Slashdot Mirror


TSA Opens Blog — You Can Finally Complain

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "The TSA has opened their own blog. According to Ars Technica, it's beginning to attract complaints from people who are sick of removing their shoes and having to forfeit their drinks. 'The blog's first post has 131 comments so far, almost all of which fall into one of two categories: TSA employees who got the internal memo about the blog launch and dropped by to post positive things, and citizens who are really mad about the liquids screening policy.'"

8 of 370 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Haven't flown since before 9/11 by davetd02 · · Score: 3, Informative

    If you've ever gone through LHR, what I believe is still the busiest connection hub in the world, you still have to throw away all of your liquids and go through a MORE intense screening procedure than in the United States. And that's just to connect from one flight to another; in most cases in the US you don't have to be re-screened between flights!

    That doesn't make Heathrow's policies right, but anybody connecting through there is just as likely to say "those crazy Brits" as "those crazy Americans."

  2. Re:Haven't flown since before 9/11 by davetd02 · · Score: 4, Informative
    Quote: It WAS safe and convenient.

    It'd be nice to think that there was a golden age of air travel when nobody wanted to use aircraft as political weapons, but that only existed prior to the 1960s when air travel became affordable for the masses. There is NO period in time when airline travel was not subject to some kind of danger. Planes have always been targeted by hijackers and bombers because it's a strong political symbol that is guaranteed to generate news coverage.

    For the record, metal detectors and security screening at airports started long before 9/11, and dangers to air travel started long before then as well.

    In 1976, Cubana 455, with 73 people on board, was brought down by a bomb.

    In 1985, Air India Flight 182, with 329 people on board, was brought down by a bomb.

    In 1988, Pam-Am Flight 103, with 259 people on board, was brought down by a bomb.

    In 2000, Ahmed Ressam pleaded guilty to trying to bomb Los Angeles International airport.

    May I also remind you that, just in the year 1970, there were at least 13 attempted hijackings JUST TO CUBA:

    * February 16 * March 11 * April 22 * May 25 * July 1 * August 2 * August 19 * August 20 * September 19 * October 30 * November 1 * November 13 * December 19

    And, even after 9/11, idiots have tried to bring down commercial aircraft with bombs. They just happen to have been royally incompetent.
  3. Re:Little do you realize... by LandDolphin · · Score: 2, Informative

    You think your Anonymous till Homeland Security asks Slashdot for your IP address.

    --
    Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
  4. Re:Comments by arth1 · · Score: 1, Informative

    "If anyone here knows of a colourless, odourless explosive you can safely drink, I'd like to be apprised of it."


    Water. It's explosive when mixed with certain dry substances, and can even be used to start fires when mixed with one of several metals.
    (Contrary to popular belief, water doesn't quench fires -- it's only flame retardant by being an easily spread coolant that takes a lot of energy to evaporate. But in some cases, water can actually cause fire, like the far too common fires starting in moist steel wool left under the kitchen sink next to volatiles.)

    And, of course, alcohol. A Molotov cocktail can be made with strong liquor.

  5. Re:Haven't flown since before 9/11 by Goaway · · Score: 2, Informative

    If it's for decoration, you do not sharpen it.

  6. Re:Silly question from a foreigner by genericpoweruser · · Score: 2, Informative

    That was Alonzo Bodden. Unfortunately, while verifying that on Google, I learned that it actually has been done. I guess it's not as funny in real life.

    --
    A fool and his lamb are worth two in the bush.
  7. Re:Haven't flown since before 9/11 by Dun+Malg · · Score: 2, Informative

    Well, that and the big fucking MISSILE that was used to shoot the plane down once it became obvious that that was the way to save more lives. Jesus fucking Christ, morons like you make me weep for the future. You really think the Air Force could load up and scramble combat-armed aircraft that quickly, much less get them over PENNSYLVANIA, find a wayward airliner, positively identify it, successfully determine whether it was actually hijacked, and still shoot it down in less than an hour? Let me know when you've got some time in the military under your belt, kid. Then maybe you'll understand why I'm rolling on the floor, laughing my ass off at your notion of how effective the Air Force is. God love 'em, they saved our bacon more than a few times in Afghanistan, but if I had a nickel for every time they showed up late (or not at all) because they got lost, or dropped ordinance on the wrong damn ridge (sometimes repeatedly), I'd have a whole lot of nickels. All military operations devolve into something of a clusterfuck, and the "hurry-up" ones doubly so. There ain't a chance in hell United 93 was shot down.

    And for those who think the state of the wreckage (smashed to tiny pieces) is more consistent with a missile hit than a high-speed impact, you've never seen an aircraft shot down with a missile. An aircraft that comes apart in midair will leave a large debris field with BIG pieces. Go ahead, ask anyone who's seen the Naval test range at China Lake. Big pieces of aluminum skin, with chunks of structure attached, they float down like leaves off a tree when an aircraft comes apart at altitude. Again, get back to me when you have some first hand experience with shot down aircraft, rather than the word of some stupid nutcase with a web page and an axe to grind.
    --
    If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
  8. Re:Haven't flown since before 9/11 by networkBoy · · Score: 2, Informative
    Obviously you have no metallurgy experience.

    Aluminum is one of the most reactive metals known in ordinary atmosphere that is still structurally rigid.
    Aluminum oxide is an oxygen impermeable barrier, thus planes don't "rust" once the first layer of oxide forms.
    Mercury breaks down this oxide layer very efficiently, to the point where if you waited till the plane was at cruising altitude to release mercury, the plane would crash before it could make an emergency landing.
    This is why only registered meteorologists are legally allowed to board a plane with any mercury on their person (on in their luggage), and the volume is strictly regulated.

    Mercury barometer or
    thermometer

    Larger mercury thermometers and barometers carried by government weather personnel -in carry-on baggage only. Must be in leak-proof, mercury-proof packaging.(13) A mercury barometer or thermometer carried as carry-on baggage, by a representative of a government weather bureau or similar official agency, provided that individual advises the operator of the presence of the barometer or thermometer in his baggage. The barometer or thermometer must be packaged in a strong packaging having a sealed inner liner or bag of strong, leak proof and puncture-resistant material impervious to mercury, which will prevent the escape of mercury from the package in any position http://books.google.com/books?id=iEeiQEeLOmYC&pg=PA132&lpg=PA132&dq=mercury+oxidation+of+aluminium&source=web&ots=EHi6X0S0Uc&sig=yAezYSAdOhhn3MFApkNCqEbTdOQ
    http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-50700.html
    --
    whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump