go on pretending. by dr_dank · · Score: 1

      given that it's now standard operating procedure to carpet-bomb the shit out of whatever place terrorists get their funding from.

      If that were true, Saudi Arabia would be a smoking pile of rubble by now. Sure, they were home to 19 out of 21 9-11 hijackers, but we have to turn a blind eye to them since they're our oil buddies.

      --
      Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
    30. Re:Soln: Profile passengers, or go on pretending. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you'll find that the IRA pre-dates Al Quaeda, and that it is the IRA's methods being copied rather than the other way around.

      The IRA never attempted to hijack/bomb/crash planes. Their cause, as they called it, was to remove the oppressive regime that denied Irish Catholics north of the "border" access to democracy and civil rights. Maybe if the troubles were at their worst now, we'd have Bush et al demanding a regime changes in Westminster.

      If only.

    31. Re:Soln: Profile passengers, or go on pretending. by mdwh2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, let's whip out all the lone wolves and their deacdes ago one off attacks.

      Yeah, when someone makes a blanket absolute claim, heaven forbid someone point out a counter-example. And I'm not sure how they are any more "lone wolves" than muslim terrorists.

      And just over one decade, I make it. I bet you people will still be citing 9/11 as an example of "Islamic terrorism" for long after 2012.

      In every thread like this there is some academic robot defending that with that obsolete PC attitude

      And in every thread, there is someone who claims their opponent is being "PC", because they can't explain why they are wrong...

      Or do you advocate acceding to their demands which are 1) Destroy Israel and 2) Convert to Islam

      Look, it's a strawman.

    32. Re:Soln: Profile passengers, or go on pretending. by purfledspruce · · Score: 1
      Um..Ted Kacynski wasn't Muslim. He was born in Chicago, graduated from Harvard, and Timothy McVeigh was certainly not Muslim either. He was possibly Catholic, possibly agnostic.

      I think if you think about it, what's scaring you about the Muslim terrorists isn't the fact that they're Muslim, but rather that they are believers, by which I mean that their faith exceeds their reason.

      That can happen regardless of religion or birthplace or color...the fear of Japanese people in the US during WWII comes to mind. These people, by and large, supported the US, yet the US threw them in internment camps because of fear.

      I think you should reexamine your beliefs before you start throwing people who support you into the same category as people who wish to kill you--you're doing yourself a disservice.

    33. Re:Soln: Profile passengers, or go on pretending. by radtea · · Score: 1

      Whether you actually are can only be decided from whether your actions are in keeping with that organisation's goals.

      There is no doubt that there are large, powerful Muslim organizations, up to and including the Clerical Council that has the final say in Iran, which support the goals of Islamic terrorists.

      This is not "all Muslims" by any means, but there is no doubt that these are Muslim organizations and they do represent a significant minority of Muslims (even dictatorships require a minimum minority support, as the old USSR showed) and they are as "Muslim" in their character as any moderate Muslim organization.

      There is likewise no doubt that these organizations have sound scriptural and doctrinal justification for their acts, just as Christian organizations have been able to justify the most terrible tortures by reference to scripture and general doctrine. The Koran is comparable to the Old Testament in its exhortations to violence against those who do not submit to god, and there is no levening New Testament commandment of love to go with it.

      So the argument that terrorists aren't "really Muslim" is about as interesting as the argument that the Soviets weren't "really communist". The point is that there is a significant group of people, who are Muslims in the ordinary sense of the word, who are blowing people up, purported contradiction with the articles of their faith notwithstanding.

      It would be just as wrong to declare all terrorists non-Muslim as it would be to declare all Muslims terrorists.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    34. Re:Soln: Profile passengers, or go on pretending. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry but "the civil rights demands are being met" is just ridiculous.
      Civil rights are pretty equal amongst all in NI.
      And the IRA campain wasnt about civil rights - it was about a united ireland. oh and sectarian hatres, money, drugs, gangsterism etc etc

    35. Re:Soln: Profile passengers, or go on pretending. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "Furthermore, the terrorists aren't idiots. All an Arabic terrorist would have to do to get around such a ban would be to wear jeans, work on their accent, use hair dye to lighten their hair a bit, and make out that they've been to a tanning salon."

      And bathe regularly?

      :-)

    36. Re:Soln: Profile passengers, or go on pretending. by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 1

      There is a problem with the term 'terrorist' that is thrown around. It is the label that is applied to any entity that the people in power aren't happy with. If Hitler was in power today, then the French resistence would probably be terrorists. Heck the allies could even be called terrorist during the second world war, since they were upseting the German power. The CIA could be called terrorists for setting in place revolutions and destabilising governments in certain south Americain countries. I could go on, but hopefully you get the idea.

      Sure some of the people who are unhappy with the world today do come countries where their main religion is Islam, but people do things in the name of the religion, but not necessarily for reasons of the religion. I would also doubt they are the only people unhappy and wanting to make themselves heard, yet they are the one group which is getting labelled and ignored. Do you see any attempts for real diplomacy from either side. Calling a group terrorist is the best way to ignore them and not have to work with them.

      Sometimes you look at the security measures in place at airports and you have wonder whether it is just for show? Look at when foot and mouth desiese what going on the UK, they got you to walk on antiseptic carpets, though the shoes you used on them farm would probably be in you suitcase. Not taking books on, not taking water on (a PH test would identify the substance quickly), all sounds over reaction and just something to please the people who don't want to think.

      You wouldn't want to be stereotyped, you wouldn't want people to judge you on the choices of your government, so don't stereotype entire groups of people. Judge each person for who they are. There are crazy people the world over, there are sane people the world over, there are nasty people the world over and there are kind people the world over. Don't fall into the trap that propagenda forces you into.

      --
      Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    37. Re:Soln: Profile passengers, or go on pretending. by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "that it's not Islam that is the problem, but Extremists who happen to Muslims that are causing problems,"

      While I stop short at this moment of nuking all Islamic countries....I'm starting to think them all guilty.

      Sure, the ones killing and causing the damage are extremists, however, you almost NEVER see the so called 'peace loving muslims' out there vehemently denouncing the terrorist actions of their 'extreme' fringes. They may not outwardly support it, but, they don't condemn it either, and that is complacency!!

      If the majority of muslims were all about peace and love, etc...they could reign in a lot of the extremism, but, no, while they do not actively participate in the actual actions, they DO give it a home.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    38. Re:Soln: Profile passengers, or go on pretending. by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "I don't know where you stand on the FSF, but assuming you are broadly sympathetic to its aims, how would you feel if I suddenly started blowing up planes 'in the name of the FSF'? Let's be rational about this."

      Well, first, I don't believe there are written in the tenets of the FSF to convert or kill all non-believers.

      Rational? I don't think the terms 'rational' and muslim/islamic extremists should be used together....they seem to be mutually exclusive terms.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    39. Re:Soln: Profile passengers, or go on pretending. by jazman · · Score: 1

      > Whether you actually are can only be decided from whether your actions are in keeping with that organisation's goals.

      Which is precisely why Muslims worldwide need to consistently condemn those who carry out the attacks in the name of Islam. That they don't implies Muslims support or are at least sympathetic to the terrorists, and until they do the term "Islamic/Muslim terrorist" will remain justified in the minds of many.

      For direct comparison when were the IRA last, if ever, known as "Catholic terrorists"?

    40. Re:Soln: Profile passengers, or go on pretending. by iainl · · Score: 1

      Ah, but that's where the people came from. Under that procedure, we'd be destroying Leeds for the 7/7 bombings. No, we go after some handy "intelligence" claims the money comes from, and that happens to be Afghanistan, Iraq, and now Syria and Iran.

      Rather conveniently.

      --
      "I Know You Are But What Am I?"
    41. Re:Soln: Profile passengers, or go on pretending. by Aadain2001 · · Score: 1
      Never forget the silver rule: he who has the guns, makes the rules. While we never see the peaceful Muslims on our media outlets, they do in fact exist in great numbers. But they also exist in countries where religious and military extremiest have all the guns, making it suicide to even say a bad thing about the terrorists, never minde trying to take action.

      If you look to our country, you will find a LOT of peaceful Islamic groups that have done a lot to show they do not support the terrorists. But does our conservative media show them? Nope. I remember seeing an episode of the O'Riely Factor (or however you spell it) that had on a leader of one of those groups. Did Bill have a nice conversation with him, asking him why the terrorists fasely identify themselves as Muslims? Nope. Bill raked him over the fire for not holding parades with banners saying they love the US after 9/11. He practically spat on him for not going so above and beyond as to make military parades seem like funeral marches. This types of mentality is everywhere in the conservative segment of the US: if you even have the same religion, then you are responsible for their actions and are just as guilty.

      Then what about all the attrocities that Israel has committed? Where is your indignation for the Jewish population for not reigning in all the horrors that other Jewish people are inflicting on Arabs? Oh, that's right, you only hate brown skin people. Jewish people are perfectly fine because they look closer to you than Arabs do. What about the non-Arab Muslims? Do you think they are responsible because they haven't 'reigned in' the other Muslims? Get a clue, nothing is simple and black or white. These issues are complex, deeply rooted in history and atrocity after atrocity from people on both sides. Try taking a history class at your community college and educating yourself before you simply decry all Muslims.

      --
      Space for rent, inquire within
    42. Re:Soln: Profile passengers, or go on pretending. by Moofie · · Score: 1

      "you almost NEVER see the so called 'peace loving muslims' out there vehemently denouncing the terrorist actions of their 'extreme' fringes"

      And because you don't see it, you conclude it doesn't happen. Mmmkay.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    43. Re:Soln: Profile passengers, or go on pretending. by houghi · · Score: 1

      Not only that, but how do you tell the difference between an Arab an a Jew? You can't. Even if you go with the "standard" North African and the Israeli, both are medateranian type of people.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    44. Re:Soln: Profile passengers, or go on pretending. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      In the '80s, the terrorists were communist revolutionaries. No, they were American-funded minority Irish sepratists that indiscriminatly killed innocent men, women and children, as well as attempting to kill the UK Prime Minister, and succeded in killing half the cabinet.
      Didn't know the Red Brigades were Irish...
    45. Re:Soln: Profile passengers, or go on pretending. by nightfire-unique · · Score: 1

      Sometimes you look at the security measures in place at airports and you have wonder whether it is just for show?

      I'd take it one step further. The excessive security measures are designed to harass and delay everyday travellers to raise their ire. The majority will project their frustration onto "terrorists," and believe that the only way to return to simple, convenient air travel is to grant the powers that be carte blanche to attack whomever it sees fit.

      I'd say it's working quite well.
      --
      A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
    46. Re:Soln: Profile passengers, or go on pretending. by Skrynesaver · · Score: 1

      I despise the IRA, I thought that was clear, all they achieved was death, destruction and polarisation of the comunity.
      That does not however preclude examining how they came to have enough tacit support to be able to function in the comunity
      A fish needs water to swim, and a guerila needs a comunity to hide within.
      The alienisation of the Catholic/Nationalist comunity in Northern Ireland gave such a resource to the IRA.

      --
      "Linux is for noobs"-The new MS fud strategy
    47. Re:Soln: Profile passengers, or go on pretending. by RodgerDodger · · Score: 1

      Only if they're not pretending to be from Texas.

      --
      "Software is too expensive to build cheaply"
  30. Butane powered batteries by Esion+Modnar · · Score: 1

    I guess this puts this technology out of business. Ain't no butane on a plane now, and there's not a GOTdamn thing you can do about it.

    --

    They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
    1. Re:Butane powered batteries by harism · · Score: 1

      It's also interesting to see what happens to in-flight wifi if these safety procedures are spread more widely.

  31. As someone who travels to Latin America... by ChePibe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As someone who gets to Latin America every once in a while (thus the name...), I would NEVER check my laptop, electronics, or ANYTHING of value in my baggage. NEVER.

    Theft occurs often enough in the U.S. to make me at the very least give serious pause... in Latin America? In Argentina, for example, a country where you have almost no hope of receiving anything more than a disposable camera in the mail, there is NO way I would entrust my laptop to their baggage handlers, not to mention my camera, iPod, etc.

    It looks like the security is being toned down a little bit now, and I hope and pray it stays at the present level.

    I would also appreciate it if people would stop planning to blow up airplanes - can y'all just knock that off, please? Thanks, guys.

    1. Re:As someone who travels to Latin America... by Duhavid · · Score: 1

      The response is likely to be

      "Can y'all ( they are from the south of the
      middle east, y'know ) give us back
      Palistine? Find another place for
      the Israelis? Please? Thanks, guys".

      --
      emt 377 emt 4
    2. Re:As someone who travels to Latin America... by ChePibe · · Score: 1

      Yes, we should always give genocidal maniacs precisely what they want. It's worked well in the past, of course...

      Actually, if I was to meet an Arabic speaking terrorist, I'd speak to him in Arabic - a language I speak at a novice level, no doubt, but do speak. Sadly, these particular terrorists are Pakistani in origin and, as such, likely speak Urdu and not Arabic, although they may only speak English. If they spoke Spanish or French, I'd have no problem communicating.

      But keep thinking that all southerners are stupid. Go for it. And keep thinking that "y'all" can only be appropriately used with those who also use it, as if it were another language.

      But what makes you truly ignorant, and not merely caught up in your own linguistic superiority complex, is this idea that all of the problems in the Middle East and the terrorism directed at the U.S. is simply due to Israel. You willfully ignore other motivations because one of them happens to meet with your own goals.

      You willfully ignore Jihadi ideology, the deep, extremely misguided, twisted, and contorted religious reasons. Their desire to implement a true caliphate across the Middle East and force its people to live under its caliphate, the idea that no "true" Islam can exist except under the caliphate (a country that recognizes laws only when they come "from God"), a complete rejection of so-called "international law" (including the Geneva Conventions) because it is anti-Islamic, and yes, even a hatred for personal freedoms such as freedom of speech and religion enjoyed in the west (see the writings of Sayyid Qutb, a major inspiration to Jihadis everywhere).

      Bin Laden and Jihadi terrorists are not "freedom fighters" by any definition. They are working to enslave as many people as possible in their twisted version of Islam and bring themselves into government. This is a group that believes the Taliban to be the model government for the "caliphate".

      The west's greatest weakness is its complete failure to understand its enemy and the numerous "useful idiots" who seem to be hell bent to support its enemies simply to be contrary or to make common cause.

    3. Re:As someone who travels to Latin America... by Duhavid · · Score: 1

      I dont believe that I ever said that we should give
      "them" what they want. I merely said that that would
      be their reponse. My saying that does not mean that
      I nessesarily believe that it is correct, good, or
      "what we should do". I am possessed of an ability
      to at least attempt to understand "the enemy" without
      believing as they do.

      As for my use of "y'all", the parent to my post had
      used it, I was using that post as a template for
      humourous purposes.

      I dont believe I have a "linguistic superiority complex".
      I also dont believe that southerners are inherently stupid.
      You are free to continue to believe I do, or not, as
      you like.

      On Israel, US support of Israel seems to be a large part
      of the ill will directed at the US by those in the middle
      east. If you are correct, and everyone in the middle east
      buys into this Jihadi mindset, then that is equally directed
      at every non-muslim run country, no? So, why the special
      stuff aimed at the US and her allies. Mind you, I dont
      believe that everyone in the middle east believes that. I
      do believe that there is a fringe element that does, and
      that they are trying to motivate the vast indifferent masses
      into action. And it seems that our prejudices and reactions
      are serving them well.

      I dont willfully ignore Jihadi ideology. I dont buy into the
      notion that the middle east peoples uniformly and totally think
      this way. If all they do, then why have they not managed more
      than they have? If they were all so uniformly ready to be
      suicide bombers, then why havent they accomplished the goal
      of pushing Israel into the sea? Why did Egypt sign the camp
      David accords with Israel? Why havent Iran and Syria acted
      on the provocations of Israel's actions in Lebanon? Why didnt
      our actions in Iraq lead to a huge tidal wave of terrorists to
      drive us out? Note, I recogise that some people did go, but
      not all that many, really, compared to the muslim population
      of the middle east.

      I dont recall saying that Bin Laden was a freedom fighter.
      I believe he is in the fringe group I mentioned trying to get political
      and emotional tractions with the masses for the purposes of
      getting them to act on his behalf. And, yes, I agree that the
      true calphate you mention is his goal. And I agree that that
      would be a tragedy for many.

      I think the west's greatest weakness is the desire to oversimplify, to
      believe the sound bites, to be lazy and not continue to look deeper
      into things.

      --
      emt 377 emt 4
    4. Re:As someone who travels to Latin America... by ChePibe · · Score: 1

      It appears I've misjudged you and made some mistakes. I apologize for that.

      In response to some questions posed:

      I think the west's greatest weakness is the desire to oversimplify, to
      believe the sound bites, to be lazy and not continue to look deeper
      into things.


      Very well put.

      On Israel, US support of Israel seems to be a large part of the ill will directed at the US by those in the middle east. If you are correct, and everyone in the middle east buys into this Jihadi mindset, then that is equally directed at every non-muslim run country, no? So, why the special
      stuff aimed at the US and her allies. Mind you, I dont believe that everyone in the middle east believes that. I do believe that there is a fringe element that does, and that they are trying to motivate the vast indifferent masses into action. And it seems that our prejudices and reactions are serving them well.


      I don't recall saying that everyone in the Middle East bought into the Jihadi mindset, but a sizeable number do. Clearly, anger at Israel is not limited to Jihadis, but they feed off it and take it to the extreme. The Palestinian election of Hamas - not merely a result of Hamas's foreign policy, of course - seems to demonstrate that the portion of the population involved may have increased.

      Peace is possible in Israel, and the Israelis have demonstrated this. The problem is that there must be a partner for this peace and, at the present, there is none.

      I dont willfully ignore Jihadi ideology. I dont buy into the
      notion that the middle east peoples uniformly and totally think
      this way. If all they do, then why have they not managed more
      than they have? If they were all so uniformly ready to be
      suicide bombers, then why havent they accomplished the goal
      of pushing Israel into the sea? Why did Egypt sign the camp
      David accords with Israel? Why havent Iran and Syria acted
      on the provocations of Israel's actions in Lebanon? Why didnt
      our actions in Iraq lead to a huge tidal wave of terrorists to
      drive us out? Note, I recogise that some people did go, but
      not all that many, really, compared to the muslim population
      of the middle east.


      Egypt is a very secular (for the Middle East) government that has fought Jihadis in its own population, namely the Muslim Brotherhood which has been heavily influenced by Qutb and others. It was offered financial and other incentives and accepted them.

      As to Iran and Syria, they may fund suicide bombers but they are not into national suicide.

      As to Lebanon - Hezbollah brought that on, and Israel accepted an unnecessary leash. Jihadis, such as Hezbollah, can only benefit from "proportionate response". The civilian deaths - all too often caused by Hezbollah's tactics - are very regrettable. But the fighting will continue until one side can successfully be brought to its knees, in my opinion.

      I've got to agree with you, though, on our sound bite, bumper sticker slogan driven society. I read a study done on sound bites a while ago (sorry... no specific source to cite... wish I could find it again and get specifics) that showed they'd shrunk in size from somewhere around 30-45 seconds in the 60's (enough time to get some context) to a mere 7 seconds today. It seems that everything now must play strictly to the lowest common denominator... which is quite sad.

    5. Re:As someone who travels to Latin America... by Duhavid · · Score: 1
      I don't recall saying that everyone in the Middle East bought into the Jihadi mindset, but a sizeable number do.


      My apology for misreading your post on that.

      I see "the west's" course on this as taking away everything
      that excuses in sympathy for the Jihadist cause, while remaining
      firm and steadfast. No appeasment. But make it obvious that
      the way for the masses to get what they want ( which I see as
      peace to pursue their lives ) is in cooperation. Do I know
      how to get there? No, but responding to the fringe's rocket
      attacks by killing those that are close to the "we want to be
      left in peace" factions is not making our case. Note that I
      understand Israel's desire to react. It is not unreasonable,
      but it does no long term good, it accomplishes exactly what
      the fringe groups want, alienation and disaffect. Blair gave
      a speech not that long ago, I think he hit the nail on the head.

      This is kinda like vietnam, it is hard to bring the true other side
      to it's knees.

      Yes, Hezbollah brought on Lebanon. I think they hoped to force
      Iran and or Syria into the game. If Israel had declined the leash,
      do you think they could have brought hezbollah to it's knees? If
      so, how do you think they would do this, and what would the collateral
      damage look like? ( the preceeding was not a rhetorical question ).
      --
      emt 377 emt 4
    6. Re:As someone who travels to Latin America... by Mistah+Blue · · Score: 1

      Ummm... NO! Title to the land was given to the tribe of Israel by God Himself. Don't believe me? Read Genesis!

    7. Re:As someone who travels to Latin America... by Duhavid · · Score: 1

      He also took them out of Israel.

      Egypt, Exodus,
      Babylon Daniel
      Persia, Ester

      Then there is "my kingdom is not of this world", John 18:36 :-)

      --
      emt 377 emt 4
    8. Re:As someone who travels to Latin America... by Mistah+Blue · · Score: 1

      Yes, however title to the land has never changed. As to the quote from John 18:36 - that was Jesus speaking. Again, it doesn't change the fact that Israel holds title to the land.

    9. Re:As someone who travels to Latin America... by Duhavid · · Score: 1

      Well, then all they need to do is wait on the Lord
      to drive the Canaanites et al out of their land.
      They cannot do it on their own strength.

      And yes, John 18:36 was Jesus. I suppose it depends
      on which way you look at things. If you are looking
      at it from the world's perspective, then title to the
      land being given from the Lord make no difference. If
      from the Christian viewpoint, then I would expect his
      word to have a lot of bearing. I am going to guess
      that you are looking at this from the viewpoint of
      a person of Judaistic faith who believes that Jesus
      was not the Christ.

      FYI, I find nothing in Genesis talking about Israel.
      I have read it in the past, and I skimmed it today.
      The conquering of the land the Lord had apportioned them
      is written out in Exodus and Joshua.

      As to "title", can they produce that document? :-)

      --
      emt 377 emt 4
    10. Re:As someone who travels to Latin America... by Mistah+Blue · · Score: 1

      Actually I'm a Believer. Genesis 33:19 is the verse that details the purchase of the land. Beyond that, God gave it to Abraham. As to Israel needing help, yes, as seems so obvious now, Israel is unwilling/incapable of driving interlopers out of their land at this time. The Lord will do it in His time. I find that to be quite interesting given their past military success.

    11. Re:As someone who travels to Latin America... by Duhavid · · Score: 1

      I am a Christian myself. That section in
      Genesis is sure easy to miss, but I see it
      now, thanks.

      Israel may well have title to Israel ( :-) ),
      but I dont know how important that is. He
      called them out, sent them here and there, and
      He put them back. They can be with God
      whereever they are physically, so...

      It's funny, we were reminded of Gideon during
      the sermon this Sunday. How he left with huge
      numbers, and God wanted to emphasize that it
      was his victory, not Gideon's, so he told Gideon
      to go forward with 300.

      --
      emt 377 emt 4
    12. Re:As someone who travels to Latin America... by Mistah+Blue · · Score: 1

      Agreed. But to the non-Believing world, having clear physical, legal title to the land should mean something.

    13. Re:As someone who travels to Latin America... by Duhavid · · Score: 1

      Ah, I see.

      Funny, looking at the Bible as a receipt. :-)

      --
      emt 377 emt 4
  32. extra service by twitter · · Score: 1
    I'd rather take 10 minutes for the baggage screeners to give a laptop a "full cavity serch" than to be without a laptop on an international flight.

    Better have a very good case when the inspector's final task is to check it in for you. Don't bother tipping, it will make them angry.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

  33. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  34. Who modded this up?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone who's been reading the news about the latest changes to the carry-on luggage situation would know that checked baggage gets checked for explosives.

  35. Apparently you're not the only one who thinks that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  36. shouldn't that be.. by myowntrueself · · Score: 5, Informative

    instead of:
    With last week's announcement that the British government thwarted an alleged terrorist attack planned for flights from the U.K. to the U.S

    With last week's announcement that the British government allegedly thwarted a terrorist attack planned for flights from the U.K. to the U.S

    --
    In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    1. Re:shouldn't that be.. by gknoy · · Score: 1

      Well, I would imagine that announcing it is the act that alleges that it happened. So, an announcement that something allegedly did something seems a smidge redundant.

      Only a little, though. Better to underscore the uncertainty, if one is not certain, I guess. =) (I thought this had progressed past the "allegedly" stage, though ... but then I don't follow news much so I could be wrong.)

    2. Re:shouldn't that be.. by aadvancedGIR · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Wether a terrorist attacked was tharted or not, the outcome is a massive chaos in airports, huge losses for the compagnies and PITA for travellers and a key member of the british government publically saying it is OK to reduce individual rights (whereas the alleged thwart was performed using regular investigation means). So I would still call it a fair success for the terrorists.

    3. Re:shouldn't that be.. by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      Indeed, the 'terrorists' and the 'government' are, together, doing a great job of turning international travel into a dehumanising experience.

      The net effect has to be a reduction in international travel and the containment of national populations within their borders.

      I bet that there are former members of the Soviet politburo who are wishing that they'd thought of it.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    4. Re:shouldn't that be.. by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      No. One either thwarts the attack or not. One can allege to have thwarted the attack. How can one do something allegedly?

    5. Re:shouldn't that be.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I would imagine that announcing it is the act that alleges that it happened. So, an announcement that something allegedly did something seems a smidge redundant.

      In the UK, 'allegedly' is shorthand for: "note that it was the police/government/whatever claimed that you were terrorists. If you turn out not to be terrorists, please sue them for libel and not me, thank you"

    6. Re:shouldn't that be.. by Mistah+Blue · · Score: 1

      What makes you think this isn't the purpose of this? The Soviet Politburo is still in charge, just under a new name.

    7. Re:shouldn't that be.. by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      The Soviet Politburo is still in charge, just under a new name.

      Except that they seem to have totally lost their sense of humor...

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    8. Re:shouldn't that be.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nstead of:
      With last week's announcement that the British government thwarted an alleged terrorist attack planned for flights from the U.K. to the U.S

      With last week's announcement that the British government allegedly thwarted a terrorist attack planned for flights from the U.K. to the U.S

      With last week's announcement that the British government allegedly thwarted an ALLEGED terrorist attack planned for flights from the U.K. to the U.S

  37. Didn't you know? by D14BL0 · · Score: 1

    Dell laptops have been coming pre-equiped with timebomb batteries.

  38. Thank God by toby34a · · Score: 1

    Well, thank God that they lifted the laptop restrictions. Sure, my one-year old Inspiron isn't worth much anymore, but it's still worth something to me... and I'm flying to London this Saturday. What fun for this stuff to go on right before I leave...

  39. And thus justify the extremists... by the_raptor · · Score: 4, Insightful
    By doing that all you would achieve would be to justify the extremists claims that the west is persecueting Islam, thus gaining them even more support. Where do you go from there? About the only place to go is to take Muslims out behind the chemical sheds and shoot them, because you will have guaranteed even more terrorist attacks by a persecuted population. This is because security will never be good enough to stop a determined attacker, as that would cost so much money that air travel would cease to be economically viable.

    Oh and flashback to last century anyone?


    "Guarantee? No, but prohibiting Irish Catholics from going into pubs (or at least giving them an extra-thorough level of scrutiny) will make a huge improvement. Religion is the single defining characteristic of modern terrorists who seek to destroy pubs full of patrons. And it's not Scientologists or Mormans we're talking about here, it's Irish Catholics.

    Not all Irish Catholics are terrorists, but nearly all terrorists are Irish Catholic. And quite a large percentage are sympathizers as demonstrated by recent polls in America showing support for the recently foiled plot to kill a few thousand British in pubs. Call it flamebait if you want, but it is true. Nearly all pub bombings and intentional attacks on civilians have been done in the name of Irish Republicanism (which is nearly exclusively Irish Catholic). The world can go on pretending that's not the case, but until we are willing to at least identify the well-defined group of people responsible for most of this mayhem, increased security will be a pipe dream."
    --

    ========
    CINC, 4th Penguin Legion
    1. Re:And thus justify the extremists... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      People get really scared of terrorists. "OMG they're everywhere!" people say. But think about it... how many terrorists are actually active right now? What, like a combined total of 40-50 people have tried to use bombs after and including sept 11 against the US and UK. And we worry like hell, make huge changes against civil liberties, go on wars, and spend trillions (TRILLIONS) of dollars over it. Over 40 to 50 people. Who might kill say, a few thousand people (worst case). How about we spend a few billion, go to Dafur, and save a few MILLION people.

    2. Re:And thus justify the extremists... by forgotten_my_nick · · Score: 4, Interesting

      > Oh and flashback to last century anyone?

      Disturbing but your rewording is exactly what went on in the 70's in England. Even though my parents were not religous I got moved to a Catholic school in England instead of a public school after IRA attacks basically enraged locals to attack Irish people who had nothing what-so-ever to do with it.

    3. Re:And thus justify the extremists... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And why would we went to save anyone in Dafur? Those are black people. Didn't you get the memo?

  40. Your laptop is at risk... by Dorceon · · Score: 1

    ...of having coffee spilled on it by the Flight Attendant.

    --
    What sound do people on rollercoasters make? Hint: it's not Xbox 360.
    1. Re:Your laptop is at risk... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... just ask the guy that was in 35-D on the 12:30 flight from SFO to MSP on Saturday. I think his laptop and iPod were OK but he was soaked (with hot coffee or tea). He held an ice pack to his side for the remainder of the flight.

  41. There is a much easier way covered by insurance... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People, don't check your laptop, send it ahead of you. Make a backup to cd-rom of the really important data you need (just in case), and put your laptop in a laptop box (fedex, DHL, UPS, etc.) and send it the day before you have to go. The likelyhood of your laptop getting where it is going, versus your baggage, is far better than trusting it to the airlines. Added bonus, you can insure it!

  42. Don't forget the obvious by tcgroat · · Score: 1
    If you must keep confidential information on the hard drive instead of removable media, assume it will be stolen or damaged. Don't become the next "Zillions of confidential records stolen!" headline on CNN.

    - Encrypt the data on the hard drive with the strongest encryption you have access to.

    - Back up everything essential to a CD/R, DVD/R, USB stick, etc. (preferrably more than one copy)

    - Encrypt the backups, too!

    - Wipe all hard drive slack areas clean.

    - Don't label the computer bag with company names and logos, or anything other temptation. Use "steal me!" cases for soiled laundry, not valuables.

  43. Just the other day by VEGETA_GT · · Score: 1

    My father and a few others form several sites in his company where headed for some training in the US some ware (he came form Canada eh). He called me and told me what happened to one of the guys coming from another site. Basically some lady had a bottle of hand cream with her on the flight which first off, should have never made it onto the plane with the added and o so important and useful security (note added sarcasm). Of course the person in question decides to use this on the plane, which an attendant sees. As I was told, the plain might as well have been a fighter at the rate they got down to the runway some ware. The entire group of passengers had the fun of a strip search out on the tarmac as well as all there luggage searches. The guy who told the story has not even seen his luggage since, so needless to say he is not happy.

    I can understand the point of security, but I have heard so many stories that it's not even funny of things happening at airports, though this one takes the cake. In the end what gets me the most is, even with this HIGH security in effect; some lady was able to casually carry a bottle of hand cream onto the plane without issue. So because security can't even do there job right, we get things like this happening. And now you want me to put my laptop in luggage (I know ban was lifted but hey), what are they nuts. I arrived in Ca 2 weeks ago, one of my brand new bags was crushed, and all the support plastic at the top of the bag that holds the handle in place was shattered to bits. They replaced the bag at least, just happened to have a spare new bag of same size in the back room. But in the end we still have heighten security which dose nothing, ticked off customers getting strip searched or at the least mad they can't take the bottle of coke they bought IN the terminal once past security on the plane. At least set it up so no liquids past the gate, then in the security zone the coke at the vending machine is fare game.

    Anyway that's my rant, my 2 cent and 2 more

    1. Re:Just the other day by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1
      In the end what gets me the most is, even with this HIGH security in effect; some lady was able to casually carry a bottle of hand cream onto the plane without issue
      Actually, as a smoker, I customarily carry a Bic lighter with me. Before I get to the security station, I take it out and put it in my carry-on, along with miscellaneous keys, loose change, packs of cigarettes, etc.

      The only time Security ever bothered me was at JFK. Everywhere else I've gone, no problem.

      By the way, from the looks of it, Pennsylvania makes some good money from selling the items "surrendered" by passengers at the airport.
  44. Pelican in canvas duffle by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    As someone flying through Heathrow in just a few weeks and taking a lot of photo gear, I've been watching this rather closely. The best idea (as read on DPreview) seems to be a pelican case inside a canvas duffle bag of some sort. It hides the "Steal Me" quality of the Pelican yet everything is still protected, the best of both worlds.

    Supposedly there is also a padlock with a way for the TSA to unlock it for baggage inspection, which would provide a small but possibly useful degree of extra security.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Pelican in canvas duffle by glittalogik · · Score: 1

      You can get TSA-certified luggage locks at pretty much any self-respecting travel store or airport newsagent now. Most of them include an indicator to tell whether or not the lock was actually opened without your key, so you know if your stuff's been inspected. They're also available online, of course, e.g. http://www.safeskieslocks.com/store.html

  45. Junk Food by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    To adjust your splendid world view, here's some food for thought http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_org anisations.

    That list is about the mental equivilent of a Mcdonalds meal - anyone who equates the KKK with people coordinating the destruction of multiple planes full of people at once had better re-check thier classifications (or try actually having some and not just listing any group that anyone, anywhere once decreed was a "terrorist" group).

    I go by deeds thanks, and in that regard you have to put Islamic Extremists way up there on the scale of potential harm.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Junk Food by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In my particular country I'm afraid I have to side with the IRA if were are talking about deeds. I also don't seem to remember any of the current erosion of civil liberties to 'fight'. I'm also accutely aware that I am far more likely to die crossing the road, struck by lighting, committing suicide or any other multitude of ways so I am not overly concerned about this 'terrorist threat'.

    2. Re:Junk Food by ceoyoyo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hanging random (almost random) people and burning crosses on people's lawns nicely fits the definition of terrorism.

      Now, the KKK probably won't be blowing up airplanes SO THEY WON'T AFFECT YOU too much. Some of the other organizations listed have bombed airplanes and probably would like to again. The islamic terrorists are just a little irritated right now because they got one of their strongholds invaded.

      How do you recognize a moslem to haul into the special line anyway? I know one with red hair and freckles.

    3. Re:Junk Food by Teppic_52 · · Score: 1

      That classification doesn't deal with 'deeds'. If you are in the US I doubt the IRA ever posed a threat to you, does this mean they arn't/wern't a terrorist organisation. Your argument is flawed, the KKK is/was a terroist organisation, as they struck terror into the hearts and minds of those they sought to victimise.

    4. Re:Junk Food by dgatwood · · Score: 2, Interesting

      True, but only by the classical definition of terrorism, which someone who commits any act with the intent to cause fear in a section of the population. On the other hand, by that same standard, our own government in the U.S. is a terrorist organization. Do you honestly think that "Threat Level Red" notices to the general public serve any useful purpose other than to scare them into submission?

      No, if we are going to define terrorism in the modern day, you have to include the words "use of force" or similar---someone who uses force to cause fear a section of the population. By comparison, a few random hangings notwithstanding, the KKK no longer meets the modern definition of terrorist. Sorry, but they aren't even in the same league.

      Almost all terrorists have been foreign nationals flying on a passport from a mid-east country. You want to do heightened screenings in a non-racist way, that's how you do it. You track every single person coming into the country from that portion of the world. You further record every person who has ever flown into that portion of the world who is NOT known to be a foreign national. Those people get more extensive screening. Everyone else gets something similar to what we have now.

      The reality, though, is that there are so many potentially explosive substances that it isn't practical, nay, possible to screen for them all. The only way to catch terrorists is to do so long before they get to the airport through good old fashioned intelligence gathering... and I don't mean secret courts and wiretaps on the phones of every AT&T customer....

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    5. Re:Junk Food by the_womble · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The list also includes some very deadly organisations, which was the point.

      One of the non-mulsim groups on the list has killed far more people than Al_Quaeda (tens of thousands), and they have carried out "240+" suicide bombings - but as they only killed funny coloured foreigners I suppose you think that does not count.

      btw BOTH the terrorist groups that have bombed places I lived in (and came close to getting me more than once) used to raise money in the US

    6. Re:Junk Food by deadhammer · · Score: 1

      Would you consider right wing Christians that gun down abortion doctors to be terrorists? That's about as "use of force" as I can tell. None of them, to date, have been "foreign nationals flying on a passport from a mid-east country". Or do you only see one form of extremism, one color of terrorist?

      Yes, there have been American terrorists, and there have also been plenty of non-American, non-Middle-Eastern terrorists too. The IRA has killed more people than Al Qaeda can ever dream of, they just got lucky one Tuesday morning. You'll find no end to the number of groups with a beef about the United States or the UK. When the next group of terrorist attacks come, do you really think it's going to be on a plane by a bunch of Arab-looking guys?

      --
      I'll be honest, we're throwing science against the wall to see what sticks. -Cave Johnson
    7. Re:Junk Food by Kiffer · · Score: 1
      True, but only by the classical definition of terrorism, which someone who commits any act with the intent to cause fear in a section of the population. On the other hand, by that same standard, our own government in the U.S. is a terrorist organization. Do you honestly think that "Threat Level Red" notices to the general public serve any useful purpose other than to scare them into submission?


      Ignoring the fear induced in the american people by the threat levels lets look at the meaning of 'Awe'. As in Shock and Awe. Shock could mean surprise, scare or could be used to mean to attack suddenly. Awe is where it gets fun.

      from oed.com
      awe, n.
        I. As a subjective emotion.
        Immediate and active fear; terror, dread.
      to stand in awe of: to be greatly afraid of, to dread;
        II. As an objective fact.
      Behaviour that inspires fear; anger, fierceness, rage.
      Something which inspires fear; a cause of dread; a restraint.

      awe, v.
        1. To inspire with dread, strike fear into, terrify, daunt; to control, constrain, or restrain, by the influence of fear.

      Looks like your right... The good old USA uses terror tactics and admits it.
      But that's ok... state sponsored terrorism is called War.
    8. Re:Junk Food by radtea · · Score: 1

      Almost all terrorists have been foreign nationals flying on a passport from a mid-east country.

      Your claim is trivially false.

      Even if we just focus on successful terrorist attacks, the Madrid, London and Mumbai bombings were not carried out primarily by foreign nationals carrying passports from a mid-east country.

      If we are willing to count the alleged terrorist cells recently broken up in Canada (where the evidence and plot look plausible) and Britain (where the evidence and plot look thin and absurd) then the numbers get even more skewed away from the Middle East.

      The remarkable thing is that we are arguing over the national identity of people who pose a negligable threat to us, while doing nothing about things that kill far more people every year, like falling down, and getting struck by lightning.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    9. Re:Junk Food by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "Hanging random (almost random) people and burning crosses on people's lawns nicely fits the definition of terrorism."

      I agree with you, but, when was the last time the KKK really DID a lot of that? Decades ago? More?

      I don't think many people have much to fear from them anymore....they haven't been active like that in a LONG time.

      The track record from muslims in recent times? Well, not so good....and they do have a MUCH longer history of trying of conquer the world. The christians didn't start the crusades...the crusades were and answer to muslim intrusions...

      Seems like we've been fighting these bastards for a long time because they won't live and let live...they HAVE to convert or kill all the infidels...

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    10. Re:Junk Food by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are obviously white and have no recollection of how the KKK terrorized non-white, non-Christians.

      As to the crusades, you obviously have a very narrow grasp of world history and only look at one point in a timeline with looking before and after. Suffice to say the "crusaders" were the ones committing atrocities against the local population, not Moslems.

    11. Re:Junk Food by harrkev · · Score: 1
      Would you consider right wing Christians that gun down abortion doctors to be terrorists?
      What you say is technically true, but those terrorists are very specific about their targets. They choose a few select individuals.

      Muslem terrorists don't really care about who they target. As long as they are warm bodies for the body count. Consider, for a moment, that Muslems were able to somehow exterminate all "infidels." Having accomplished that, they would then happily turn on each other, just like in Iraq right now.

      To me, comparing the two is like comparing a hand grenate to a nuclear weapon.
      --
      "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
    12. Re:Junk Food by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An even better way is to stop giving them causes to hate the West.

    13. Re:Junk Food by Dr+Damage+I · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The remarkable thing is that we are arguing over the national identity of people who pose a negligable threat to us, while doing nothing about things that kill far more people every year, like falling down, and getting struck by lightning.

      falling, lightning and even motor vehicle crashes are all risks which people can manage for themselves. Individuals can manage their risk of death by falling by:

      • holding the handrail in stairways
      • doing some form sporting exercise so as to become more physically adept
      • being particularly careful in situations that pose a falling hazard
      Individuals can manage their risk of lightning strike by
      • remaining indoors during electrical storms
      • avoiding trees during electrical storms
      • avoiding tall metallic objects during electrical storms
      • not using umbrellas during electrical storms
      Individuals can manage their risk of motor vehicle accidents by
      • abiding strictly by the law when driving
      • taking defensive driving courses
      • being more observant while driving

      In stark contrast, people can only manage their risk of being blown up in airplanes only by not getting onto airplanes in the first place. The governments only legitimate purpose is to do for people those things that they cannot reasonably do for themselves: I don't need my government protecting me from risks which I can manage (no, I did not say eliminate) for myself. When I get onto a commercial airliner, I want my government to take reasonable steps to manage the risks involved. Otherwise, what is a government good for aside from stealing my money and giving it to crack whores and junkies?

      --
      "Cursed is he who rises early in the morning..." Isiah 5:11
    14. Re:Junk Food by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Yes... the American government has been quite active in changing the definition of a terrorist....

      First of all, governments have always gotten an exemption on being terrorists because they are representatives of recognized states. We have other words for governments that use fear to achieve their ends.

      You're right, the KKK probably isn't going to do anything big, but they did used to lock as many black people as they could find in a church and then torch it. That's roughly equivalent to bringing down an airliner. Maybe they'll experience a resurgence with the resurgence of racial fear in the US.

      As I pointed out to someone else, the last airliner brought down by a bomb in North America was blown up by a Libyan intelligence officer (not a terrorist). The second last one was blown up by two Sikhs (not Islamic and not from the Middle East).

      Islamic terrorists are just more visible at the moment because your government has declared war on them. Which technically means they're not terrorists anymore anyway.

    15. Re:Junk Food by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You: Suffice to say the "crusaders" were the ones committing atrocities against the local population, not Moslems.

      You might be interested in reading this on the Crusades.

      "The crusades were in every way a defensive war. They were the West's belated response to the Muslim conquest of fully two-thirds of the Christian world."

      "The event that led to the crusades was the Turkish conquest of most of Christian Asia Minor (modern Turkey). The Christian emperor in Constantinople, faced with the loss of half of his empire, appealed for help to the rude but energetic Europeans. He got it. More than he wanted, in fact."

      "the crusade's real purpose was to turn back Muslim conquests and restore formerly Christian lands to Christian control. The entire history of the crusades is one of Western reaction to Muslim advances. The crusades were no more offensive than was the American invasion of Normandy."

      And from Wikipedia Crusades entry:

      "In 1009, the Fatimid caliph al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah had sacked the pilgrimage hospice in Jerusalem and destroyed the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. It was later rebuilt by the Byzantine emperor, but this event may have been remembered in Europe and may have helped spark the crusade."


      You: the "crusaders" were the ones committing atrocities

      Although war can hardly be looked at without it being an atrocity, I'd argue that it's less of an atrocity compared to what it has been in history. Given the scope of war can generally be limited to military units and the general population can be spared, todays wars, while still an atrocity, have got to be less compared to history.

      Jim

    16. Re:Junk Food by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      That's kind of an interesting reading of history.

      It's also not likely to help the situation. There are LOTS of muslims (most actually) who are perfectly happy to not only live and let live but live together, in peace, with, well, everybody else. There are probably about as many dangerous muslims as there are dangerous christians. Both religions advocate the conversion of everybody possible.

      The small number of whacko Christians are just a little less likely to go and make a big splash (at the moment). The small number of whacko Muslims are well armed and very irritated at the moment because they were used as pawns by the US and Soviet Union for forty years.

    17. Re:Junk Food by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For the most part, I believe all religions are trying to accomplish the same thing; it's just interpretation by the more extreme members of the various religions that gets the attention. The problem as I see it often comes down to geography. Where do most religions have their roots? Can religious policies promoting growth live in harmony if the areas of religious importance are shared? It's just going to get ugly in close proximity.

      Jim

    18. Re:Junk Food by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "Both religions advocate the conversion of everybody possible."

      That is true, however, in Christianity, if they don't convert you, they aren't obligated by their bible to kill you. The Koran (or however you spell it) takes a much dimmer view of the unconverted infidel.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    19. Re:Junk Food by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not that you didn't do a good job in de-bunking his "trivially false" claim, but how do you not even give a mention to Oklahoma City?

      McVeigh is the poster-child for the "Not all terrorists are Arabs" argument.

    20. Re:Junk Food by TheOldFart · · Score: 1

      Britain (where the evidence and plot look thin and absurd)

      Funny you bring this up. I see little notice regarding the plausibility of such plot, specialy considering the country it came from. England? Come on... Who are these terrorists, the Moron Liberation Organization? Their next country of choice for planing and origin of execution of these attacks is probably going to be what, Israel? Isn't it also so convinient that both Blair and Bush are in a bit of a need to ratle the cage in their favour right now?

    21. Re:Junk Food by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Most religions start out as extremists. They have to. In order to found a new religion you have to be a heretic to the existing religions. They tend to mellow with time though. Unfortunately, there are usually a very small minority who decide to take the old writings seriously.

      Plus the holy city stuff. Which also tends to happen, because derivative religions are often founded in the heartland of old ones.

    22. Re:Junk Food by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Various interpretations of the bible have also taken a very dim view of non-Christians. What they did to witches, for instance.

      Some quotes for you:

      Christianity cannot live in peace with any other form of faith. -- Robert Ingersoll, Some Mistakes of Moses

      He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed. Exodus 22:20

      Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. Exodus 22:18

      Thou shalt not bow down to their gods, nor serve them, nor do after their works: but thou shalt utterly overthrow them, and quite break down their images. Exodus 23:24

      For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God: Exodus 34:14

      The graven images of their gods shall ye burn with fire: thou shalt not desire the silver or gold that is on them, nor take it unto thee, lest thou be snared therin: for it is an abomination to the LORD thy God. Deuteronomy 7:25.

      Okay, that's enough. There are LOTS more. Those and other bible passages have been used to justify a LOT of killing of non-Christians. And a lot of Christians too.

      The Koran reads very much like the bible. Both are riddled with the basic theme that non-believers are cursed and enemies of God. Some of their adherents figure God would like someone to give him a hand dealing out justice.

    23. Re:Junk Food by walstib · · Score: 1

      How do you recognize a moslem to haul into the special line anyway?

      Hand out pork sandwiches. Those who do not eat can be ruled as fair game for further inspection.

      --
      The most dangerous strategy is to jump a chasm in two leaps. - Benjamin Disraeli
    24. Re:Junk Food by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Not a bad idea. I suspect Allah grants exceptions to pretty much all the rules to his fanatical followers in their pursuit of jihad though.

    25. Re:Junk Food by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      You didn't read my entire post. Yes, some of the terrorist attacks have been committed by locals, but most of those bombings involved either someone who had recently travelled to the middle east or were planned by someone who had recently travelled to the middle east, whether foreign nationals or not. Therefore, what I suggested would have orders of magnitude better chance of preventing these sorts of attacks than any random searches or similar policies.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    26. Re:Junk Food by bursch-X · · Score: 1

      Cool, that way we'd also get rid of all those fuckin Vegans!

      --
      There are two rules for success:
      1. Never tell everything you know.
  46. Funny but possibly true by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    There is actually a cargo place that was lost where they suspect it may actually have been the batteries in question used by Dell.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  47. Checking Laptops by SPQRDecker · · Score: 2, Informative

    I flew back from Europe on August 10/11 (Athens to NYC via Prague), and I had to check my laptop bag, since we were only allowed our wallet, passport, and boarding pass with us on the plane. I arrived at my departure airport blissfully unaware of the situation and carrying my iBook stuffed into a flimzy laptop bag (no safer-than-the-plane's-black-box Halliburton case). Even so, the machine survived the trip as checked baggage without any damage. Damage, however, was not the biggest worry for me -- it was loss and theft. As anyone who as ever travelled and changed planes knows, bags get lost all the time and valuables get stolen (which is why most people put them into their carry-ons). I had my ipod, digital camera, and computer in one case, which the airport agent kindly wrapped in security tape before checking. All the same, the bag broadcast the fact that it contained a computer, and baggage handlers don't get paid enough to be honest. When I got to New York (JFK), it was the only bag that did not make it through, although it was not stolen. (Perhaps, with a case as expensive as the one in TFA, perhaps it may have been stolen, since it absolutely screms "Here be valuables!" Fortunately for me, it turned out that the bag was stopped and searched, so it did not make it onto the plane. The airline found it and got it back to me within days, but judging from the massive line of angry people at the desk -- and the fact that many of them left the desk even angrier -- I think I was one of the lucky ones. That may be part of the reason that the rules were relaxed to allow laptops, since forcing people to check their laptops exposes the airlines to alot of expensive liablity for things that passengers would normally take responsibility for in their carry-ons.

    1. Re:Checking Laptops by wkk2 · · Score: 1

      It is insane to transport a laptop in checked luggage. There are a number of very good reasons.
      Batteries: I would much rather have burning laptops as carry on luggage where the problem can be quickly dealt with vs. in a cargo hold where the entire plane might be lost to a fire. Checked luggage is extremely abused. While doing telecom work in airports, I've seen handlers pull cases off of carts that were stacked higher than their heads and just let them drop to a concrete floor. I don't care how a laptop is packed; this kind of treatment could easily compromise the integrity of a battery pack. Is your case designed for a 2 m drop? Did the drop prime the battery for the next pressure change?

      Anything with a high-energy battery: Cameras, Laptops, PDAs, and phones should be carry on only.

      Data protection: Encryption is great but there are real industrial spies. Sensitive data should never be out of your reach in a plane or hotel. A key logger can easily take your password. You're a little better off if the key is on a smart card that is carried with your credit cards.

      Theft: My last employer had a policy that you would be charged for lost laptops if they were lost from a car, hotel, or checked luggage. I've had gear taken from locked closets behind airport security. I hope you have a low deductible on your insurance if you check your laptop.

  48. what is with people and keeping client data? by kingsqueak · · Score: 1

    What is wrong with people and their insistance on keeping confidential material in the clear on a laptop?

    How many headlines do people have to read before they 'get it' and simply encrypt the data?

    What are companies thinking allowing this data to be carried at all?

    Readers here have even less of an excuse. Try 'man losetup' and look for -e...it's just not that hard.

    Set yourself up a nice big crypt file with AES, set it with a nice long and strong passphrase and don't leave the mount mounted when you hibernate the laptop either.

    Yes one could brute force the passphrase, but at least you'd be trying to make an effort.

    Even better, encrypt it with a key...one that isn't on the laptop at all.

  49. This is the reality the hallucination covers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The twin towers where brought down with Thermite. For real, read it.
    http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.ht ml

  50. Thanks by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    I didn't realize they were so easily found, thanks for the link.

    Once I had a lock that I attached to only one zipper of a bag so the TSA could get in - well of course they didn't bother to check that and cut the lock and zipper as well. At least with a real TSA lock they'll nt be cutting anything (I hope).

    Do you know if you can use those locks for international travel?

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  51. It's simple - I don't use UK airports anymore by The+Mutant · · Score: 5, Informative

    American, living in London, on the road betweet three to five days a week. I usually travel via Heathrow although sometimes I'm out of Gatwick.

    I now use City Airport as much as possible, but they only provide short haul service into the continent.

    For long haul flights I now Eurostar to Paris or Amsterdam where I pick up a connecting flight.

    The fundamental problem is BAA, the airport operator, has declined to add staff to perform the required searches manually, thus protecting their profits. And the airlines are just as bad, attempting to maintain the same flight schedules to preserve revenue.

    So the passengers are caught in the middle, and we're expected to strip down to our underwear and file, arms crossed above our heads, gratefully onto to the waiting aircraft.

    Not me, and many like me. Business class travelers are avoiding this circus in droves.

    We're all either using smaller airports that were not impacted like Heathrow / Gatwick or, if a long flight is needed (I'm off to Cairo in two weeks), we're taking the train to Paris or Amsterdam, and picking up a connecting flight from there.

    None of the continental airports are doing this crap. None of the Asian airports are doing this crap. Even the US isn't going this far.

    Make no mistake about it - this is all about protecting profits. Nothing more.

    1. Re:It's simple - I don't use UK airports anymore by Cederic · · Score: 1


      Quite how flight cancellations, excessive passenger waiting times and increased staff levels are protecting BAAs profits I really struggle to understand.

      The airlines are losing a massive amount of money from this. BAA is losing significant sums.

      And yes, BAA have increased staff levels in the airports.

    2. Re:It's simple - I don't use UK airports anymore by jrumney · · Score: 1

      The train from London to Amsterdam takes all day. Business travellers like you are not taking it in droves.

    3. Re:It's simple - I don't use UK airports anymore by PurplePaperclip · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Another perspective on this:

      The security staff at BAA are unionised - basically if there is something they're not happy with then they slow down searches and/or search more people (staff can hardly be fired for searching more frequently and thoroughly). This actually hurts BAA financially as a large amount of their income comes from rent from the shops on *air-side*. If security is slow (which it usually is) passengers won't have the time to spend money and this, of course, upsets all those retailers and this will in turn impacts BAA revenue.

      It is also why London City and Luton airports are so much quicker - they're aren't managed by BAA and the operators don't have to deal with a traditionally unionised work force (both City and Luton are 'new' airports).

      Here's a [conspiracy] theory: BAA can't recruit more security staff as this would dilute union power at the airports - especially this labour would likely be contractors, not permanent staff): Note that the labour at Heathrow is very closely knit - lower income families are all dependant on Heathrow for employment - anything upsetting them will lead to a airport wide protest. Just like last year when BA's caterers were made redundant and in turn loads of baggage handlers walked out in protest!

      So I don't believe that BAA's inability to add security staff is related to profit - in fact, quite the opposite. BAA's 2005 profit was £710million - adding additional security staff to increase passenger throughput and in turn obtain greater rental income sounds like a no-brainer. There's clearly something more complicated in the equation on why BAA hasn't recruited enough security staff...

    4. Re:It's simple - I don't use UK airports anymore by JPFitting · · Score: 1

      Agreed; big business runs the world. When a business's profit's are out of balance, they will do whatever they can to restore order. The only reason Asian airports arn't doing it is because their profit's haven't been threatened. During my stay in Korea last year I felt safer not only in public transportation but also private then I have during my childhood in the States.

      --
      Music, my drug; dance, my ecstasy.
    5. Re:It's simple - I don't use UK airports anymore by Wooster_UK · · Score: 1

      Hmm... I flew PEK-CPH-LHR at the beginning of the week, and we had to sort out our hand luggage at PEK before they let us on the plane, but there was no security checking in CPH; not a sausage. Had me puzzled, I can tell you.

    6. Re:It's simple - I don't use UK airports anymore by acb · · Score: 1

      Actually, Eurostar takes 2 hours 45 minutes to Paris, or 2 hours 15 to Brussels. And when comparing to a flight, remember to add the time required to get to/from the airport (railway stations are more central) and to check in (2 hours for air vs. 30 minutes for Eurostar). Once the new London route is built, they expect to shave a good half an hour off this as well.

    7. Re:It's simple - I don't use UK airports anymore by Curmudgeonlyoldbloke · · Score: 1

      That's because they're following the old "check luggage through to your destination" rules rather than the new Schengen ones. If you'd been flying to, say, Amsterdam, then you'd have had to clear customs in Copenhagen (and not in Amsterdam). I'm assuming that you stayed in the non-Schengen part of the airport in CPH and didn't really enter Denmark or the Schengen area of the EU at all.

      Whether this is a good idea or a bad one is a different question, of course - a system like this is only as strong as the weakest link. Take Lockerbie for example (whoever you believe did it) - they didn't stick the explosives on at Heathrow.

    8. Re:It's simple - I don't use UK airports anymore by Curmudgeonlyoldbloke · · Score: 1

      I don't think that it is a BAA problem, it's a Heathrow problem, even before the current "security issues".

      Due to late customer requests, I've had to fly through Heathrow several times in the last year (the only other UK direct flight to where I was going was from Manchester, which gets booked up first). Roughly half the time BA's ground staff (who represented both of the airlines to the country that I was flying to) managed to screw something up - one one occasion keeping the passengers on a late-landing plane on board for an hour because of some lame excuse or other.

      Manchester, Birmingham, etc. don't have these issues, and neither does Edinburgh (which is also BAA). Obviously Schipol and CDG don't either.

      PS - If I were you I'd consider Brussels as well as Paris and Amsterdam. It's less busy most of the time, the Eurostar time's quicker and the beer's better when you get there!

    9. Re:It's simple - I don't use UK airports anymore by jrumney · · Score: 1

      Neither Paris nor Brussels is in Amsterdam though. Travelling to Amsterdam by train you end up spending about an hour in Brussels due to the lack of convenient connections between the Eurostar and the trains to Amsterdam, and a further 3 hours on the train from Brussels to Amsterdam.

  52. The "Fifth Element" Solution to Airline Security by j3p0 · · Score: 1

    And a tip o' the hat to Luc Bresson for showing us the future in secure, safe air travel (OK, it was interplanetary travel in the movie). The flight attendant says "sweet dreams" and hits a button. When you wake up, you're on the ground at your destination.

    To bring it back on-topic, there seems general agreement that checking laptops as baggage as unacceptably risky, the flying public and big business will not stand for the banning of laptops as carry-on and the Brits went and reversed the ban that started this whole discussion in the first place.

    --
    "A Little Song, A Little Dance, A Little Seltzer Down your Pants" -Chuckles The Clown
  53. TSA locks for international travel by glittalogik · · Score: 1

    You can and I have. The TSA have a special tool to open them without the key (which changes the indicator from green to red on applicable models); as far as everyone else is concerned, it's just a padlock. At least several models also include a warranty that covers them for TSA destruction; if they clip it, you get a free replacement from the manufacturer/retailer.

  54. Silly by L.Bob.Rife · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Nothing says you are a professional more, than showing up to a presentation and hoping your client has some way for you to present your information. In the business world, showing up with a usb stick wont cut it. What if you get last minute changes? Going to borrow a clients computer to do your work on?

    Presentations are meant to impress somebody. People dont hop onto a jet and fly around the world to impress their underlings. If you cant spend $1k on a laptop, and $1k on a projector, my company wont be providing what you cant afford, and wont be doing business with you.

    1. Re:Silly by BitterOak · · Score: 1

      If you cant spend $1k on a laptop, and $1k on a projector, my company wont be providing what you cant afford, and wont be doing business with you.

      Personally, I don't consider anyone professional if they don't also show up with the conference table, carpeting, chairs, and ceiling lamps.

      It may be reasonable to expect people to come with their own laptop, buy why should people be expected to lug around heavy projectors when most conference rooms already have them. Would you consider it unreasonable for a prospective visitor to phone ahead and ask if a projector would be available, for instance?

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    2. Re:Silly by rbanzai · · Score: 1

      I am in partial agreement with the poster. I am an I.T. Manager and have been amazed at th elast minute requests that come in not from co-workers, but from people who want to sell us something!

      Forget projectors, some people don't even bring laptops! There's no preparation, no calls to make sure a resource will be available. They just show up and say "Oh, can't I just connect to that falt panel?" No DVI output on your laptop? Then, you can't.

      But we do have a projector, but... it's been taken offsite for a client meeting.

      Hope you're good at shadow puppets. //preparation impresses me more than hardware ///so frickin' prepare if you want me to give you my money!

  55. OtterBox makes laptop cases, too by kureido · · Score: 1

    OtterBox makes nigh-indestructible (and waterproof!) cases of all sorts, and it looks like they've branched out into laptop cases as well.

  56. Truly a troll post by spoco2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I mean really... just a complete troll.

    a) How many of us don't have or want a PDA? Answer: Lots
    b) Even if we did have a PDA we'd still need the laptop in order to either work on when we get to our work destination, or, in my case, use as a portable entertainment unit for watching movies etc. when at my travel destination, and also to be able to offload and edit photos I've taken while out and about.

    Urgh, what a post!

  57. Said Islamic, not Moslem by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    How do you recognize a moslem to haul into the special line anyway? I know one with red hair and freckles.

    So do I. That's why I specifically mentioned Islamic Extremism as a problem, which is an ideology and not a race - as is the case with most terrorist organizations. It's why racial profiling probably will not work well though behavioral profiling might yield some results, and why you have to monitor general international communications looking for keywords instead of just looking at someones last name to decide if perhaps you want to sample communications from tem randomly and go seek a court order.

    Most of the other groups on the list have quieted down (don't hear much from the IRA nowadays which would be the runner up) so that leaves us with one major group of people far more active than anyone and with a larger scope of operations. Again, the list does not take into account the degree of activity and seeks to put the KKK on the same footing as Islamic Extremists. The equivlizing is dangerous as it either leads one to trivialize the dange from truly dangerous groups or to divert attention to groups that are in fact Mostly Harmless, as Adams would say. That is why the list is Junk Food - because it simply is not good for you despite the warm fuzzy feeling you get inside your head while reading it.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Said Islamic, not Moslem by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Moslem/Muslim == an adherant of Islam. Islam is a religion, not an ethnic group. That's like saying "all Christians." If a Christian isn't accommodating enough to wear something like a cross in plain sight, how do you tell?

      So again, how do you recognize one? What you REALLY mean is arabs. But Iranians are supposed to be really dangerous too. They're Persian. There are a pile of black people who are Islamic too (pretty much all the ones who aren't Christian). So to be safe we should probably search everyone who's not white, hey? Oh, and asians are okay. But wait, there were those nuts who nerve gassed the Tokyo subway....

      Of the last two North American flights actually brought down by bombs, the Pan Am flight over Scotland was done by a Libyan intelligence officer. The one before that, Air India, was by two Sikhs. So it might be a wee bit hasty to say all those other groups are harmless.

      Besides, I haven't heard of increased airport security actually stopping ANY terrorism attempt. Why bring in widespread policies that discriminate against major ethnic and religious groups that are unlikely to be effective? You don't HAVE to do everything the terrorists accuse you of.

  58. Re:The "Fifth Element" Solution to Airline Securit by GrumblyStuff · · Score: 1

    If you'll also recall, one of the patsies trying to get on the plane at Kurben Dallas (sp?) failed, reported to his boss, and his boss detonated a bomb inside him. Replace boss with timer and assume he got onto the plane. :/

  59. Not high enough capacity? by Silver+Sloth · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Using trains to deliver bombs has been described in great (fictional) detail in 'A Big Boy Did And Ran Away' by Christopher Brookmyer.

    Simply put:-

    • Board train with suitcase filled with explosives at any station - minimal security.
    • Leave suitcase in suitable location and leave train. Here in the UK no one would touch it
    • Use timer/gps to detonate bomb at suitable location. Suggestions given were:-
      • As train passes suitable military base
      • As train passes through suitable urban area
    And even without the gps/timer aspect, consider what would happen if a bomb went of in a major rail station of your choice in a city of your choice during the rush hour. Remember 7/7/05? Those were baby bombs delivered by amateurs.
    --
    init 11 - for when you need that edge.
    1. Re:Not high enough capacity? by uvatbc · · Score: 1

      Wow - that sounds so much like the July 11 Mumbai train blasts.

      For anyone doubting the feasibility of this scenario, see this

  60. Re:The "Fifth Element" Solution to Airline Securit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This isn't very convincing, considering that the ship was destroyed by terrorists.

  61. A view from the other side by brettimer · · Score: 2, Informative
    After having read most of the comments I noticed a lack of responses from anyone that actually handles the baggage. I work for one of the 3 major US/International airlines. Here are just a few thoughts.
    • While most people like to blame ramp service workers for baggage problems, sometimes its just "user error" in that the passenger does not correctly pack the bag so that it can successfully make the trip, its not uncommon to have a bag that is over stuffed rip apart when it gets punched by the baggage system down a lateral to where we scan and sort the bags. We try to put everything we can find back in the bag and tape it closed, but sometimes stuff is missed - not stolen, but simply not not found until after the bag is loaded and the flight gone.
    • There seem to be alot of comments about how ramp service workers go through bags and look for anything of value. While there are some "bad seeds" out there; most of the workers do want to get your baggage to you on time and with the same contents it had when you started the trip. Additionally, there is very little down time to try to look through baggage; certainly not out on the ramp as a few other posts have suggested.
    • Yes, baggage does get thrown sometimes, but it is not because we are out to distroy your baggage, instead its the simple fact that throwing is more efficient - and less tiring - than walking the bag to the cart, especially when unloading a flight. We do avoid throwing anything with fragile markings.

    Do yourself all a favor, pack your bags well and don't over pack. In the end, would I check a laptop? Probably not, but I would be more worried about theft on the baggage claim side than plane side.
    1. Re:A view from the other side by bearave · · Score: 1

      I travelled business class Sydney to various Chinese cities 5 times between 1998 and 2003 with a colleague who always, to my horror, checked his laptop in with his luggage. He actually made trips to China 4 or 5 times a year, and did this every time. Never had a problem (initially with an NEC laptop, later a Toshiba). Either he was lucky, or the baggage handlers recognised the laptop bag as fragile luggage and treated it well. I was never that trusting and always took mine as cabin luggage. Some posts have suggested wrapping your bag and disguising it. Maybe that would be counter-productive - why not trust the baggage handlers and airlines to treat fragile luggage as just that - as my colleague did ? But perhaps there is another solution. What's the difference between stowing laptops etc in cabin baggage or stowing it in cabin lockers which were locked for the duration of the flight (as they are during take-off/landing and turbulence) ? OK, the checked-in luggage gets a more thorough security scan, but surely the airlines could do the same for laptops and other sensitive cargo that would be better off in the pressurised and heated cabin - and then load it into the cabin lockers, locking them before the passengers arrive. It would probably take somewhat longer, but passengers were already being delayed by huge amounts - I certainly would tolerate a little more delay to get my valuables stored with a little better protection. It also seems that the threat from liquid explosives was that the ingredients were harmless until mixed on board the plane - most likely in the toilet. Simply leaving the cabin lockers locked would overcome that risk. Why not let people take toiletries etc.,. in locked-up cabin lockers so they can freshen up at their destination whilst waiting for the checked-in baggage to be unloaded ?

      --
      plurality should not be posited without necessity. - William of Occam
    2. Re:A view from the other side by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Actually, I imagine that by far the worst danger for theft is at baggage pickup.

      Because there, everyone can see the bags coming out, and somebody with the mind to take such and who just happens to be ahead of you could spot your laptop bag coming out before you do, and BAM! Buh-bye laptop.

      And in my experience, baggage handlers pay no attention at all to "fragile" labels... I've seen stuff broken just as often in boxes with such markings as without. I imagine they just don't have the time to handle every item marked "fragile" with care.

  62. Using Poison Gas by giafly · · Score: 1
    There is nothing stopping terrorists from taking out all the people standing around waiting to get through security.
    Exactly. Of course they'd use poison gas instead of high explosives. That's what the alleged chemical bomb plot was all about. It turned out to be a false alarm this time, but plausible.

    BTW don't you just love Google - even helpful to people researching bombs. Restores my faith in humanity.
    --
    Reduce, reuse, cycle
  63. and... terroists use dells? by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 1

    So, hippies use apples... and... terroists use dells?

    That can't be generally applicable. Slime-sucking corporate weasels use Dells by preference so that would make them terrorists under your definition. Now that just can't be since I don't see US politicians launching 'decapitation attacks' to zap their own source of campaign contributions with 125lb Paveway bombs and Hellfire missiles. Thus you should perhaps consider limiting your definition of 'terrorist' to the subset of Dell users who run Linux? Perhaps you can even launch an online petition to Dell that they install an IFF device in their laptops that only works if you don't have Linux installed?

    --
    Only to idiots, are orders laws.
    -- Henning von Tresckow
  64. the fools! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I reckon if everyone on the plane turns on their mobile phones at the same time, we're bound to crash :D

  65. IRA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What about those guys from Ireland? Were they muslims? hyuck hyuck

  66. still banned in Poland by Franio · · Score: 1

    The ban may have be lifted in the UK but in Poland you still can't have any carry-on baggage.

    This situation is really stupid for people who have to return home under the new rules and have no option of just leaving the laptop at home.

    Hopefully they will come to their senses before I have to fly back in 10 days.

  67. El Al airlines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    frisks every middle eastern Islamist. They've had zero probs.

    Every homicide bomber in the western world is a Moslem. Sorry, you lose.

    1. Re:El Al airlines by marytmac · · Score: 1

      a) ElAl frisk everybody and b) homicide bombers can be any denomination you can name. Suicide bombers on the other hand, tend to be Muslim. Difference.

    2. Re:El Al airlines by tizan · · Score: 1

      "Suicide bombers on the other hand, tend to be Muslim. Difference" Well have you heard of Sri Lanka ? Where suicide bombers can be youngsters of Tamil (hindu) descent (heard of the assassination Rajiv Gandhi ?) hindu - muslim = potato - potaaato....

    3. Re:El Al airlines by marytmac · · Score: 1

      Hence saying 'tend'.

  68. And the kinetic energy of the aircraft by Colin+Smith · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You also have 180,000kg of aircraft traveling at 236m/s. Which gives you an additional 5 gigajoules. Hmm, insignificant in comparison to the fuel. As you were.

    --
    Deleted
    1. Re:And the kinetic energy of the aircraft by AtomicBomb · · Score: 1

      I don't think the kinetic energy should be added here as a separated item. Say, the jet consist of 3.3TJ on the runway before take-off. When it gains speed and altitude, the PE and KE do increases. However, this is done in expense of the burning of the fuel. Therefore, once you calculated the energy content of the fuel, any potential/ kinetic energy calculation is duplicated.

    2. Re:And the kinetic energy of the aircraft by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Much of that fuel energy is used to heat the atmosphere, so the highest energy state of the aircraft is sitting on the runway after fueling and before takeoff.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
  69. "Nice case. I think I'll steal it..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While these cases are very nice (as they damn well should be at $350 a pop...) they still do nothing to protect your laptop in checked baggage.

    It is still forbidden to actually lock your baggage, as it is required for "security reasons" for them to be able to dig through your belongings at any time. So you have a a nice, unlocked laptop case. Which when it arrives empty at your destination, the airlines will still deny all liability for the loss. You'll be lucky if they wish you a nice day before having you escorted out of the claims office by those nice armed guards they have wandering the airports now.

    Fuck the airlines. If you are forced to fly, save yourself a hell of a lot of trouble and UPS/Fed-Ex your belongings to your hotel. (Just call ahead.)

  70. Re: Profile the terrorist, or go on pretending. by pitu · · Score: 1

    In your way of seeing the world it actually may appear that it is only the muslims that are the terrorists... and as funny as it may seem theese muslims have this fixation mainly against innocent americans & the allies (tm)(having to choose from the whole world)

      I hear there are people who think that the americans (& the whole western world) are the global terrorists, and I am not even talking about a bunch of soldiers that come in, rape some women, kill some kids and stage a bombing assault.(hint: try google: chomsky on terrorism)

      so let me take a wild guess: it may be that extremists from both sides are in war defending some economic interest of their own ? mhm?

      And as it comes usually in wars, mainly innocent people die, whether by getting blown in pieces on airoplanes or are targeted down in their homes (because some 'Ahmed' main terrorist fugure was supposedly hiding in their basement)

      But to get to my point, war or not war, there may NOT be any excuse to discriminate any other human by any means. especially not by war induced false propaganda.

      And I do wake up, not when a tragedy hits my country, but when mine or others human rights are beeing endangered. I would risk my country's interests & integrity to obtain the respect of human rights, and I prefer beeing a human to beeing a 'patriot'

  71. 18 inches? by Snospar · · Score: 1

    The article talks about drop testing kit from a height of 18 inches (or 36 inches later on) but I've watched bags being thrown out of the hold of an aircraft onto a waiting truck. The drop from the hold to the truck was possibly greater than 36 inches vertically but that doesn't take into account the horizontal velocity involved in covering the 8 - 10 feet these bags had to fly to reach the truck.

    I doubt any fragile equipment survived a trip in the hold on that flight.

    --
    Moore's law is not a law. Theory, yes; Predictable trend, certainly; Law, no.
  72. Military hardened laptops. by gelfling · · Score: 1

    You can get ruggedized laptops that are ideal for military, contractor, construction site, law enforcement work. They're heavy and expensive but, if you're concerned about durability they're a good bet.

    Now what about thefts?

  73. Re:Apparently you're not the only one who thinks t by rahrens · · Score: 1

    I love it! I really didn't think I'd been the first to think of it, the comment just occurred to me and I posted it cause I thought it'd get a few giggles.

    I love the different comments, though! And the site you linked to is hilarious!

    --
    "Money is truthful. If a man speaks of his honor, make him pay cash." Notebooks of Lazarus Long, Robert A. Heinlein
  74. TSA approved locks by hey · · Score: 2, Informative

    How about those TSA approved luggage locks?
    These locks have a combo that you know and a special key that the TSA has
    that can open it too -- "for security".
    http://froogle.google.com/froogle?q=TSA+lock&hl=en &lr=&sa=X&oi=froogle&ct=title

  75. Is it just me ... by rs25com · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Or did it strike anyone else odd that the article seemed to just be a big advertisement on why you need to go buy a new laptop case? I saw very little information about the actual policies, or doing anything about them, other than "Go buy a new case."

    Irony: The article below it on the Slashdot homepage refers to fake news reports.

    Coincidence?

  76. Gandhi accomplished the same thing in only 5 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Considering that those "dippy civil rights types" earlier achieved the same goal in that other British-controlled/occupied country in 1/5 the time it took the IRA, I'd say the IRA did far more to prevent civil rights improvements in Northern Ireland than they ever could to advance them.

  77. UPS & Dell laptops by mahju · · Score: 1

    Yup, UPS & Dell laptops...

    http://tomshardware.co.uk/2006/07/13/ntsb_laptopba ttery_upsfire/ ...a fool proof plan I tell ya ;-)

  78. Stop and think. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    The London bombers and the alleged London terrorists captured last week (alleged, information is emerging that many of them did not have a passport, flight tickets or anything that would have allowed them on a plane anytime soon) did not allege anything.

    They were normal people by the reckoning of most people that knew them.

    The current problem is a small minority of deranged people incensed by suicidal policies of Western leaders (mostly the US and the UK) when dealing with Muslim countries and their international grievances.

    The individuals that hide behind Islam have no redention as human beens and should be caught and punished, but, and this is the bit but many people are blissfully ignoring, you don't pacify a mad man by been unjust to him.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  79. Well, cry me a river. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    A laptop should not contain confidential information. Period.

    Confidential information should be contained in a remote server properly secured, or in removable, encrypted media.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  80. After several intelligence blunders.... by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    .... the use of the word allegedely is a healty necessity.

    Oh, and it seems that secveral of the people arrested did not even have a passport, so how is it that the risk was "imminent"?

    This history has still lots of stuff to show...

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  81. No need by milosoftware · · Score: 1

    Enough alternatives - unless you travel to a location where they haven't discovered the PC yet.

    Just to name a few:

    • Put data on a CD or memory stick or ...
    • Slipstream your demo into a Knoppix CD
    • Convert your presentation to a bunch of JPEGs and put them on your digital camera or on the 'net.
    • Set up a decent SSH tunnel and (or) use some (other) form of remote computing.
    • Sell it and buy a PSP since all you ever do with that laptop is playing games anyway.
    --
    Musicians don't die. They just decompose.
  82. Bombing != Hijacking by Cybrex · · Score: 1

    I call bullshit. You're equating blowing up airliners with hijacking planes, when they are completely different animals. Yes, someone could check a bomb into the baggage of a plane and blow it up, but I submit that after 9/11 it became impossible for anyone other than an actual airline pilot to fly an airliner into a pre-designated building. Before 9/11 being on a plane that was being hijacked mostly meant a scary ride and some inconvenience. It was to your advantage to sit down, shut up, and not look anyone in the eye. The psychology of the airline passenger is now completely different (at least in the Western world). Today, being on a plane that gets hijacked means that unless you actively do something you are absolutely going to die. As a result, anyone stupid enough to try to hijack a plane today will suddenly find themselves outnumbered 100 to 1 by people willing to charge into gunfire to tear them to pieces because otherwise they're already dead. Add to this the pent up rage over 9/11 and locked/reinforced cockpit doors and hijacking is a fool's game. No need for air marshals or extra security there- the security comes from the passengers themselves.

    Compared to that, simply blowing up a plane is a piece of cake, but far less effective. Hell, if high profile and high casualty rates are your goal, it'd be easier and much more effective to pull an Oklahoma City-style truck bombing on the airport itself, or better still a publicized crowded venue like a sporting event.

    Your belief that you're safe from hijacking isn't an illusion. The illusion is your belief that airport security has anything to do with it. Enjoy your token searches and security checkpoints. I despise them as the unnecessary inconvenience and violation of my person that they are, and have shied away from flying as a result. If I can't have my laptop either then there's no way I'm going to fly. Screw the airlines, the TSA, and Homeland Security.

    --
    Boundless Expansion, Self-Transformation, Dynamic Optimism, Intelligent Technology, Spontaneous Order- BEST DO IT SO!
  83. Re:Gandhi accomplished the same thing in only 5 ye by radtea · · Score: 0

    This is a tremendously important point.

    Violence in pursuit of peace and freedom is terrible inefficient. Civil disobedience in one form or another is vastly more effective, as the case of Gandhi's India shows.

    People who choose violence as a means of pursuing their goals are either a) immensely stupid or b) not really interested in the purported goal, but really interested in exploiting the chaos that violence brings. There is a final possibility, that they are cowards. Civil disobedience requires far greater courage than blowing yourself up, because it takes away your control of the situation.

    Many of us are aware of how beneficial it is to the Bush/Blair folks to keep everyone scared and to portray the current world situation as a state of war. It is worth remembering that this state of war benefits the leaders on the other side just as much or more. It gives them power and prestige within their communities, where otherwise they would just be arrogant blowhards with major adequacy issues.

    The one fact we can be sure of: people using violence to bring about political change are not interested in bringing about the goals they claim to be pursuing. If they did, they would use more efficient means.

    --
    Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
  84. Re:The problem is Sony, not Dell by StarChamber · · Score: 1

    I know that everyone is just having fun at Dell's expense, however, the problem is with the Sony manufactured Li-ion batteries. There have been reports of Apple MacBooks suffering the same fate (Apple also procurs its batteries from Sony http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/laptops/who-else-beside s-dell-used-the-sony-batteries-apple-194728.php), however, since they ship far fewer laptops per year than Dell, they have had fewer laptops burst into flames. And then there were the cell phone batteries that were catching fire a few years ago -- http://news.com.com/Cell+phone+batteries+Avoid+get ting+burned/2100-1041_3-5420061.html.

    The problem also extends to the shipment of Li-ion batteries. A shipment caught fire on a UPS plane a few months ago - http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/ 17/1857232&from=rss.

    The problem is linked to poor quality control and flawed designs.

    I know this is off topic, however, this is becoming a serious problem and may lead to further restrictions when traveling on commercial aircraft.

  85. End of argument, modified Goodwins law by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    but as they only killed funny coloured foreigners I suppose you think that does not count.

    If you are so juvenile as to require that you demonize those you argue against because your own thoughts are too weak to put together a proper argument, what is the point of having a discussion with you? If you want to grow up and continue having a real discussion please do come back. I'm sure you care about people in general just as I do, to claim that anyone has it in for another race or nation of people just based on color of skin without proof they in fact are racist is reprehensible and makes you look the fool.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  86. Make sure you're insured if flying from London by Oz0ne · · Score: 1

    I'm about to take a trip in to do some photography. The camera gear I'm taking for the even totals about $4k. At first I thought of cancelling because I'm pretty much assured if the equipment is checked it will be "lost" or damaged. Now that you can carry on small things again I've gotten a smaller case that will fit everything, but I've also taken out an additional insurance policy just in case!

  87. Make you drink it by funkify · · Score: 1

    Hmmm... couldn't they just make you drink a sip or two of your bottled drink in front of them to pass it as harmless? Is there such a thing as potable liquid explosives?

    1. Re:Make you drink it by travisco_nabisco · · Score: 1

      If they are planning on blowing up a plane I don't think they care that much about whether the liquid is potable or not. They just need to be confident it won't kill them before they set off the bomb.

  88. No I don't by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    So again, how do you recognize one? What you REALLY mean is arabs.

    No I do not. I mean Islamic fundamentalists that can be blonde haired and blue eyed. You cannot know them by look.

    Try again.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:No I don't by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Didn't you say we should pull them out of screening lines for special search? How do you do that if you can't recognize them?

  89. Checked Laptop.. Custom Case.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The few times I've ever checked my laptop I've used the following custom made case design. Now, granted that most people have real laptops that are actually fragile (as opposed to my antique Vaio FXA-49) this might not work for some.

    - Go to Harbor Freight, Enco, or similar.
    - Buy a "Sample" Case, or the aluminum sided technicians case. IMHO the Sample case works best for laptops, but the technicians case works best for a 12 pack of beer bottles (Delerium Tremens/Nocturn/Chimay Red.. Yum.)
    - Rip the guts of the case out. Reinforce the corners with wood blocks cut to fit and glued in place.
    - Line interior with 1/2 inch of 'disposable ice cooler' stryofoam (use a good glue)
    - Add 1/2 inch layer of High Density Foam (firm but slightly squishy) cut to fit and glue in place.
    - Line latch portion of lid with interlocking layers of same foams.
    - Wrap laptop in a pillow case, a drycleaners bag, another pillow case, and add a "cheesecutter" wire loop around one edge (cuts the lid section).
    - Build cardboard form of available interior space inside case.
    - Insert bagged laptop into form, attach ends of 'cheesecutter' to outside of form.
    - Add one to two cans of "expando foam"
    - Allow to cure.
    - Trim to fit.
    - Peel cardboard, pull cheesecutter wire, extract laptop, inner pillowcase, and drycleaners bag.
    - Outer pillow case becomes the liner.
    - Fabric or doublesided sticky tape "expando foam" to high-density foam.
    - Load laptop, close case. Wrap with two elastic straps.

    Presto, one relatively shock-proof laptop case. When swung at person is gauranteed to cause more damage to person than to the laptop inside. How tough is this configuration? My laptop survived a roughly 10 foot drop onto concrete. Totaled the aluminum sided case, shattered the styrofoam, mangled one corner of the HDF, and crumpled a tiny bit of the expando foam, but the laptop survived without a scratch.

    Hope this helps.

  90. A data point by rsadelle · · Score: 1

    I went to college on the opposite side of the country from where I grew up. On long breaks, I would take the hard drive from my desktop home with me - in a cardboard box in my carry-on backpack. I continued to do this even after 9/11. The most scrutiny this ever resulted in was that they often, but not always, swiped the outside of my backpack for explosive residue.

  91. Agreed. by gknoy · · Score: 1

    After several intelligence blunders.... .... the use of the word allegedely is a healthy necessity.

    I do agree there. =)

  92. GRiD laptap destroyed in checked luggage by Onnimikki · · Score: 1

    A few years ago I checked in my GRiD laptop thinking that it would survive anything thrown at it. These laptops were supposed to be indestructible... the story goes that they've even survived falls out of helicopters. Mine had a smashed screen after Northwest was done with it. It turns out that the screen latch didn't lock properly.... In the end I got a rebate for my next Northwest flight in compensation... not a bad deal for a 386 laptop. :-)

    1. Re:GRiD laptap destroyed in checked luggage by more · · Score: 1

      The only times (3x) when I have had my luggage broken was in US. I have flewn a lot in Europe, and the Europeans have broken nothing. I have come to the conclusion that there is a significantly overweight person on every US airport, with a mission to jump up and down repeatedly on every suitcase.

      --

      -- Imperial units must die --

  93. Re:Stop and think. (yes...please, before posting!) by tomservo84 · · Score: 1
    The individuals that hide behind Islam have no redention as human beens and should be caught and punished

    Pardon for being a spelling nazi...but HOLY SHIT, BATMAN!!! "redention as human beens"??

    I would *THINK* you meant "REDEMPTION as human BEINGS"...

    Then again, maybe you meant "human beans"...but we may never know.

    While I can forgive you for redemption...the other is fucking ridiculous!

    --
    Agile Spaceport - You will never find a more wretched hive of scrum and villainy. We must be cautious.
  94. late news by petermgreen · · Score: 1

    laptops are already allowed again iirc

    --
    note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
  95. Tamil Tigers by Dire+Bonobo · · Score: 1

    > Every homicide bomber in the western world is a Moslem. Sorry, you lose.

    Even the non-religious Tamil Tigers, who invented the suicide vest and as of 2000 were "unequivocally the most effective and brutal terrorist organization ever to utilize suicide terrorism"?

    And Japanese Communists, who brought the idea of kamikaze-style suicide attacks to the Middle East?

    And Polish Nihilists, who introduced suicide bombing to the modern world with the assassination of Czar Alexander II?

    The notion of suicide bombings, much less suicide attacks in general, is by no means an idea unique to Muslims, and to argue otherwise is to simply display your utter ignorance.

  96. The airlines are not liable for damage by DrMeglet · · Score: 1

    1994: Had a Mac SE in a padded "carry-on" bag that had fit on the bins in one direction. 3 months later, they wouldn't let me take it on the plane, I argued and argued with the staff, but gave in and let them check it, marked with "fragile" tape. Hard drive died, no backup, computer ruined. The worst part: The airlines are not liable for damage to electronics. They are not liable for any valuables - read the fine print on the back of your ticket (or wherever they're hiding it these days). I would not check electronics, jewelry, or anything valuable.
    Glad the rules changed, but I do hope this doesn't have to happen again.