Laptop Fires On Airplanes

The risk posed by lithium batteries on airplanes is not exactly new news to this community; but the issue is starting to get wider exposure. Reader Maximum Prophet points out that as usual xkcd gets it right, and sends in an NY Times article calling the batteries a fire risk that clears security. "More than half of the 22 battery fires in the cabin of passenger planes since 1999 have been in the last three years. One air safety expert suggested that these devices might be 'the last unrestricted fire hazard' people can bring on airplanes."

Comments

Liquids on planes

[the_one(2)]

I hope that if they listen to Randall about the dangers of laptop batteries that they at least listens to his point about the relative dangers of liquids as well.

Re:Liquids on planes

[spydabyte]

I think the point of his argument is they don't listen. That by proving something wrong with their system doesn't fix their system, it gets you arrested (or without batteries to use a laptop on airlines).

Sucks for those new mac owners, without removable batteries.

Re:Liquids on planes

[Kryptonian Jor-El]

You're Right, they don't listen. But it's not their job to listen. You don't walk into a store and tell the janitor what products that the store should stock.

These security agents are paid $14/hr, and probably don't have any connection to the TSA rulemakers. Whether the security guards can honestly tell a security suggestion from a security threat, I do not know, but I'd like to think they have to treat them all with caution.

Re:Liquids on planes

[megamerican]

Tying in a logical and reasonable statement with government policy should be immeidately +5 funny and not insightful/informative.

Re:Liquids on planes

[TubeSteak]

These security agents are paid $14/hr, and probably don't have any connection to the TSA rulemakers.

Any security focused organization that doesn't listen to its people on the ground is failing at its mission.
Not to mention that an inability to provide feedback is a good way to kill moral in an organization.

Re:Liquids on planes

[spydabyte]

You're taking the comic literally. It happens for higher ups that are suppose to listen and care as well. It's a rant about government and the entire process in general.

Re:Liquids on planes

[zippthorne]

Also, they don't actually have any constitutional authority to search you (something that they didn't need when it was just a private company and terms of sale).

Not that that stops them. I've a good mind to say, "no thank you" next time I travel and they ask to search something. Or say, "I've got a pass." and hand them a copy of the constitution.

Except that I'm a coward, and I usually have somewhere to be when I travel, so I don't rock the boat. Mostly the coward thing, though. I don't need to justify my cowardice. I'm not proud of it either, but I don't see anyone behaving any less cowardly than myself either.

Re:Liquids on planes

[Captain Splendid]

They killed moral? Those bastards!

Re:Liquids on planes

[QuantumRiff]

But banning liquids is a good thing.. Nobody has blown up a plane with a baby bottle since the law went into effect.

It works as good as my Cougar repelling rock in my office. I haven't seen a cougar in the office since I got it.

Sadly, sarcasm is about all I got left anymore...

Re:Liquids on planes

[sconeu]

No, just Moral Orel.

Re:Liquids on planes

[Col. Klink (retired)]

I just assumed they were seizing liquids so that you are forced to overpay for the same thing on the other side of the gate.

Re:Liquids on planes

[vlm]

It works as good as my Cougar repelling rock in my office. I haven't seen a cougar in the office since I got it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_disparity_in_sexual_relationships#Slang_terms

Your loss.

Re:Liquids on planes

[maharb]

They have the right to search you just as much as you have a right to be on that plane(none at all). If you chose to not be searched then you chose to not get on the plane, its that simple. I don't like the searching policies as they currently stand as much as you but I think its a bit outrageous to claim you should be able to walk on the plane without being screened in any way.

Re:Liquids on planes

[Abstrackt]

Here in Canada most, if not all, of the airports have signs at security that basically say "you don't have to get searched if you don't want to, but you're not getting on the plane without getting searched". You're more than welcome to refuse a search, politely or otherwise, but security can and will prevent you from moving further into the terminal if you exercise that right. The fact that people play along with the security theater isn't a sign of cowardice so much as the fact that they just want to get it over with and get on the damn plane.

While I think the liquid ban thing and taking off my orthopedic shoes is a waste of time and money it doesn't mean I'm going to try making a statement about it at airport security. When they quiz me on my solid deodorant, solid shampoo, solid soap, and powdered toothpaste (just add water) I politely inform them I can't bring liquids on the plane and I don't want to pack a suitcase for my toiletries or buy them when I land so this is my compromise. I've never had a problem with that answer in any airport (including several in the US).

Re:Liquids on planes

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't have authority to search you. They have authority to deny you access to the plane though.

Re:Liquids on planes

[QuoteMstr]

airports have signs at security that basically say "you don't have to get searched if you don't want to, but you're not getting on the plane without getting searched".

Making basic parts of modern society contingent upon our choosing to waive our natural rights is no choice at all. Doing that is tantamount to infringing those rights. How is that any different from "you may criticize the government, but if you do, you'll never fly again" or "sure, you can can wear that head scarf, but you're not getting on that plane with it in"?

Re:Liquids on planes

[Mister Whirly]

I know. I can't wait to peddle my Anti-Apocalypse Charms at the screening of 2012. I have had one for the last few years, and no apocalypse. It really works! And the best part is if it doesn't work, I still wont have to refund anybody's money!

Re:Liquids on planes

[commodore64_love]

>>>"No thank you" next time I travel and they ask to search

Good luck with that. The guy in this audio recording tried the same tactic, first with the TSA and then some cops, when they demanded to search his cash box ("Where'd you get all this money?"). They had no constitutional warrant, but still they said they can stop Him from entering the airplane. Laws don't matter when the uniformed men on the street can detain you at will.

10-minute version (unedited) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEJpzVPmih0
3-minute version (edited) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMB6L487LHM

I think it's funny when one of the guards says, "You act like a child." No. He's acting like a Man standing-up for his inalienable rights.

Re:Liquids on planes

[Carik]

The key here is that flying isn't a basic human right. Those airplanes are privately owned, and the people who own them can make any rules they want about who can ride. If they want to insist that only people with purple hair can fly, that's their perogative. If they want to insist that no-one more than eighteen inches tall can fly, they're allowed to do so. If they want to insist that people submit to a ridiculous, ineffective security screening before flying, they can.

All three rules are equally silly, and all three rules are equally legitimate. If you don't like the rules, you can find a different way to travel. If they make compliance difficult and annoying enough, many people will, and then the airlines will go under. Until then, you're stuck with it.

(And yes, there's a lot of pressure from the government for them to run this level of security, but if you believe the airlines don't have enough lobbying power to fight back, you're insufficiently cynical.)

Re:Liquids on planes

[Obfuscant]

Not that that stops them. I've a good mind to say, "no thank you" next time I travel and they ask to search something. Or say, "I've got a pass." and hand them a copy of the constitution.

Except that by getting in line you've effectively waived your 4th amendment right in exchange for the privilege of flying somewhere. The Constitution doesn't protect you against things when you've voluntarily agreed to them.

If you want to maintain your rights against search, drive to your destination. Don't get in a line of people being searched and then claim protections.

And yes, it's all a sham and yes, it's done only to make people feel good, and yes, anyone who wants to can slip dangerous stuff past TSA. The next time you fly, check in online and print your boarding pass -- to a file. If you print it to a Postscript(TM) printer, you get a file filled with Postscript(TM). Need I say more?

Re:Liquids on planes

[QuoteMstr]

Flying may not be a human right, but it is a one of the major boons of living in the modern world, and if you can meet the ticket price, you should be able to fly. Making large parts of society contingent on surrendering human rights is tantamount to taking those rights away.

Also, I see your argument all the time. It's a cop-out. I don't think a world in which large companies can arbitrarily refuse to provide service is the best of all possible worlds. Once a company, or a set of companies, becomes an integral part of our social fabric, it should be placed under a different, more stringent set of rules that ensure the greatest benefit for all.

Re:Liquids on planes

[hypergreatthing]

Because air travel is so much different than boats, taxis, cars, buses, biking, walking and all other modes of transportation.

Because it's inconceivable for someone to cause harm to others in any other mode of transportation.

Re:Liquids on planes

[Gnavpot]

When they quiz me on my solid deodorant, solid shampoo, solid soap, and powdered toothpaste (just add water) I politely inform them I can't bring liquids on the plane

Good thing that explosives in solid form do not exist...

Re:Liquids on planes

[Abreu]

Nope, he's acting like a child.

If an amusement park does not want to allow you on a ride because you are taller than 5ft, it is their right to deny you, even if you just know the ride can support your height and weight without problems.

The amusement park ride, and the airplane, are privately owned and they can deny you access for whatever reason, even if you don't like it.

(or maybe I should have used a car analogy)

Re:Liquids on planes

[sexconker]

The TSA and their guidelines are no longer private by any means. They are thoroughly up the government's ass.

The constitution says ol' Uncle Sam can't perform unreasonable searches or seizures without a warrant, and that to issue a warrant they need probable cause. Probable cause must be supported by things that have happened or someone testifies has happened (see oath or affirmation) regarding the specific person. FUD about terrorism does not count, no matter how real the threat is.

Now before you try to dodge simple facts with bullshit about no one forcing you to board a plane...

1 - Commercial air travel is the only method of air travel available to 99.999% of people. Going by boat, by car, or on foot will often result in similar infringements upon your rights. Hell, you don't even have to be crossing a national or even state border to be subjected to this shit. Just drive anywhere near the US border and your rights are fucking GONE in the interest of "national security".

2 - Something something Pursuit of Happiness something something. Seems to me the restrictions and "security" put in place constitute significant barriers to a person's basic freedom of movement if they wish to avoid said searches. Well of course they do - that's the goal. Keep you in your densely packed urban center, try to squash "suburban sprawl", and in general, exercise as much control over you as possible.

3 - Get up to the security checkpoint at an airport, ticket in hand. When you're next in line to go through the various scanners, give a wave to the friendly TSA employee, put your shoes back on, grab your stuff, turn around, and leave. Explain that you decided you did not want to be searched today. You'll be free to leave, right?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

If 99% of planes got hijacked and crashed, it would still be unconstitutional.

Re:Liquids on planes

[Abstrackt]

I think the current level of security is ridiculous and barely grounded in reality but I also think it makes sense that airlines want to know what people are bringing on their planes seeing as they're responsible for the lives of everyone on board.

In a perfect world we wouldn't need any security at airports but history has proven that it is necessary. There needs to be a compromise between security that's too lax (who needs a box cutter in the cabin anyway?) and security that's too tight and driven by fear ("I'm sorry sir, but that bottle of water might cause an action movie explosion"); I think letting someone have a quick peek in my backpack is a decent compromise.

Re:Liquids on planes

[trytoguess]

Which brand of solid toothpaste and shampoo do you use?

Re:Liquids on planes

[Carik]

Flying may not be a human right, but it is a one of the major boons of living in the modern world, and if you can meet the ticket price, you should be able to fly. Making large parts of society contingent on surrendering human rights is tantamount to taking those rights away.

I'm not arguing that it's not nice to be able to fly, but it's also not a basic human right. We don't have the right to fly any more than we have the right to drive, or to all have ponies.

Also, I see your argument all the time. It's a cop-out. I don't think a world in which large companies can arbitrarily refuse to provide service is the best of all possible worlds. Once a company, or a set of companies, becomes an integral part of our social fabric, it should be placed under a different, more stringent set of rules that ensure the greatest benefit for all.

How is it a copout? It's a simple fact: private companies aren't required to make any service available to anyone they don't want to. If you don't like it, lobby to get the law changed, but you'll need a lot of luck: forcing companies to make their products or services available to everyone is a good way to drive them out of business.

And really, this isn't the best of all possible worlds, and getting mad that it isn't doesn't change anything. Working to improve things is worthwhile, but let's be honest about what sort of a world we live in while we work to improve it, and let's be honest about what human rights really are.

Also, how do we define a company being an integral part of our world? Personally, I don't think flying is that critical: if I had the option, I'd rather take a train. I know a fair number of people who've never been on a plane. So is air travel really a necessary part of our society? Don't get me wrong, it's a convenience, and I'd hate to not have the option in an emergency. But if you get right down to it, it's NOT critical. As it becomes more expensive and less practical, people and companies will start working around it.

Re:Liquids on planes

[ozbird]

If they want to insist that no-one more than eighteen inches tall can fly, they're allowed to do so.

That would explain the seat pitch.

Re:Liquids on planes

[jgeada]

I do not believe that the statement "private companies aren't required to make any service available to anyone they don't want to" is quite correct. Once a product is on the market you do have to sell it to everyone on equal terms. You are not allowed to discriminate against potential clients on the base of gender, ethnicity, religious beliefs/non-beliefs, political affiliations etc. Just try to run a bus service that requires people of different races to sit in different sections of the bus to see what I mean. Just being a corporation does not give you the rights to ignore the law.

Re:Liquids on planes

[hypergreatthing]

I wish i could mod ya up to +5 Hero.

Re:Liquids on planes

[daveime]

Hmm let's see ... exploding boats, taxis, cars, buses, bikes etc still leave the potential victims a chance to survive.

Exploding planes still leave you 37,000 feet in the fucking air, with a snowball-in-hell's chance of surviving.

Re:Liquids on planes

[skrolle2]

Originally, no, but I bet that the airports noticed a nice increase in profits after the liquid ban, and really don't want that policy to be removed, even though it adds costs in the form of more security.

Re:Liquids on planes

[conspirator57]

while i agree with you...

this is settled case law.

http://www.papersplease.org/wp/

yes, i know it's to do with id rather than searches, but the government is of one opinion in all of this.

"you have other choices on how to travel. we don't acknowledge any timeliness issues."

Re:Liquids on planes

[daveime]

Circumcision Clinic, operations performed according to Jewish Tradition ?

I think you'll find that is both single-gender and single-religion specific ?

Actually, ANY rules can be tolerated IF they are set by a minority ... it's only majorities that get into trouble with these kind of things.

It's kind of difficult for a minority to oppress a majority, and still remain a minority, if you see what I mean.

Re:Liquids on planes

[BetterSense]

I'd also mod u up, but I spent all my mod points in the libertarianism/foss thread.

Re:Liquids on planes

[BetterSense]

Tea isn't a human right either, but that didn't stop us from protesting taxes on it. Wolverines!!

Re:Liquids on planes

[clone53421]

If flying was a natural right, you'd have been born with wings...

Re:Liquids on planes

[clone53421]

Or gain, depending on his personal tastes.

Re:Liquids on planes

[chrb]

If they want to insist that only people with purple hair can fly, that's their perogative. If they want to insist that no-one more than eighteen inches tall can fly, they're allowed to do so.

And if they want to insist that only white people can fly, they're allowed to do so? The world of public transport isn't quite as straightforward as you think. Public operators are subject to the law of the land, and if the law says that discrimination is illegal, then they will be breaking the law if they refuse to allow a person to travel on that basis.

Re:Liquids on planes

[PPH]

But if I'm rich, I can get on my own plane, or hire one. And I can carry my guns, my coke, my hookers, etc. And my plane (a 737 biz jet) can be flown into the side of the WTC or Pentagon, or just blown up as easily as the one full of passengers that have to put up with the full cavity search.

Re:Liquids on planes

[StikyPad]

The Bill of Rights only guarantees the rights of the People against the Government. There are seperate laws covering what companies may and may not do (such as discriminating against protected groups during hiring or in providing service), but the right to be free from search is not one of them. It's perfectly within the rights of the property owner(s) to prevent the introduction of weapons or contraband, and arguably their responsibility to provide a safe environment as well. It's also good business to give customers an indication that there's a low risk of harm, and security is one part of that, along with hiring competent pilots, performing equipment maintenance and inspections, etc.

If the government ran its own airline, then yes, your points might hold some merit, but even then you'd have to demonstrate that searches were unreasonable, and you'd probably be up against significant public opinion to the contrary.

Re:Liquids on planes

[Anonymous Coward]

But the people who own the planes aren't making the rules; the government is.

Re:Liquids on planes

[DavidTC]

Um, actually, no victim of a carbombing who's actually in the car when it explodes has any reasonable chance of surviving, so I have no idea what distinction you're trying to make here. For someone to survive, the bomb either has to go off prematurely, or not at all, either of which could conceivable happen with airplane bombs.(For example, the shoe bomber's bomb didn't go off.)

Nor do I think that distinction would make any difference even if it was true. 'Oh, hey, if your car explodes you randomly have a 10% chance of surviving, so that's not a security concern.'

Re:Liquids on planes

[Logic Worshipper]

Why can't you just buy a private plane, load it weapons and try blow some shit up? Hell, whey not just buy a military plane and do that, equipment with rockets, nukes and the nine yards. Uhm, that's what the military is for. If your private plane is headed into a building, you can bet it will be shot down, without hundreds of civilian causalities.

Re:Liquids on planes

[DavidTC]

The key here is that flying isn't a basic human right. Those airplanes are privately owned,

The airport, however, is public property. Including the terminals beyond the security area.

I have a perfect right to be in that area, without any of their 'security' crap. I even have a ticket, if for some reason they're requiring me to have completed a private transaction with some third party before letting me onto that public property.

The government don't have a right to search me before walking around what is essentially a publicly owned mall. If any of the businesses in said mall want me to submit to a search before entering them, be it a Borders bookstore or a Delta airplane, that is entirely the businesses' right.

But it is not the right of the government to mandate that I be searched, without a warrant, and then do it themselves. (And then have have people somehow claiming this has anything to do with the rights of private businesses.)

Re:Liquids on planes

[Carik]

I'd argue that yes, they can: they're privately owned companies, they get to do what they want. The backlash would probably put them out of business, but if they want to commit corporate suicide, that's their problem.

Note that I'm not saying they'd be RIGHT, morally speaking, to do so... morally speaking, equality is better, inasmuch as it's possible. But if we're going to say they're independant companies, they have to be allowed to make decisions we don't agree with.

Re:Liquids on planes

[Logic Worshipper]

There are law against discrimination by businesses. Businesses can't arbitrarily refuse customers who can pay.

Re:Liquids on planes

[Logic Worshipper]

Circumcision Clinic, operations performed according to Jewish Tradition ?

If a non-Jewish family wanted to have their child circumcised there, they wouldn't be refused.

Re:Liquids on planes

[profplump]

Discrimination is only generally illegal against specific protected classes. Race, gender, etc. "Purple hair" is not one of those.

Re:Liquids on planes

[DavidTC]

Christ, some people here are total morons.

Neither the TSA nor the cops work for the airlines. It is not some private business attempting to deny someone access to them, it is the government attempting to deny a person access to a business.

Look, businesses can refuse service to people on almost any grounds. A bar could, for example, kick someone out because they are carrying a musical instrument. Entirely legal for them to do. They don't have to justify it in anyway, they can stand there and say 'People with trombones cannot drink here'. 'People holding musical instruments' is not a protected class under the law, and business can refuse service to all those people generally, or in any specific case they want.

But that's not what's happening here. What's happening here is that the bar has no problem with trombonists, but the police are standing in the road barring someone with a big box trying to enter to a bar, because the town has passed a law against playing music in bars, and he might have a musical instrument in there. No warrant, no judicial order, he just looks like a musician so they keep him out unless he lets them search his stuff.

And idiots like you are standing up for some hypothetical right of a business to refuse service to him, which isn't even slightly the issue here. In fact, if anything, the rights of businesses to do business with anyone they choose is being infringed. (Just like in some places with segregation, where it often was mandated by law in specific cases, even if the business did not want to participate.)

Re:Liquids on planes

[IndustrialComplex]

The key here is that flying isn't a basic human right

I'd say that the burdon is on you to prove that it isn't. Since the right to travel IS a human right, how can you justify abridging that right if you choose to do anything but walk.

Let's say I wanted to travel from my current location in DC, to Sacramento. Are you suggesting that if I want to travel there without having my rights infringed, my only option is walking?

http://tinyurl.com/yzz46xl (Tiny URL of Google maps showing the walking path from DC to Sacramento)

Two Thousand Seven Hundred Miles.
If you walk for 16 hours and sleep for 8, it looks like you can make it there and back in 98 days.

Not to mention that it likely goes along a path where I'll be exposed to oncomming traffic, and I'm certain that some sections don't have sidewalks.

So my only option to not have my rights infringed is to give up 1/4th of a year and put my life in jeopardy just to travel to one US city?

Sorry, but it is infringing upon our Rights.

Re:Liquids on planes

[commodore64_love]

I agree with your 100%.

The problem is the people who were denying entrance were not a private company, but the Missouri State Police and U.S. TSA officers. And these government officials are bound by sworn oath to obey this law: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." No warrant; no search. No probable cause; no search.

Plus the simple fact that carrying a cash box to fly from St. Louis to Washington D.C. is not a crime. Even if he opened it up and said, "I've got 4,000 dollars," it's not illegal to carry that amount of money. If you believe it should be illegal to carry cash, then I hope the next person TSA stops is you, and throws you in jail for a night.

Maybe then you'll better understand the injustice.

Re:Liquids on planes

[pilgrim23]

3 generations of people rode airplanes without needing to be subjected to just short of anal probe (coming soon) and we got on fine. Terrorism was as much a threat in 1950 in 1960 in 1970 as it is today yet in those times we walked right up to the plane without hassle. Its all about people control. it has zero to do with your protection. Just consider it as rude and don't fly. seems pretty simple to me

Re:Liquids on planes

[camperdave]

Airplane bombers have been known to leave their bombs on the plane while they get off at a layover point.

Re:Liquids on planes

[IndustrialComplex]

Two Thousand Seven Hundred Miles.
If you walk for 16 hours and sleep for 8, it looks like you can make it there and back in 98 days.

Hmm looks like I fudged the math a bit.

37 days of straight walking. If I broke that up into 16 hour days, that becomes 55 segments. So about 110 days of walking 16 hours a day (I think a doctor might recommend against that).

Of course, if you assume that you stay in a hotel for about $85/night and budget $5/day for food (good luck with all those calories you are burning) you are going to land just shy of $10,000.

SO even ignoring the health risks, the worn out clothes, and lost income.

$10,000 and 110 days to make a visit to Sacramento.

Re:Liquids on planes

[Abreu]

Ok, point taken.

The problem is that public forces are being used to enforce the policies established between the airlines and the TSA/DHS.

However, I still stand by my opinion that throwing a tantrum and getting yourself arrested is not the smart way to deal with it.

Re:Liquids on planes

[lennier]

"an inability to provide feedback is a good way to kill moral in an organization."

It's probably a better way to kill *morale*.

The best way to kill morals (while raising morale) is 150 proof Everclear.

Re:Liquids on planes

[Abreu]

Point taken

Re:Liquids on planes

[Cal27]

Exactly! You wouldn't believe what they're charging for a bottle of nitroglycerin.

Re:Liquids on planes

[lennier]

"The Bill of Rights only guarantees the rights of the People against the Government. There are seperate laws covering what companies may and may not do"

And that's why Outsourcing and Public/Private Partnerships are such wonderful, wonderful things.

"It wasn't me - my Global Executive Human Data Resources Acquisition Outcomes Scalable Solution Deliverance Provider did it! That naughty, naughty private company! O how I shall fire them when my office learns of their scallywag exploits, see if I don't! O what a shame that commercial secrecy forbids the democratic process from ever learning the truth!"

Re:Liquids on planes

[The Grim Reefer2]

FTA

In March 2008, a United Airlines employee placed a flashlight in the storage compartment of a Boeing 757 at the Denver airport. A report said the flashlight exploded “like gunshots,” turning the on-off switch into a projectile.

I found this interesting and wish it mentioned what type of battery was in the flashlight. I've noticed that I've had a lot more alkaline batteries leak in the last several years than I have seen in previous years. On a separate note, but possibly related; During a flight last year one of the flight attendants dropped an unopened can of soda while at 30K+ feet and the sound was easily mistaken as a gunshot by several passengers. The can bounced off of the ceiling then the floor and traveled through the air up the isle. It was interesting how much more violent this was at the lower pressures external to the can in a pressurized cabin. I wonder what effect lowered external pressure has on sealed batteries.

Re:Liquids on planes

[Obfuscant]

The airport, however, is public property. Including the terminals beyond the security area. I have a perfect right to be in that area, without any of their 'security' crap.

I have no idea where you got that silly idea. "Public property" is not equivalent to "anyone can be there anytime they want". Courthouses, jails, the Whitehouse, the floor of the Senate, the Mayor's office, school classrooms, and the area beyond security at the airport are all "publicly owned". Tell me that you have a right to walk into any kindergarden classroom in the country and just wander around whenever you want. Try it at midnight.

The government don't have a right to search me before walking around what is essentially a publicly owned mall.

That airport isn't "essentially a publicly owned mall", and yes, they have every right to search you because YOU CONSENTED TO THE SEARCH when you got in the line to be searched.

But it is not the right of the government to mandate that I be searched, without a warrant, and then do it themselves.

Well, then, it's a good thing that the government has mandated that you be searched, now isn't it? Have you maybe not noticed, but those who don't get in the line to be searched generally aren't searched? You can avoid this search very easily. If it matters that much to you, then you can avoid it. If all you want to do is whine and then get in line anyway, save us all from your whining and just get in line.

(And then have have people somehow claiming this has anything to do with the rights of private businesses.)

Yes, that's almost as ludicrous as people consenting to be searched and then whining about how the government is searching them without a warrant.

Re:Liquids on planes

[colourmyeyes]

Anonymous Coward.

Re:Liquids on planes

[Denial93]

Get up to the security checkpoint at an airport, ticket in hand. When you're next in line to go through the various scanners, give a wave to the friendly TSA employee, put your shoes back on, grab your stuff, turn around, and leave. Explain that you decided you did not want to be searched today. You'll be free to leave, right?

For best results, look vaguely Arab. You will never fly again in the US, or out of the US for that matter.

Re:Liquids on planes

[MrKaos]

But banning liquids is a good thing..

Absolutely. How many drowning have been reported on aircraft hmmm? ... and people say these measures haven't been effective.

Re:Liquids on planes

[dkf]

The constitution says ol' Uncle Sam can't perform unreasonable searches or seizures without a warrant, and that to issue a warrant they need probable cause.[...]

If 99% of planes got hijacked and crashed, it would still be unconstitutional.

You do realize that if you take this up with the courts, they'll probably just say that searching you (and everyone else, so there's no specific targeting) before you go on the plane is in fact reasonable? Given that, challenging the constitutionality is probably a non-starter (whether or not you agree with that being a wholly independent matter; the law's not just about your opinion).

Re:Liquids on planes

[brantondaveperson]

And I can carry my guns, my coke, my hookers, etc.

Can I come for a ride on your plane?

Re:Liquids on planes

[sexconker]

Just when did scanners that reveal nude images of people become reasonable?

Especially considering the fact that there is no demonstrable increase in actual security due to the added efforts.

Re:Liquids on planes

[dangitman]

You don't walk into a store and tell the janitor what products that the store should stock.

Actually, some people do...

Re:Liquids on planes

[DavidTC]

I have no idea where you got that silly idea. "Public property" is not equivalent to "anyone can be there anytime they want". Courthouses, jails, the Whitehouse, the floor of the Senate, the Mayor's office, school classrooms, and the area beyond security at the airport are all "publicly owned". Tell me that you have a right to walk into any kindergarden classroom in the country and just wander around whenever you want. Try it at midnight.

I didn't say I could be there anytime I wanted. The government has the perfect right, on public property that exists for a specific reason, to keep people out who do not fit under that reason. The government can keep me out of airports if I don't have a ticket, there is no discussion about that.

I said I could be there without being searched.

If you think the government has the right to search people who enter schools, or courthouses, or even visit prisons, or things like that, you are, well, wrong.

They do have a right to make you walk through a metal detector, which is not legally a search.

That airport isn't "essentially a publicly owned mall", and yes, they have every right to search you because YOU CONSENTED TO THE SEARCH when you got in the line to be searched.

First of all, that's just wrong on the face of it. You don't 'consent to a search' when you get in the line to be searched. If you leave the line, they can't legally chase you down and search you, so obviously your 'consent on entering the line' theory is rather stupid to start with. You consent to a search when you let them search you.

Secondly, you cannot consent to government searches just by trying to use their public property. The government cannot barricade all public property off and state that, to use it, you have to consent to being searched. That is an absurd theory and renders the 4th amendment meaningless, and, yes, the Supreme Court has specifically said that.

In fact, the courts just fixed their idiotic 'having a car on a public road means you consent it its search' ruling it had previous made...which you will notice still didn't let police search you, just your vehicle.

The idea that the government can barricade access to all airplanes and only let you fly a

Re:Liquids on planes

[couchslug]

The airline aircraft don't belong to the public, they belong to private carriers.

You have no "right" to use them, you buy passage under certain conditions. If you can afford to make other arrangements, make them.

Re:Liquids on planes

[FiveDozenWhales]

Oh yes? And what if they wanted to stipulate that only white people could fly on their planes? Or only men? Or only the non-handicapped?

Well, those wouldn't be okay, because such discrimination is illegal, even for a private company. Why is it illegal? Because the people being subjected to discrimination stood up and fought against it. Which is exactly what needs to happen if this further infringement on our constitutional rights is to be stopped.

Re:Liquids on planes

[DavidTC]

Yeah, sorry I went off on you, it's just there are a lot of goofyballs here who are 'standing up for businesses' which is usually wrongheaded libertarian thinking that generally annoys me.

But it is really wrongheaded here, because this isn't a business trying to do anything, it's the government barring businesses and people from doing businesses unless the people consent to a government search beforehand. Which is a restriction of both the people's right, and the businesses' 'rights' insofar as they have any.

I find myself on the same side as libertarians, which doesn't happen that often, that 'businesses ought to be free to do whatever they want', like, say, not search their customers, and half of the libertarians are goofily standing there defending the government unconstitutionally search people and acting like it's a business doing it!

What would they do if, to 'protect businesses from armed robbery', the government banned guns in businesses, and started searching people who entered public property leading to those businesses (aka, the highway system) for said guns? Would they stand there and defend the rights of businesses to bar anyone they want, like that was slightly relevant?

Re:Liquids on planes

[real gumby]

The TSA and their guidelines are no longer private by any means. They are thoroughly up the government's ass.

The constitution says ol' Uncle Sam can't perform unreasonable searches or seizures without a warrant, and that to issue a warrant they need probable cause. Probable cause must be supported by things that have happened or someone testifies has happened (see oath or affirmation) regarding the specific person. FUD about terrorism does not count, no matter how real the threat is.

You may say that, and it may even make sense (it does make sense to me) but the government has pretty clearly ruled that you are wrong, in part by relying on a secret law that cannot be quoted in court.

John Gilmore worked this one through pretty thoroughly, and has the details on his web site.

Re:Liquids on planes

[PPH]

Not soon enough. Northwest pilots can miss the A/P by 150 miles without seeing a fighter. So some bighshot can file a flight plan to Dulles (bringing lobbyists, cash, prostitutes and coke for our favorite legistators). By the time someone realizes they've turned left instead of right, the game's over.

Re:Liquids on planes

[easyTree]

...and then you have no claim to a refund on your ticket and you can't meet the people waiting for you at the destination. They have you over a barrel with several backup barrels lurking, and everyone knows it. I'd be happier if they just came out and said:

Hi; today we'll be dicking you around as much as we like; There's nothing you can do about it because we've got all the guns and control the laws; deal with it. By the way, the terrorist threat is simply a false-flag operation, by us, to give us a nominal reason to steal any rights we've been too incompetent to steal at an earlier date. Have a nice day.

Re:Liquids on planes

[LinuxIsGarbage]

Arm & Hammer Baking soda as toothpaste, bar soap as shampoo.

Re:Liquids on planes

[Registered Coward v2]

The constitution says ol' Uncle Sam can't perform unreasonable searches or seizures without a warrant, and that to issue a warrant they need probable cause.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

If 99% of planes got hijacked and crashed, it would still be unconstitutional.

...against unreasonable searches and seizures...

The argument for them is that it is not an unreasonable search since you voluntarily agree to the search by accessing the secure area of the airport. You may not like that argument; but that does not mean the search was unreasonable.

Re:Liquids on planes

[Abreu]

Yeah, sorry I went off on you, it's just there are a lot of goofyballs here who are 'standing up for businesses' which is usually wrongheaded libertarian thinking that generally annoys me.

Heh, if you read my posts (or even my sig!), you'll find that I am usually in the completely different side.

Re:Liquids on planes

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

Terrorism was as much a threat in 1950 in 1960 in 1970 as it is today yet in those times we walked right up to the plane without hassle.

WTF?! What in the 50's, 60's, or 70's compared to 9/11?

Re:Liquids on planes

[syousef]

Actually, ANY rules can be tolerated IF they are set by a minority ...

I'm a minority of 1. I want to go around immune from the law. Wait a second. That didn't work. Silly premise.

Re:Liquids on planes

[lena_10326]

That's a bad comparison. Janitors aren't in a position of power and they can't throw you out of the store, but store security guards can therefore the store security guard is a better comparison. If you told a store security guard there was a flaw in security, such as a broken camera or unlocked back door, they would listen and do something about it.

The reason airport security doesn't listen is because 1) they aren't held responsible for hurting business 2) the probability of investigation due to criminal event or customer complaint is low 3) they hold a considerable amount of power over travelers. None of those conditions are true with a store security guard because 1) the owner is nearby 2) they are more likely to be held responsible for bothering good customers or failing to prevent crime 3) they are not a small piece in an enormous bureaucratic system.

Re:Liquids on planes

[SilverJets]

Flying is not a right. You want to fly, you get searched. Don't want to be searched? Then don't fly.

Re:Liquids on planes

[DaveRobb]

The problem I have is that it's not the people who own the planes making the rules. And it's not even necessarily the government of the country in which I'm flying who's originated the rules. There are now so many treaties and inter-country agreements about airline regulation that if the 900lb gorilla in the international civil aviation industry (the US) decides that liquids are bad, then everyone else has play by their rules.

Re:Liquids on planes

[youn]

I've been told it wasn't a protest, it was just a party :)... but because they forgot their cups, they went for the next big recipient at hand... ie, the ocean... maybe I need a memory upgrade though

Re:Liquids on planes

[ceoyoyo]

No. You walk into a grocery store and tell the checkout person what product you couldn't find. If it's a place with good service, she'll quite often ask you if you found everything you were looking for.

The security screener is the same as the checkout person - the public face of the organization.

Re:Liquids on planes

[Profane MuthaFucka]

You know what you sound like with all this "flying isn't a human right" crap? You sound like some kind of extremely resentful or jealous BIRD that we can do it so well and we ain't even got wings.

Re:Liquids on planes

[aussie_a]

Imagine if everything worked like that. "You do have the right to a lawyer. But if you exercise this right, we won't be releasing you from detainment."

Re:Liquids on planes

[int69h]

Those airlines are subject to Federal regulation and cannot insist that only people with purple hair, or people more than 18 inches tall, or white people can fly.

Re:Liquids on planes

[shiftless]

The airport, however, is public property. Including the terminals beyond the security area.

I have a perfect right to be in that area, without any of their 'security' crap.

Military bases are public property too. If there's one in your area, I encourage you to explain to the gate guard when he asks for ID that you have "a perfect right to be in that area, without any of their 'security' crap" then just drive on in. Also, please have someone videotape this and put it on YouTube.

Re:Liquids on planes

[shiftless]

Are you suggesting that if I want to travel there without having my rights infringed, my only option is walking?

No, troll, that's not what he's saying at all, and only a retard would make such a retarded strawman argument. If you have your own car then feel free to drive wherever you please, but if you think you have the God given right to ride in MY car despite my protests and refusal to provide you transportation, you're going to get shot in the face. Likewise, if I own an airline and I refuse to provide you transportation, due to your refusal to comply with my security procedures, then stay the fuck away from my aircraft and find some other means to travel.

Re:Liquids on planes

[shiftless]

The government cannot barricade all public property off and state that, to use it, you have to consent to being searched. That is an absurd theory and renders the 4th amendment meaningless, and, yes, the Supreme Court has specifically said that.

Strawman. We're not talking about barricading off all public property and requiring searches to enter it. We're talking about requiring a cursory search (of the person's PROPERTY only, in 95%+ of cases) before boarding a 600 MPH, 400 ton bullet capable of causing mass destruction were it to be hijacked or blown up. There is NOTHING unreasonable about that.

Re:Liquids on planes

[shiftless]

Christ, some people here are total morons.

Yep, and you're one of them.

What's happening here is that the bar has no problem with trombonists, but the police are standing in the road barring someone with a big box trying to enter to a bar, because the town has passed a law against playing music in bars, and he might have a musical instrument in there.

And how much death and destruction could a trombonist cause if he managed to sneak into the bar with his instrument?

How much death and destruction could a person cause if they snuck onto a plane with a bomb, or a weapon that could be used to take over the aircraft and crash it into whatever high value target they pleased?

It's funny how Slashdotters will argue all day long about how people who disobey speed limits should be shot on sight, that driving is a "PRIVILEGE NOT A RIGHT", and that drivers' licensing is a good idea to establish minimum standards for drivers since a shitty driver can kill people, yet people scream in outrage at the idea of not having the INALIENABLE RIGHT to get on any airplane they please without the airline or government having any say in it whatsoever.

Christ, GET A FUCKING GRIP, people.

Re:Liquids on planes

[prattle]

Terrorism was as much a threat in 1950 in 1960 in 1970 as it is today yet in those times we walked right up to the plane without hassle.

WTF?! What in the 50's, 60's, or 70's compared to 9/11?

There were many hijackings in that period. "Take this plane to Cuba" ring any bells? It's a cliche for a reason. The only thing new with 9/11 was the hijacker's use of the plane as a weapon. And, now that we're aware of this tactic, it very likely won't happen again.

Re:Liquids on planes

[wrook]

The amusement park ride, and the airplane, are privately owned and they can deny you access for whatever reason, even if you don't like it.

So they can deny me access because I'm black? (actually, I'm not, but pretend I am) I'm pretty sure there are some things they can't use as a reason for denying me my business. Whether or not searches is one of them, I don't know.

Re:Liquids on planes

[stewbacca]

Since when does the "Pursuit of Happiness" require the federal government to provide you cheap and convenient forms of air travel?

Re:Liquids on planes

[stewbacca]

Those airplanes are privately owned, and the people who own them can make any rules they want about who can ride.

No they can't. I thought we proved that in Selma, Alabama a while back? Besides, in this case, the rules are being set by the federal government, not the privately owned airlines.

Re:Liquids on planes

[stewbacca]

That's a nice train ride from Portland, OR to Honolulu, HI!

Re:Liquids on planes

[sexconker]

It doesn't.
It requires the federal government to not enact laws the prevent people from freely moving about internationally, within the country, or within their own state.

Re:Liquids on planes

[sexconker]

I don't voluntarily agree do anything.
It is unreasonable because it costs the tax payer untold amounts of money, wastes untold amounts of time, is an invasion of privacy, and it is all completely ineffectual.

Re:Liquids on planes

[sexconker]

Government is wrong.
Constitution is right.

Funny thing - that's the way it always is.

Re:Liquids on planes

[DavidTC]

You use keep using that word 'unreasonable'. I don't think it means what you think it means.

Reasonable searches, under US law, are those with warrants, or exigent circumstances, or a limited search in the case of arrest, or those you have consented to. Other searches are 'unreasonable' as the word is used in the Constitution.

And, as I said, the 'consent' is a red herring. The government cannot bar you from proceeding somewhere unless you 'consent' to a search, or the 4th amendment is a mockery, and luckily, the Supreme Court has already figured this out and banned that behavior.

In fact, the government cannot decide to let you do something, or do anything for you, based on whether or not you consent to a search, as that is 'coercion'. (Or they could just, for example, tax people at 100% if they did not consent to a search, or, like I said, bar them from public roads.)

Just saying 'there is nothing unreasonable' about warrantless searches required for people to board planes does not, in fact, make that true.

And I have no idea how what percentage of people are searched makes a difference, or when people's possession stopped 'counting'. The fourth amendment assigns equal weight to searching someone's person and searching their effects.

The danger of someone being on an airplane is immaterial to any constitutional grounds. If you want some sort of 'unless they're boarding an airplane' exception to the fourth amendment, I suggest you read Article 5 of the Constitution, which gives two clearly defined way for you to alter the 4th amendment. (Although do the first, no one's sure how the second works.)

Re:Liquids on planes

[DavidTC]

It's funny how Slashdotters will argue all day long about how people who disobey speed limits should be shot on sight, that driving is a "PRIVILEGE NOT A RIGHT", and that drivers' licensing is a good idea to establish minimum standards for drivers since a shitty driver can kill people, yet people scream in outrage at the idea of not having the INALIENABLE RIGHT to get on any airplane they please without the airline or government having any say in it whatsoever.

It's funny how people will just assert that people argue X, without it being true. I've never actually seen 'slashdotters' argue that at all, and it's certainly not a consensus. In fact, every time speed limits get brought up, usually we end up with people demanding that speed limits get set higher, like they are supposed to be. (Speed limits are supposed to be based roughly on the actual speed people drive on the road, not randomly 15 mph lower.)

And that analogy is stupid anyway. No one is arguing against any sort of operator licenses, nor is anyone arguing for or against any sort of punishments for violating a law.

Hell, we're not even arguing that attempting to operate a vehicle doesn't give the police a right to search you. I don't think it does, but that's not the issue here.

We are arguing that attempting to enter in a vehicle as a passenger does not give the police the right to search you before you do.

Which, incidentally, has been definitively decided in favor of the passengers for cars and busses, the police cannot search them, despite passengers with weapons being able to hijack cars much easier than people with weapons being able to hijack airplanes.

Considering that people can buy airplanes and fly them into whatever they want, and that cockpit doors now are secured so people can't just walk in waving guns, and passangers are hardly going to let anyone hijack a plane anymore, perhaps you should save pissing your pants and dumping the piss all over the constitution for some other issue, where allowing random searches of people might actually make sense?

Re:Liquids on planes

[mattOzan]

Any security focused organization that doesn't listen to its people on the ground is failing at its mission. Not to mention that an inability to provide feedback is a good way to kill moral in an organization.

Well, yes, and I think this is the most apt description I've read so far of the TSA.

They are failing at their mission, which is supposed to be "protecting the Nation’s transportation systems to ensure freedom of movement for people and commerce." They are actually restricting the movement of people and commerce, and without increasing the protection of either.

And I can't think of a job with lower morale. People hate you, your job is boring repetition, and it serves no actual purpose. Plus no one higher up cares about the problems or inefficiencies you see day-to-day.

Re:Liquids on planes

[DavidTC]

You have decided to read those two sentences as if I said 'I have the right to be in all public property', which I obviously did not think, as then I went on to explain what sort of public property it was.

All government-owned property in this country is called 'public property'. There are, however, different kinds of public property.

Airports were 'public spaces', where anyone could freely walk around without any purpose at all, with (almost) no restrictions at all, like public parks.

Now they are semi-public spaces, like zoos or a subway stations or a library. Or, like I said, a publicly owned mall. (And, yes, they do exist.) Where you need permission to enter (Sometimes you have to pay.), and you're only allowed there if you're using the area for a specific purpose.

But this doesn't change anything about searches, which the government can't require to enter a public or semi-public area, or even a private government area. The ability of the public to enter an area, either automatically or with specific permission, has nothing to do with whether or not they can be required to submit to a search upon entrance.

Re:Liquids on planes

[xkcdFan1011011101111]

The key here is that flying isn't a basic human right. Those airplanes are privately owned, and the people who own them can make any rules they want about who can ride. If they want to insist that only people with purple hair can fly, that's their perogative. If they want to insist that no-one more than eighteen inches tall can fly, they're allowed to do so.

Wrong. They can't insist that only people with purple hair can fly just like that can't insist that only white people can fly. Private companies are not allowed to discriminate.

Re:Liquids on planes

[shiftless]

But this doesn't change anything about searches, which the government can't require to enter a public or semi-public area, or even a private government area.

Wrong. Any person or vehicle present on a military base is subject to search at any time. Most facilities don't require a search to enter, but the post commander could certainly require it if he felt it necessary and nobody (other than possibility his superiors) would or could have any choice but to accept it.

You can argue all day long about this but your argument doesn't change the FACTS of the situation. #1 the government requires that aircraft passengers be subjected to a security screening before boarding large commercial aircraft, and for good reason. #2 the vast majority of the public agrees this is the right thing to do, even if they don't agree with the exact methods employed. #3 the SCOTUS apparently doesn't have a problem with it either. Airport screening is here to stay.

Re:Liquids on planes

[commodore64_love]

>>>I still stand by my opinion that throwing a tantrum

You just demonstrated yourself to be a fool. If you had bothered to listen to the recording I linked off youtube, then you'd know the young man did NOT throw a tantrum. In fact the way he acted (calm, cool, collected) was admirable, and I hope I act as well if I am ever in that situation.

Re:Liquids on planes

[commodore64_love]

>>>Christ, GET A FUCKING GRIP, people.

By your logic there is no end to government power. The government could make the argument, "If you don't agree to a random road block and search of your trunk, don't buy a car." - Or "if you don't agree to a random police patdown on the sidewalk, don't walk on the public thoroughfare." - Your logic is flawed and the SCOTUS agrees (random searches along roads and sidewalks are unconstitutional). The idea is to protect your freedom and prevent the U.S. from becoming a "papiere bitte" state.

Re:Liquids on planes

[skeeto]

This isn't the privately owned airline denying access. It's the federal government (the TSA).

Re:Liquids on planes

[Carik]

What nonsense is this? I guess you haven't heard of anti-discrimination laws. Just try and start a business that caters to only one race, or excludes a gender and see how far you get before you're sued.

I don't have to try: I can give you several examples off the top of my head.

1) The Boy Scouts of America. They only allow boys to join, obviously. They also openly and actively discriminate against atheists and agnostics -- just try to get your Eagle Scout rank without stating a religion.

2) Women-only private colleges. Mt Holyoke, Smith, Wellesley... three colleges in my home state that discriminate against men. To the best of my knowledge, not one of them has been sued.

3) Hair salons and barber shops. Not all of them, but some of them are single-sex establishments.

So of course people can make such arbitrary rules. They can do whatever they want as long as they do it on private property and don't violate any laws. There's no law that says private clubs have to let everyone in, or that any private business has to work with everyone. In general, I don't see that as a bad thing, either: No one is forcing me to join the Boy Scouts, or attend Smith College, or get my hair cut in any particular salon, and if I want to, well... too bad.

And my business license, if I ran a business, couldn't be revoked if I decided to be an ass. It could be revoked if I violated the law, or the terms of the license. That's about it. A lawsuit could force me out of business, but it's unlikely that a judge would side with an atheist or gay boy scout -- they never have before, and there's no reason for them to start.

Re:Liquids on planes

[Carik]

Now this, in fact, is the first reasonable response I've seen to my comment, and you're right: if it was just Americans who were having trouble, and just American airlines (not "American Airlines", but "airlines in America"), I'd say you had no argument. As I said earlier, the airlines have enough clout to fight off the security regulations if they wanted. The simple fact is that they went along with it pretty much without arguing, because the so-called "American Public" (as represented by news agencies who enjoy reporting on panics) demanded it. If the majority of the public had responded by saying "Screw you, we're not going to let you search us, and we're going to stop flying until you give in," the rules would have reverted awfully quickly.

But as you say, a few loonies in the US managed to get rules changed for everyone, worldwide, and THAT isn't acceptable, or shouldn't be.

Re:Liquids on planes

[Carik]

Private companies are not allowed to discriminate.

See my above comments about the Boy Scouts, private schools, and so on. Private companies ARE allowed to discriminate. It just sometimes earns them a bad name, if they're blatant enough about it.

Re:Liquids on planes

[Registered Coward v2]

I don't voluntarily agree do anything.

Well, if you purchase and use an airline ticket you have agreed to comply with the security procedures; so the whole "unreasonable search" argument is moot.

It is unreasonable because it costs the tax payer untold amounts of money, wastes untold amounts of time, is an invasion of privacy, and it is all completely ineffectual.

None of which, independent of your agreeing to be searched , makes the security procedure an constitutional violation of the "unreasonable search" provision.

Re:Liquids on planes

[sexconker]

Well, if you purchase and use an airline ticket you have agreed to comply with the security procedures; so the whole "unreasonable search" argument is moot.

No I haven't.

None of which, independent of your agreeing to be searched , makes the security procedure an constitutional violation of the "unreasonable search" provision.

It is unreasonable because it is invasive and quite literally has no reason. What is the alleged reason for it? Security? Security has not been improved at all by the increased bullshit we have to put up with.

Re:Liquids on planes

[Registered Coward v2]

Well, if you purchase and use an airline ticket you have agreed to comply with the security procedures; so the whole "unreasonable search" argument is moot.

No I haven't.

When you buy a ticket you have. The contract of carriage (you know, that multi-page document that forms a contract between you and the airline) will have some words to the following effect:

Passengers and their baggage are subject to surveillance and inspection by electronic and/or physical means with or without the passenger’s consent or knowledge.

So once you buy a ticket you've agreed to be searched; they don't even have to ask you again when they do it. You only choice is to not buy the ticket if you don't want to be searched. If you refuse to be searched then the can deny you boarding, as detailed in the section on the carrier's right to refuse transport:

Search of Passenger or Property-Any passenger who refuses to permit the search of his or her person or property for explosives, hazardous materials, contraband, or concealed, deadly, or dangerous weapons or articles.

Re:Liquids on planes

[sexconker]

No.
Contracts require signatures and are not implicit upon purchase of goods and services.

Seems to me I don't have to provide any signature to purchase airline tickets.

Minors cannot legally enter into contracts.

Etc etc.

There is no excusing this bullshit, and no amount of legal rhetoric can change the fundamental fact that INALIENABLE RIGHTS are being violated. These rights are supposed to be IMPOSSIBLE to waive - they are inalienable, and it is the government's DUTY to PROTECT them.

Re:Liquids on planes

[Registered Coward v2]

No. Contracts require signatures and are not implicit upon purchase of goods and services.

Seems to me I don't have to provide any signature to purchase airline tickets.

A contract does not require a signature - only offer, acceptance and consideration; which a purchase of an airline ticket satisfies.

There is no excusing this bullshit, and no amount of legal rhetoric can change the fundamental fact that INALIENABLE RIGHTS are being violated. These rights are supposed to be IMPOSSIBLE to waive - they are inalienable, and it is the government's DUTY to PROTECT them.

You seem to think somehow the US Constitution limits what individuals, not the government, can do. You are simply wrong. Individuals enter into contracts everyday that place limits on their actions that restrict them from exercising their rights. The key aspects are they are doing so voluntarily and that it is individuals, not the government, that are so doing.

For example, the constitution does not give you the right to exercise free speech on private property, or carry a gun on private property; despite prohibitions against government infringement on those rights.

Re:Liquids on planes

[sexconker]

You are 100% wrong.

You can NEVER waive or lose your inalienable rights. They are inalienable.

The fact that the government does strip them away is ridiculous. The fact that the government allows it to happen between private parties is equally ridiculous.

The government is charged with protecting the rights of the people. I don't know who convinced you that the Constitution is just boundaries for the government (to ignore) - the Constitution is documentation of what the government is and what it must and must not do.

It sickens me that people can read the Constitution and not comprehend the simple language it contains.

"For example, the constitution does not give you the right to exercise free speech on private property, or carry a gun on private property; despite prohibitions against government infringement on those rights."

Yes it does.
Yes it does.

The fact that the courts have interpreted it incorrectly does not change what is factually correct or what is written.

Inalienable rights are inalienable.
No one can rightfully prevent me from going anywhere I want in this country with any weapon I want, nor can they prevent me from going to your house and calling you a fucking moron.

I am, of course, responsible for any demonstrable, direct consequences of my actions. If I'm violating a noise ordinance or public nuisance law, if I'm trespassing, etc., I expect to be punished.

If I carry an assault rifle and shoot up a mall of people, and somehow live out my 5 life sentences, no one can prevent me from carrying an assault rifle to a mall when I get out of prison.

Freedom something security something deserve neither something something.

If that scares you, this is the wrong country for you. Or it at least it's supposed to be.

Re:Liquids on planes

[clone53421]

Pff. The good stuff is 190 proof.

Re:Liquids on planes

[Registered Coward v2]

You are 100% wrong.

You can NEVER waive or lose your inalienable rights. They are inalienable.

The fact that the government does strip them away is ridiculous. The fact that the government allows it to happen between private parties is equally ridiculous.

The government is charged with protecting the rights of the people. I don't know who convinced you that the Constitution is just boundaries for the government (to ignore) - the Constitution is documentation of what the government is and what it must and must not do.

It sickens me that people can read the Constitution and not comprehend the simple language it contains.

"For example, the constitution does not give you the right to exercise free speech on private property, or carry a gun on private property; despite prohibitions against government infringement on those rights."

Yes it does. Yes it does.

The fact that the courts have interpreted it incorrectly does not change what is factually correct or what is written.

Inalienable rights are inalienable. No one can rightfully prevent me from going anywhere I want in this country with any weapon I want, nor can they prevent me from going to your house and calling you a fucking moron.

I am, of course, responsible for any demonstrable, direct consequences of my actions. If I'm violating a noise ordinance or public nuisance law, if I'm trespassing, etc., I expect to be punished.

If I carry an assault rifle and shoot up a mall of people, and somehow live out my 5 life sentences, no one can prevent me from carrying an assault rifle to a mall when I get out of prison.

Freedom something security something deserve neither something something.

If that scares you, this is the wrong country for you. Or it at least it's supposed to be.

You have a very bizarre and incorrect view of the Constitution - it explicit states the powers and limitations placed on the government; not the people.

You might view it as creating a super nanny state that forces individuals to act in a certain way; but that view is clearly incorrect. I prefer the state not to take away my freedoms by trying to enforce restrictions place on it on me and my property.

In the end, its my property, my decision - you have no right to do anything on or with my property without my consent; and I don't want the government telling me otherwise. Yo have no rights to free speech or to carry a gun or assemble or practice your religion on my property. Nothing in the Constitution says otherwise.

Re:Liquids on planes

[sexconker]

You're the one advocating restrictions on freedoms.

You're the one advocating a nanny state to protect your property because you won't do it yourself.

And you are still 100% wrong.
Inalienable rights are inalienable. You can NOT be divorced from them. Ever.

Re:Liquids on planes

[Registered Coward v2]

You're the one advocating restrictions on freedoms.

You're the one advocating a nanny state to protect your property because you won't do it yourself.

And you are still 100% wrong. Inalienable rights are inalienable. You can NOT be divorced from them. Ever.

LOL Your Constitutional viewpoint is as hilarious as it is wrong. Should be moded +5 Funny.

Re:But what if the do ban laptop batteries?

[ircmaxell]

Then get a new laptop... Every one I've owned works without it. (Albeit, what's the point in general of a laptop that's no longer portable)...

They'll never outlaw batteries on planes

[Kryptonian Jor-El]

The backlash of removing batteries would outweigh the safety benefit.

Knowing the airlines, they could turn this into some type of profit scheme. Make users store batteries in suitcase, make users bring special plane chargers/buy one ($50) and charge a usage fee ($50)

Re:They'll never outlaw batteries on planes

[Culture20]

Battery Vending machines at every luggage carousel, featuring Sony, Dell, HP, etc etc. All charged and waiting for your $50. Just don't rock the machine if your battery gets stuck.

Re:They'll never outlaw batteries on planes

[FauxReal]

I booked a flight on Alaska Airlines today and decided to actually read their restrictions on baggage and I saw this.

As of January 1, 2008, customers may no longer pack spare lithium batteries of any kind in checked baggage. Customers can carry spare lithium batteries for devices such as laptops, cell phones and cameras, but they must be packed in their carry-on baggage with the terminals covered/insulated. Customers may check bags that contain lithium batteries only if they are installed in the electronic devices. Damaged batteries will not be accepted for transport. For important details regarding the safe transportation of batteries/battery-powered devices while flying, please visit http://safetravel.dot.gov/.

I wonder if TSA agents are trained to actually take out and read the packaging/label of all batteries they come across as they rifle through your belongings.

Re:They'll never outlaw batteries on planes

[Monkeedude1212]

Considering all the different types of ends and Voltages that laptops use, it'll either be impractical to carry them all, or for those "Universal Adapters", quite possible another fire hazard waiting to happen.

Re:They'll never outlaw batteries on planes

[brock bitumen]

i know that they read the washing instructions before they launder them for you, that's for sure. They won't do the dry-clean only stuff for you tho, you have to wait till you get to your destination for that.

Re:They'll never outlaw batteries on planes

[SatanMat]

Make users store batteries in suitcase, make users bring special plane chargers/buy one ($50) and charge a usage fee ($50)


----yes tell me how that works with the non-removeable battery on my mac, my ipod touch, that guy's iphone; etc.

just saying...

TSA is security theater, they want sheeple to feel that TSA is doing something to keep the sheeple safe....

Re:They'll never outlaw batteries on planes

[metlin]

Well, I usually carry a spare battery and an additional laptop when I travel, and so far I've not had any problems whatosever.

The times I've had any problems, I've told them that I travel a lot and spend a lot of time flying (or stranded) and joke about it (which is true).

I've never really tried checking anything in, though.

Re:They'll never outlaw batteries on planes

[Col. Klink (retired)]

I wonder if TSA agents are trained to actually take out and read the packaging/label of all batteries they come across as they rifle through your belongings.

Certainly. They're trained to take everything battery operated.

Re:They'll never outlaw batteries on planes

[PrimaryConsult]

That would be pointless, as the idea is to have no battery on the plane, not that they do not trust the battery you have. If it can interface with your laptop, the same conditions that could have made your normal battery burst into flames would make the substitute one do so as well.

Re:They'll never outlaw batteries on planes

[jandrese]

$50 would be about a 50% discount on a major vendor laptop battery. I would buy those in a heartbeat.

Of course, you're missing the point still. What you have there is a bomb dispensing machine, because those batteries are inherently explosive and the only thing that keeps them from blowing up are the safety circuits. If you were to disable the safeties you would have a bomb that would be at least as effective as whatever the Shoe Bomber was using.

Re:They'll never outlaw batteries on planes

[moxley]

Sir,

I represent a large American national airline.

Your razor sharp marketing sense, coupled with your genuine concern for passenger safety is EXACTLY what my client's company needs to continue to stay profitable in the 21st century.

Whatever Delta and Southwest are offering you, we'll double it...(Will you take stock options)?

Regards,

Schiester & Smarmyham

Re:They'll never outlaw batteries on planes

[PRMan]

Sure, the vending machine owner won't have any trouble stocking up a machine full of $50 batteries for every laptop model on earth.

Re:They'll never outlaw batteries on planes

[Culture20]

But they're not on the plane. If you're restricted from carrying them onto the plane in any luggage or on your person, you can buy them at the convenient bomb dispenser where you pick up your luggage after the flight. Sure, you could set it on fire in the airport, but you can bring a much bigger bomb or shotgun to the luggage carousel right now. Battery machines are a ridiculous idea, but someone in the battery biz is getting jazzed thinking about it right now.

Re:They'll never outlaw batteries on planes

[dontmakemethink]

I wonder if passengers will actually make things easier and have the laptop and spare batteries ready for inspection. Drives me nuts when someone stands in line for 15 minutes, makes no preparations to be searched, then complains about "security theater". The last place on earth to lobby for looser security restrictions is in the damned airport!

Re:They'll never outlaw batteries on planes

[conspirator57]

*whoosh*

GP is implying that you would carry your laptop without a battery on the plane, then when you go get your luggage at your destination, you buy a battery so you can use your laptop at your destination. no battery on the flight at all. just you out $100 every time you fly. now, someone could start a battery rental business where you turn your battery back in at checkin when you're heading home from wherever it was you traveled.

Re:They'll never outlaw batteries on planes

[conspirator57]

this is airport security. no jokes allowed. we can arrest you. srs bsns.

Re:They'll never outlaw batteries on planes

[roguetrick]

Luggage carousel is out of the security zone. Checked baggage can carry things that non-checked can't carry. If you could interact with checked baggage in the security zone you could retrieve these items. He was implying that batteries wouldn't be allowed even as checked baggage, due to the danger.

They can't ban them.

[snowraver1]

Could you imagine what would happen if you told all the business people that they had to either put thier (soon to be broken) laptop in checked luggage or couldn't board the plane.

It's one thing to get felt up by security, but you will never pry a laptop or blackberry from a business person unless thier hands are cold and dead.

Re:They can't ban them.

[ircmaxell]

Actually, putting it in checked luggage would be worse (in fact, most airlines ban batteries from checked luggage already)... If they did catch fire, by the time passengers/crew realized it (from alarms, etc), the fire would be significantly more advanced than if it happened in cabin...

Re:They can't ban them.

[Ceiynt]

They banned fingernail clippers, why not batteries?

I'd very upset, because they would not stop at laptop batteries, but it would be a blanket ban on ALL batteries; cellphone, Nintendo DS, PSP, the little bop bop games like game and watch.

It is a government run agency. It will only become a problem when the senator who is chairman of some committee was told he couldn't bring his laptop as carry on, and it gets stolen as a checked item.

Re:They can't ban them.

[The Grim Reefer2]

They banned fingernail clippers, why not batteries?

That ban has been lifted for some time now. The one of lighters has been as well. Frankly IME I've found butane lighters to have a much better chance of causing an accidental fire than batteries.

Re:They can't ban them.

[natehoy]

Could you imagine what would happen if you told every urbanite that they couldn't bring a bottle of Evian on the plane?
Could you imagine what would happen if you told ever Mom that she couldn't bring a box of apple juice for her kid?
Could you imagine what would happen if you told the guy with the fancy cowboy boots or the woman wearing Prada shoes that they have to come off and go through the scanner, and they have to walk through security on the icky floors wearing only socks/stockings?

Oh, wait, you don't have to. The sheeple just throw the stuff away they can't check, maybe bleat a little, and get baa-aa-aa-ck in line.

And don't think the problem will be isolated to blackberries and laptops carried by business folk. Helicopter-Soccer Mom and Socially Enabled 12-Year Old have cell phones and laptops, too, and those have Li-Ion batteries. Not to mention Electronic-Dependent Cannot Entertain Him/Herself for an hour Child and their ever-present array of Gaming Devices and/or DVD Players. PhotoAmateur Dad always carries his Digicamera or Camcorder. In fact, I think you'd be amazed at how many people DO NOT carry at least one Li-Ion battery in their carryon or on their person today.

Re:They can't ban them.

[ep32g79]

[citation needed]

Re:They can't ban them.

[wizardforce]

a solution to the problem could be to set up a system to remove Oxygen from these areas to prevent fires liek some airlines are trying to do with heir fuel tanks. Remove the Oxygen so there isn't an oxidizer to allow fires to continue and spread.

Re:They can't ban them.

[R2.0]

"It is a government run agency. It will only become a problem when the senator who is chairman of some committee was told he couldn't bring his laptop as carry on, and it gets stolen as a checked item."

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how it works. Said senator would not get the law changed; he would simply make sure that he got a special exception from complying with the law.

Example - when Ted Kennedy got held up at an airport for his name being on the no-fly list, the system didn't get changed. The list just had an asterisk added at the name "Kennedy" that said " *does not apply to the fat drunk claiming to be a Senator - he really is one."

Re:They can't ban them.

[GreyWolf3000]

People put there pets in kennels and fly them down there.

Re:They can't ban them.

[QuoteMstr]

Can you imagine the expense? Flying is horrendous as it is.

I am sick and tired of the safety hawks. Look: there are some who would have us fly naked and strapped, sedated in sealed capsules before flying. Oh, but we'd be safer! There's always a trade-off between being alive and living safely. I think the benefit of being able to use laptops on aircraft, and the productivity it brings, far outweighs the slight risk of a minor fire.

Re:They can't ban them.

[fred fleenblat]

reminder, they put pets in the cargo compartment...

Re:They can't ban them.

[Znork]

Removing the oxygen won't do the trick. IIRC, lithium will happily react with, for example, co2, halon or nitrogen. Perhaps a vacuum, but then I'd bet it'd just go on and react with anything else stored in the hold. Or just react with the fuselage.

Lithium is really, really, really reactive. Really.

Personally I'm beginning to doubt it'll be possible to actually make safe Li based batteries, and I'd like to see requirements that equipment with non-standard form li-batteries should provide alternate batteries based on less incendiary technology. I can live with the shorter battery time of NiMH. With most li batteries having a 18-24 month life span it's not as if they have that long battery time for long anyway...

Re:They can't ban them.

[Anonymous Coward]

Checked luggage? Who can afford it? Some airlines are charging up to $25 for the first checked bag, and the price goes up for additional bags or "overweight/oversized items".

Thinking of going skiing? Play the Cello? Hell, rent your equipment, or ship it ahead of time.

For longer trips, I've resorted to shipping via USPS: It's a hell of a lot easier in the airport, and you can simply ship more for less money... as a large cardboard box is about 10 lbs lighter than a large suitcase.

Re:They can't ban them.

[Nick Ives]

The only banned lighters are petrol based lighters like Zippos; Butane based lighters are completely OK. I went from Heathrow -> JFK -> Miami -> Jamaica (booked three days in advance, that route was cheapest at last minute!) and had no problems carrying lighters into the cabin.

Curiously my lighters got taken off me coming back out of Kingston. I did half-heartedly point out that I'd been through a UK and two US airports without any trouble but, as we all know, once airport security make up their mind then you either agree or don't fly.

I bought another cheap disposable butane lighter in Miami (straight back to Heathrow on the return at least) and had no problem taking it airside.

Re:They can't ban them.

[FunPika]

I highly doubt that having there be no oxygen in the luggage part of the plane would be wise. An example of why would be the fact that pets are sometimes checked in as luggage, and no oxygen=pets die.

Re:They can't ban them.

[nametaken]

Don't pets travel there?

Re:They can't ban them.

[mathx314]

You realize that every time you use the word "sheeple" a lot of people immediately stop reading your post, no matter how valid your points may be?

Re:They can't ban them.

[jandrese]

Well, look at the alternative: Adding many days to travel over long distances. Taking the train from New York to LA takes literally days longer than a flight, and I don't know if anybody does business-class transatlantic cruises anymore. I mean if your work tells you "Go to this conference in Copenhagen" and you're in San Fransisco, then you can't exactly tell your boss "Ok, but I need 2 weeks of travel time on either side of the 1 day conference".

That's why people accept it. There are really no viable alternatives.

Re:They can't ban them.

[ComputerSlicer23]

Funny, I took off my shoes after 9/11 but before they required it, precisely because my work boots always set off the metal detectors.

Yeah, but Evian water is just an inconvenience, as I'll buy some when I get there (if I drank bottled water). I'm not dropping the money for a laptop on the other side, especially if I can't bring it back with me. I'm highly unlikely to check my $1800 laptop. For my work, I'd not go on the trip, as me without my laptop has virtually no value. It'd take a half day just to get a machine setup so I could get logged in over the VPN, and get all of the tools I need installed.

So cheap items, there's no big deal, but items that are too expensive to just replace upon every trip, are likely to cause a much bigger backlash. Especially if they affect business people, who generate the bulk of the revenue in flying. Hell, they could tell me I couldn't take clothes except what I had on, and I'd deal with that (assuming there I could locate a decent big and tall shop in town). Who knows, maybe they'll create a "laptop license", and charge $50/year to get it renewed, and have a background check done on it. My work would cover that.

If they do ban them, look for people to start carrying on laptop hard drives, and using laptop rentals. Or a lot more driving than flying.

Kirby

Re:They can't ban them.

[dmnic]

when I still smoked cigs I never had an issue carrying a lighter on the plane.
hell, my backpack pocket probably had 2 lighters and a pack of matches, just in case, and no one ever said anything.

Re:They can't ban them.

[cyphergirl]

On one of my recent business flights, the aircraft ran out of room in the overhead bins (since when is it ok for passengers to bring two full-size roll-aboards with them on CRJs?!) and made the rest of us start gate checking all of our carry-ons. Before I could check my laptop case, they made me remove the battery and keep it with me at my seat. I'm sure this is why (fires in the cargo hold == very bad).

Re:They can't ban them.

[Idiomatick]

Though I haven't checked I imagine the pets aren't stacked with the rest of the luggage. Or that would be quite a terrifying trip.

Re:They can't ban them.

[fireylord]

didnt think that a lith ion battery needed atmospheric oxygen to burn?

Re:They can't ban them.

[Itninja]

I doubt the poster see it that way. But I will give him/her (most likely him) full points for avoiding the other common trappings of the 'call people "sheeple" in forums' crowd. Namely, constantly typing 'people' in all caps preceded by the phrase 'come on' and followed by at least 5 exclamation points.

Re:They can't ban them.

[NiteShaed]

And don't think the problem will be isolated to blackberries and laptops carried by business folk. Helicopter-Soccer Mom and Socially Enabled 12-Year Old have cell phones and laptops, too, and those have Li-Ion batteries. Not to mention Electronic-Dependent Cannot Entertain Him/Herself for an hour Child and their ever-present array of Gaming Devices and/or DVD Players. PhotoAmateur Dad always carries his Digicamera or Camcorder. In fact, I think you'd be amazed at how many people DO NOT carry at least one Li-Ion battery in their carryon or on their person today.

Luckily Overly-Impressed-With-Himself-Slashdot-Poster doesn't have any of these problems since there are no direct flights out of his mom's basement.....

Re:They can't ban them.

[moonbender]

The alternative is not going to the other side of the country or the other side of the ocean on every whim.

Re:They can't ban them.

[natehoy]

Actually, I'm a former business traveler and current PhotoAmateur Dad. :)

Re:They can't ban them.

[natehoy]

I understand completely. I used to fly regularly, and I'm as sheeple as the rest of 'em, because travel used to be part of my job and it was totally impractical to drive half way across the country every week.

Re:They can't ban them.

[natehoy]

Or carry a bootable image around on a USB chip. You couldn't work while flying, of course, but that would cut down on Road Warrior Gear Mass (WRGM) which is a major factor in traveling.

Re:They can't ban them.

[cfalcon]

"Could you imagine what would happen if you told every urbanite that they couldn't bring a bottle of Evian on the plane?"

Said Urbanite is out four bucks, but gets to buy a second bottle on the other side.

"Could you imagine what would happen if you told ever Mom that she couldn't bring a box of apple juice for her kid?"

Said mom is out four bucks, buying a drink on the other side.

"...guy with the fancy cowboy boots or the woman wearing Prada shoes that they have to come off and go through the scanner..."

This one actually sucks the most, imo, but at the end of the day, you still wear shoes on a plane.

If they told me I couldn't bring my laptop, then I can barely do my job. Which is why I'm traveling to start with. Many people *can't* do their job. This is actually an area where it sucks SO much that they can't just ban it or swoosh around it with trickery. Your examples, while annoying and I'll try to vote them away just as soon as someone runs who could fix it (read: never), aren't in the same category as "can't transport a laptop".

Re:They can't ban them.

[computersareevil]

You realize that "sheeple" has been in use for more than fifty years? And by such low-brow publications as Emory University's quarterly magazine, and the Wall Street Journal? (I'll let you GTFW yourself for the citation.)

Summarily dismissing a comment because of a word you don't like is silly, I think.

Re:They can't ban them.

[arkane1234]

You realize that every time the sentence begins with "You Realize" that people instantly denote it as being potentially hostile and stop reading through it, right?

Re:They can't ban them.

[philspear]

Could you imagine what would happen if you told every urbanite that they couldn't bring a bottle of Evian on the plane?

Since they're already paying an outrageous amount for it outside the airport, they'd be willing to pay a slightly more outrageous amount for it INSIDE the airport: no revolt.

Could you imagine what would happen if you told ever Mom that she couldn't bring a box of apple juice for her kid?

Her kids still get their dose of high fructose corn syrup once on the plane, and again, higher priced juice available on the other side of the gate keeps the revolting to a minimum. I do remember some bad press about a woman being required to drink her own breast milk (from a bottle) to prove it wasn't milk-colored liquid explosives, but she got it on.

Anyway: no revolt.

Could you imagine what would happen if you told the guy with the fancy cowboy boots or the woman wearing Prada shoes that they have to come off and go through the scanner, and they have to walk through security on the icky floors wearing only socks/stockings?

I don't actually know many people with fancy boots... maybe they've all been shot by security because they went a hootin' and a hollerin'. I suspect though that they may have been proud to do their part to stop terrorism. Prada shoes probably whined a bit and bitched on twitter about it. And at the end of the day, having your shoes off for 5-20 mins is not that annoying, even the spoiled have a hard time making much noise about it. Once again, on the other side of the gate, things go back to normal: no revolt

All the things you point to as failing to start a revolution are things that are very short inconvinences to small demographics. Maybe I'm being optimistic, but I don't believe they could get away with banning all -outside- lithium batteries just to sell you higher priced lithium batteries inside the airport. They're going to ask you to give up your device for the entire trip. As you point out, theres going to be a lot more people affected by this one. Therefore, I don't think they would do this one, for fear of losing buisiness.

Re:They can't ban them.

[sjames]

It's a shame really. If people actually did say I'd rather ride a bicycle there than be dehumanized by airport security the airlines would gang up and demand that the TSA get lost.

Re:They can't ban them.

[lennier]

"The sheeple..."

(Why is it always sheeple? Not horsple, or cowple, or chickple or llample? Echidnple? Chinchipple? Meerkatple? Rhinocerple? Hippopotaple?)

Re:They can't ban them.

[lennier]

"What does he carry with Li-Ion batteries?"

A Lisp machine, of course. Because the Li-Ion shall lay down with the lambda.

Re:They can't ban them.

[lennier]

"Helicopter-Soccer Mom"

That's sorta like polo, but with helicopters? Rock!

Re:They can't ban them.

[The Grim Reefer2]

[citation needed]

For what?

Re:They can't ban them.

[dangitman]

You realize that "sheeple" has been in use for more than fifty years?

And how does that make it any better? The word "nigger" has been used for a lot longer than 50 years, too. Both words are about equally tasteful.

Re:They can't ban them.

[natehoy]

I'll keep that in mind for future reference, thanks. Especially horseple.

Hippopotaple has a ring to it, though I think I'd be talking about a different demographic...

Re:They can't ban them.

[treeves]

You don't RC. It is very reactive - particularly with water - but it doesn't react with everything. If it did, we wouldn't have batteries made with it.

Re:They can't ban them.

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

You aren't going to like the "actually opening the capsule" fee...

Re:They can't ban them.

[dangitman]

Your comment, eh? Then why are you posting anonymously, rather than under the username of the comment you are defending?

Anyway, I wasn't taking comments out of context, as the entirety of the context was claiming that because a word has been used for 50 years means there's nothing wrong with it. There was nothing else to "your" post.

Re:They can't ban them.

[ceoyoyo]

He had a point in there somewhere?

Re:They can't ban them.

[fluffy99]

Removing the oxygen won't do the trick. IIRC, lithium will happily react with, for example, co2, halon or nitrogen.

When heated excessively, the electrolyte or cathode material used in many lithium batteries gives off oxygen. Seems stupid, eh? A runaway thermal problem caused by a minor short circuit literally adds oxygen to the fire.

Re:They can't ban them.

[roguetrick]

See how refreshed you feel after being administered a knock out dose of a lipid soluble general anesthetic.

Re:They can't ban them.

[knarf]

Who knows, maybe they'll create a "laptop license", and charge $50/year to get it renewed, and have a background check done on it. My work would cover that.

That would be exactly the sort of nonsensical reaction I'd expect from something like TSA. The problem with the laptop lies in its battery which is of a volatile nature. A 'laptop license' and the 'background check' will do nothing to mitigate the risk of that battery going poof but it will look like they're 'doing something'.

No, a better solution to this 'problem' - if a problem it is - is to change to a less volatile battery chemistry for those occasions you have to take the thing on board something 'protected' by the TSA. NiMH would do for now.

Liar, liar, pants on fire!

[Old97]

The seat trays aren't very fire retardant either.

Re:Liar, liar, pants on fire!

[jav1231]

Been free-basing on the tray?

Re:But what if the do ban laptop batteries?

[Kryptonian Jor-El]

Yeah, because the TSA would be happy to see you jerry-rigging aluminum foil to your laptop

Problem? Really?

[noundi]

Here's a suggestion. Have people remove their batteries while using their laptops on the plane, and instead offer them an electric outlet next to your seat. There -- problem solved.

Re:Problem? Really?

[maxume]

Even that is too much. There have been 11 incidents in the last 3 years, leading to 0 deaths. There is not a problem.

Re:Problem? Really?

[Volante3192]

And how do you remove a MacBook battery?

Re:Problem? Really?

[jitterman]

The same way you remove a MacBook any time you find one - with a hammer!

:-)

I kid, I kid...

Re:Problem? Really?

[noundi]

And how do you remove a MacBook battery?

I'm not even going to bother to answer that question. Consume wisely next time.

Re:Problem? Really?

[noundi]

Read.

Li-ion batteries are not as durable as nickel metal hydride or nickel-cadmium designs,[citation needed] and can be extremely dangerous if mistreated. They may explode if overheated or if charged to an excessively high voltage.

A) Remove the battery. B) Place the battery inside a cold storage unit.
 
  Further reading.

Re:Problem? Really?

[conspirator57]

http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/18/2227231

enjoy.

Re:Problem? Really?

[Volante3192]

And this is something you would expect people to do in an airport terminal waiting to board a plane and not arouse suspicion?

This is assuming, of course, the TSA lets you keep your screwdrivers.

I wasn't intending to imply that it's impossible to remove a MacBook battery, only that it would be impractical for people to do so in the circumstances the GP posed.

Re:Problem? Really?

[conspirator57]

it's something the watch battery shop in the terminal could provide as a service... not that i think banning anything has had the desired effect or has been worth the sacrifice of civil liberties.

Re:But what if the do ban laptop batteries?

[Golddess]

What good is a laptop without one?

What makes you think they care?

Do we WANT them to ban laptops?

[danaris]

If they start looking into this, they might decide to not only ban laptops, but everything else that might have a lithium battery...

Of course, it might be that banning nearly everything electronic from the cabins is just the kind of ridiculousness we need to get a backlash against all this security theater, and get the people in charge to actually take some time to come up with reasonable restrictions on what we can bring on an airplane.

...The other alternative seems to be to go all the way in the other direction: all our luggage gets checked into an ultra-secure compartment, and we have to turn in our clothes at the security checkpoint and be issued uniform form-fitting clothes that can't be used to conceal anything in.

Dan Aris

Re:Do we WANT them to ban laptops?

[Tablizer]

...The other alternative seems to be to go all the way in the other direction: all our luggage gets checked into an ultra-secure compartment, and we have to turn in our clothes at the security checkpoint and be issued uniform form-fitting clothes that can't be used to conceal anything in.

Welcome to Convict Airlines. We apologize for the stop-over at Guantanamo Bay to pick up required cavity search tools.

Re:Do we WANT them to ban laptops?

[idontgno]

Even a completely naked person has at least one place to conceal a bomb

.

Re:Do we WANT them to ban laptops?

[Viper23]

Ah yes. The case of the infamous Ass Blaster.

Please remove your shoes, remove laptops from their cases, drop your pants and bend over. You may now board.

Re:Do we WANT them to ban laptops?

[pongo000]

If they start looking into this, they might decide to not only ban laptops, but everything else that might have a lithium battery...

And where, exactly, is the problem with this? I long for the days of a relaxing flight that isn't marred by the clickety-click of a keyboard next to me, the horrendous sounds of Windows booting up, or the tinny whine of a pair of inferior earbuds hooked up to an iPod.

Yes, I'm serious: Ban everything, and force passengers to maybe, I don't know, read a book perhaps?

Re:Do we WANT them to ban laptops?

[metlin]

...The other alternative seems to be to go all the way in the other direction: all our luggage gets checked into an ultra-secure compartment, and we have to turn in our clothes at the security checkpoint and be issued uniform form-fitting clothes that can't be used to conceal anything in.

Spandex? :-\

Re:Do we WANT them to ban laptops?

[danaris]

...The other alternative seems to be to go all the way in the other direction: all our luggage gets checked into an ultra-secure compartment, and we have to turn in our clothes at the security checkpoint and be issued uniform form-fitting clothes that can't be used to conceal anything in.

Spandex? :-\

Yeah, and you just know that you're not going to be in the seat next to the hot, shapely young woman (or man, can't tell from your username ;-) )...no, you'll be sitting next to the 300lb mountain of flab bulging out of their largest size and out of his seat...

Dan Aris

Re:Do we WANT them to ban laptops?

[drummerboybac]

its not just that they would not be on, its that you couldn't have them at all. Banned from carry on, banned from checked. Business travel that involves computers of any kind would be impossible. Plus, what about those that get motion sick when reading. I think you'd take clickety click over a nice pile of chow in your lap

Re:Do we WANT them to ban laptops?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's only one solution. Ban passengers from planes!!

Re:Do we WANT them to ban laptops?

[bugnuts]

Of course a lithium ban would have to apply to your cellphones, radios, laptops, etc.

But this is not a security issue (intentional shorting a battery to cause a fire and some hydrogen gas) but an issue of accidental fire. The airlines should, if they don't already, have some fireproof gloves and a burn-proof compartment to securely throw malfunctioning devices such as a dropped iphone or overloaded phaser.

Re:Do we WANT them to ban laptops?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Yes, I'm serious: Ban everything, and force passengers to maybe, I don't know, read a book perhaps?"

You must be joking. How can I read a book without a battery in my Kindle?

Re:Do we WANT them to ban laptops?

[QuoteMstr]

You're one of those people who's never happy unless surrounded by people just like yourself.

Good luck with that.

Re:Do we WANT them to ban laptops?

[prozaker]

Nude planes anyone?

Re:Do we WANT them to ban laptops?

[Benzido]

why bother with clothes at all? It would save money on those fancy new millimeter-wave scanners if they just forced you to check your clothing with your bags.

Re:Do we WANT them to ban laptops?

[Anonymous Coward]

Earplugs, man. Bitchy much?

Re:Do we WANT them to ban laptops?

[metlin]

Trust me, I know. I had to sit next to a rather large "blob-like" man just yesterday on a 4+ hour flight.

Re:Do we WANT them to ban laptops?

[danaris]

Trust me, I know. I had to sit next to a rather large "blob-like" man just yesterday on a 4+ hour flight.

Oh, you're lucky. My wife has to fly to China 4 times a year. It's 16 hours both ways.

She's been stuck next to extremely fat people more than once, for the entire trip.

Dan Aris

Re:Do we WANT them to ban laptops?

[metlin]

Oh, you're lucky. My wife has to fly to China 4 times a year. It's 16 hours both ways.

She's been stuck next to extremely fat people more than once, for the entire trip.

I fly at least twice a week. I wouldn't count myself "lucky" given the average size of an American, or the average size of a seat. Except when I'm not flying economy, of course.

Re:Do we WANT them to ban laptops?

[Minwee]

Yes, I'm serious: Ban everything, and force passengers to maybe, I don't know, read a book perhaps?

You have obviously never seen how much damage a terrorist could do by hitting someone on the head with a hardcover book. They're far worse than toenail clippers, pliers or bottles of water larger than 100mL. Nothing is more dangerous to the American people than books.

Re:Do we WANT them to ban laptops?

[danaris]

Oh, you're lucky. My wife has to fly to China 4 times a year. It's 16 hours both ways.

She's been stuck next to extremely fat people more than once, for the entire trip.

I fly at least twice a week. I wouldn't count myself "lucky" given the average size of an American, or the average size of a seat. Except when I'm not flying economy, of course.

Hmm, that is an ugly tradeoff. Twice a week is a lot of flying all told >_<

Dan Aris

Re:Do we WANT them to ban laptops?

[metlin]

Hmm, that is an ugly tradeoff.

A trade-off implies getting something in return... ;)

Re:Do we WANT them to ban laptops?

[danaris]

Hmm, that is an ugly tradeoff.

A trade-off implies getting something in return... ;)

I just meant between flying 16 hours each way 4 times a year, and flying 4 hours each way twice a week...

Dan Aris

Re:Do we WANT them to ban laptops?

[Moridin42]

Ah, yes.. the clicks of laptop keyboard keys and the faint sounds that escape from bad headphones.. these are the sounds that give you issues on an aircraft in flight?

And here I am, not concerned about such things because the constant engine noise and hiss from the air vents are the most constant and loud noises. I'm also okay with that, since the lack of that noise is not good news.

Maybe you just need some earplugs while you're reading your book.

Re:Do we WANT them to ban laptops?

[Idiomatick]

Idiot, now we'll all have to bend over. But really the scanners would catch that.

Re:Do we WANT them to ban laptops?

[Idiomatick]

22hour flight and you have work to do which is impossible without a laptop? Maybe you have free time to put your life on hold or the willingness to do so but I'm not willing to give up stuff for security theater.

Re:Do we WANT them to ban laptops?

[FooAtWFU]

You know, I can see complaints about cell phone conversations in crowded places, sure, or bums with boomboxes on the bus, but good lord! A few keypresses and the "tinny whine" of someone listening to an iPod is too much for you? On an airplane, no less, with all the engine noise that entails? Dude. Get a $30-$90 pair of noise-cancelling headphones and stop acting like interacting with the rest of Humanity from time to time is such a burden.

Re:Do we WANT them to ban laptops?

[dontmakemethink]

Do not interfere with my dream of mile-high club webcasting!!

Re:Do we WANT them to ban laptops?

[evilviper]

Yes, I'm serious: Ban everything, and force passengers to maybe, I don't know, read a book perhaps?

Just wait until they figure out that paper is flammable... No more books.

The question isn't electronics or books, it's personal entertainment versus in-flight multimedia systems. $20 headphones so you can listen to the same 5 genre cliche songs over and over... $5/minute for a phone call... Lowest-common-denomination TV and movies, selected for those that won't possibly stimulate nervous passengers in any way... etc.

If I could exchange my laptop for seats that are twice the size, and planes that are only 3/4ths full like they used-to be, I'd gladly do it. If the choice is smaller seats & no entertainment, I'll stop flying for even cross-continental trips, and take the train in nice large comfortable seats, with a HVAC system which can easily handle being parked in direct sunlight, peace and quiet without the whining turbines, with all my electronic devices, with a wall outlet so I don't even NEED batteries, and so much personal and cargo room you can pack your motorcycle in your luggage and nobody will care. Never mind no security checks.

Re:Do we WANT them to ban laptops?

[pongo000]

On an airplane, no less, with all the engine noise that entails

I actually find the drone of jet engines (and properly synced props) quite hypnotic, and can easily fall asleep to them (yes, while reading my book!). It's almost like white noise. It's the "out of band" noise that's the problem.

Re:Do we WANT them to ban laptops?

[Bob The Cowboy]

Let's be honest here. What you really meant was:

Do not interfere with my dream of watching mile-high club webcasting!!

Re:Do we WANT them to ban laptops?

[drinkypoo]

In spandex? Was he a super-villain by any chance?

Re:Do we WANT them to ban laptops?

[fritish]

I was terribly frightened once when a *very* large woman lumbered up to the seat next to me and had to ask for a seat belt extension just to buckle in.

I was pretty miserable during the flight, but then I started to wonder how she felt. I can't imagine how embarrassing asking for an extension would be. I wasn't any less miserable, in fact, I was now feeling a bit guilty for hating on that large woman spilling over the arm rest.

Re:Do we WANT them to ban laptops?

[metlin]

In many airlines, it is mandatory to book two seats if you are considered a "person of size".

In some cases, I feel bad (especially if it is medical condition or something). In other cases, especially if it is self-inflicted because the person just let themselves go, well, too bad.

Re:Do we WANT them to ban laptops?

[clone53421]

Not "anyone"... just the attractive people, please.

Re:Do we WANT them to ban laptops?

[xkcdFan1011011101111]

I keep waiting to see what new restrictions come out after a terrorist hijacks a plane using kung-fu. Straightjackets for all passengers?

unilkely

[damn_registrars]

make users bring special plane chargers/buy one ($50) and charge a usage fee ($50)

A large number of planes in service today (at least for domestic flights within the US) aren't wired for electrical service to passenger seats. The airlines would lose more money in lost customers than they would make in revenue after considering what it would cost to add electrical service to the currently unwired planes.

Re:unilkely

[Kryptonian Jor-El]

Well, they wouldn't really. The airlines don't make the rules; the TSA would be the ones to outlaw batteries. The airlines would just take advantage of the situation (like how "complementary" half cans of coke were no longer free once liquids were banned).

People devoted to certain airlines wouldn't switch because of this if they're all doing it. And remember, the devil you know is better than the devil you don't.

Re:unilkely

[damn_registrars]

The airlines don't make the rules; the TSA would be the ones to outlaw batteries

That statement seems to hinge on the assumption that the TSA is free to take action without concern of the airline industry. The airline industry pays for the security theater that we are exposed to at the airports; if there were no airlines there would be no TSA.

(like how "complementary" half cans of coke were no longer free once liquids were banned).

I don't know what airline you are flying; I still get soda and pretzels for free on the flights I'm on; and they are all steerage (or as they say, "economy") class flights.

Re:unilkely

[frosty_tsm]

Yes, but think of how many people would skip flying if they couldn't use battery-powered entertainment. I definitely won't travel internationally (8 to 12 hours) and would be less inclined to travel domestically (4 hours for me, usually) if I can't use my laptop, watch a DVD, or even just listen to my iPod.

In the case of liquids, there was backlash and inconvenience that people put up with. Then there is "no way am I flying" backlash. This would fall under that category for me.

Re:unilkely

[Hijacked Public]

The airline industry pays for the security theater

The traveling public pays for it, as that is where the airlines get their money. You'd think then that the TSA would not be able to take action without concern of the traveling public, but they seem to be able to do so.

Re:unilkely

[maharb]

Cans of soda have been free on every flight I have ever been on. What carriers charge, that didn't before, so I don't use them?

Re:unilkely

[Valdez]

Soda and pretzels in steerage... I'm guessing Continental.

Continental still offers the snack and drink for free... except on sub-45-minute flights where there's barely time to get the cart into the isle between cruising altitude and starting the descent.

Re:unilkely

[Rogerborg]

I still have to pre-pay for soda and pretzels regardless of whether or not I consume them on the flights I'm on

Fixed that for you.

Re:unilkely

[dlgeek]

US Airways started charging for them, but stopped after a huge customer backlash (and then made a huge deal about "Drinks are now free on our flights!").

Re:unilkely

[PrimaryConsult]

For that matter outlets on the plane are just as dangerous, a simple short from a damaged power cord could make things very bad (if we're talking what-ifs)....

Re:unilkely

[QuoteMstr]

The profit margin on in-flight beverages is very high. It costs the airline very little to provide them, yet because the airlines have a captive (literally) market, they can charge whatever they want.

Look at it another way: all the money I spent pre-paying for services on airlines I didn't consume (before MBAs took over) is less than the money I've since spent padding airlines' profits on stuff I have consumed. I'd rather pre-pay, thanks.

Re:unilkely

[Carik]

I still travel without that. I just bring a couple of books, and try to sleep through most of the flight. Most people do, really... walk up the aisle sometime when you're traveling (if you can tear yourself away from your laptop long enough) and look at all the people in the plane. When I flew earlier this year, I'd say less than 10% had laptops or DVD players with them. Quite a few had iPods, but I doubt being unable to bring them would be a deal-breaker on travel for most people.

Re:unilkely

[damn_registrars]

I still have to pre-pay for soda and pretzels regardless of whether or not I consume them on the flights I'm on

That is all a matter of perspective. From my vantage point, if I can fly airline A from point F to point G (via point I) or airline B from point F to point G (via point J) or airline C from point F to point G (via point K), all for the same (or very nearly the same) price, and one gives me soda and pretzels for no additional charge on the way, then I consider those to be free soda and pretzels.

And damn it, I will opt to consume them.

Re:unilkely

[dmnic]

yeah...I'm still trying to figure out when this "no liquids" ban went into effect as my last flight, about 4 months ago, didnt stop me nor anyone else from bringing a drink onto the plane.
I have yet to be charged, nor seen anyone else charged, for a drink either...

Re:unilkely

[damn_registrars]

What carriers charge, that didn't before, so I don't use them?

I have heard that NorthWorst (now Delta) airlines charges for soda, and pretzels, and probably pillows and blankets as well. Possibly seat belts, air, bathroom time, and tray tables too (or very soon). That is of course after you already paid for your luggage at the gate (which if you are lucky will make it to your destination at the same time as you).

Re:unilkely

[Obfuscant]

The profit margin on in-flight beverages is very high. It costs the airline very little to provide them,

Every pound carried aloft requires fuel, every gallon of which skims profit right off the top of the flight. Magazines, headsets, blankets, pillows, cans of coke, bags of pretzels, ice, cups, etc.. Some airlines have even realized that the weight of the PAINT they used on the airplane costs them profit.

I've yet to fly an airline that didn't provide non-alcoholic beverages for free, but maybe some are starting to charge. I suspect that you will find water for free, because the cost of the lawsuit and bad publicity from the first stroke or thrombophlebitis case would cover the costs of water for a long time.

In fact, the waitresses on flights I've been on have been very aggressive in keeping my glass of water full, to the point that I actually have to hide it if I don't want any more.

... yet because the airlines have a captive (literally) market, they can charge whatever they want.

Once. Once you find out that it costs $4 for a coke in-flight, you'll either decide to carry on your own for $2 or decide that water is good enough for free.

If it annoys you enough, you'll switch airlines, and they lose your repeat business. Repeats are a big part of the profit. Why else would they have frequent flyer programs?

Re:unilkely

[FooAtWFU]

The airlines don't make the rules; the TSA would be the ones to outlaw batteries. The airlines would just take advantage of the situation (like how "complementary" half cans of coke were no longer free once liquids were banned).

And that is why I fly United.

That, and a really miserable experience with Delta when a plane landed late at 2am with 400+ people and there were all of 2 airline representatives (allllll the way up at the front of the airport) to help people get rebooked, and I nearly didn't have the time to get on a (rescheduled) 8am flight .... mind you, Delta has very nice people on the planes, they're just organizationally incompetent....

Re:unilkely

[Sonic McTails]

That depends on your airline. American, Delta, and JetBlue still provide them.

Just because some airlines want to screw you for ever cent doesn't mean they all do. My passport fell out of my jacket while flying once and i didn't notice it, and a few days later, I got a package from Delta with a letter about it, and my passport safely returned. I've flown with them whenever possible since.

Re:unilkely

[evilviper]

A large number of planes in service today (at least for domestic flights within the US) aren't wired for electrical service to passenger seats.

I don't remember having to pull out a match to ignite the reading light over my head the last time I flew, so it's not gas/oil. And it instantly turns on/off, so it's not chemical either.

Re:unilkely

[DavidTC]

Delta did too, at least on my flight from Atlanta to Vegas.

I don't know why the hell anyone would put up with not having that, considering it clearly costs the airline about 15 cents a seat, and they would only ever remove it in an attempt to overcharge people for stuff.

Re:unilkely

[amRadioHed]

When I last flew on Continental last year they were still providing full meals.

Re:unilkely

[DavidTC]

And the restroom! I have to pay for that, too.

Likewise, when I park at shopping malls, the stuff I buy pays for the store lease, which in turns pays for the part of the parking space I don't use because I have a small car!

Oh, and when I go to Taco Bell, and buy a taco, I always get a soft taco, which costs the same as a hard taco despite being about 3 cents cheaper to make. (And don't even get me started on the AC, cleaning, and restroom overhead when I'm using the drive through)

Your argument might actually have some weight if it cost more than 30 cents total for that airline to provide that half-soda and a bag of pretzels, and if an airline ticket didn't cost, at the cheapest, $60.

Anyone who complains about any 'built in hidden price' of something that costs between 1/200th and 1/1000th of their actual cost is a total moron.

Re:unilkely

[DavidTC]

And having people switch to their own drinks is a horrible thing for airlines. Forget the money lost by not selling a drink...people will start bringing more drinks. Instead of carrying 6 oz a person, people will have a 18 oz bottle. (Which of course costs the same amount of gas to fly if the person drinks it or not.) I actually think this was why they started providing food and drinks on airlines.

The thing that gets me is that they want to save all the weight they can...and yet they still inexplicably serve soft drinks in half cans, which require them to carry both cans, and cups.

A fountain drink system would seem to be much lighter. I understand that pressurized stuff can act weird in the low pressure environment of a plane, but surely that wouldn't be too hard to figure out.

It would be hard under the existing system unless the fountain system was movable, but the existing system of handing drinks out is, well, incredibly stupid to start with. Have someone walk though, taking each order into a handheld computer as they go, and have two or three people running them to each seat. (I wonder how much that cart weighs.) They're just lucky it's an airplane...blocking the isle anywhere else like that would get the fire marshal on you like a ton of bricks.

This would also mean that indecisive people didn't hold things up, and that people could actually order at any time, although they would still want to have a 'scheduled' loop through the cabin. It would also mean that they wouldn't have to carry everything on that cart and could actually heat things up and whatnot. (Yes, airplanes don't carry 'meals' on short flights, but almost all airplanes have microwaves in them anyway, so could provide things like popcorn and stuff.)

A lot of the 'weight' stuff is nonsense until they actually start charging people based on weight. (Which they should.)

Re:unilkely

[Ecuador]

I don't know what airline you are flying; I still get soda and pretzels for free on the flights I'm on; and they are all steerage (or as they say, "economy") class flights.

GP is a plutonium medallion member on Stromboli Airlines.

Re:unilkely

[drinkypoo]

And yet, you would still have to remove big pieces of the interior of the plane and run a new wiring harness to handle the additional current carrying capacity and to put jacks in the right places, and this new wiring would have to be certified, and in other words it's not going to happen.

Re:unilkely

[maharb]

Yeah I completely forgot that if you buy a drink once you are past security you CAN bring it on the plane. You just can't bring it past security. Most large airports offer drinks for sale after you clear security excluding a few I know of.

Re:unilkely

[petermgreen]

if there were no airlines there would be no TSA.
The thing is even with all the BS flying is still by far the fastest way to travel nontrivial distances. Especially in the USA where your passenger train services suck things are a bit better in europe but still if I want to go from my home near manchester in the UK to almost anywhere in continental europe it will be much quicker to fly. Hell it would probablly be quicker to fly if I wanted to go to Southampton at the right time of day (unfortunately last time I went there weren't any planes leaving at the right time of day).

What the TSA does applies equally to all airlines so other than taking a much slower plane or car or an expensive private plane there isn't much option.

Re:unilkely

[roguetrick]

Holy shit man, you can't spend 12 hours without electronic devices? You need help.

Re:unilkely

[Laurence0]

My irony meter is going beserk... And if I wasn't posting this from work then I'd be leaving the perfect opportunity for someone to say exactly the same to me.

Re:unilkely

[petermgreen]

that should have said a much slower tran of car.

Re:unilkely

[petermgreen]

grr wrong again it should have said much slower train or car

Re:unilkely

[ResidntGeek]

Have someone walk though, taking each order into a handheld computer as they go, and have two or three people running them to each seat. (I wonder how much that cart weighs.)

That's how Southwest does it (but with paper instead of handheld computers).

Re:unilkely

[DavidTC]

Yeah, but a computer would let them actually keep track of each order, and let them give out the free stuff off-schedule. I.e., if someone wants to have their free drink right away, fine, less work for the crew when they're actually busy serving everyone else. Likewise, people could pay in advance for meals and stuff.

But, anyway, anything is better than the stupid 'slowly roll the cart up the isle, stopping act each row and taking an order and serving it'. It's bad enough when that's 'free drinks', it's really horrible when they're selling actual sandwiches and stuff and having to take money.

Oh, and, incidentally, running orders to the back would let them take credit cards.

They have a flight attendant crew of a dozen people, and yet somehow can only operate like they're some sidewalk street vendor, instead of moving to the model food service moved to hundreds of years ago of asking customers what they want, preparing it in the back, and bringing it out to each customer. It's really idiotic.

Oh, and as an added bonus of all this: They could start charging slightly cheaper prices for people who order before the flight, because, as people use that system, they'd have to carry less extra food to sell on the flight on the flights they sell food.

Laptop Fires On Airplanes

[mcgrew]

Headlines; I wish people writing headlines (especially the professionals at places like the Chicago Tribune) would look at what their headlines may be saying.

Before I read TFS I thoght it was about somebody controlling a Predator with a laptop and making the predator shoot at manned planes. Or something.

Would it be too much to add "Risk of" before "Laptop Fires On Airplanes"?

Why is it legal to bring a laptop, far more of a fire hazard than a bic lighter (Bics don't spontaneously combust, nore do they contain as much energy as a laptop battery) but not the lighter? If I was a smoker, after a three hour flight the first thing I'd want to do would be get the hell outside and smoke, and I wouldn't want to waste time buying a lighter.

The linked comic is good, but it has more to do with security theater. Of course, when it comes to flying, all "security" is nothing BUT theater.

Re:Laptop Fires On Airplanes

[Nexus Seven]

Ambiguous headlines spark curiosity.
Curiosity buys newspapers.

Re:Laptop Fires On Airplanes

[QuoteMstr]

Yet another way in which we can attribute the poverty of modern culture to those with marketing degrees.

Re:Laptop Fires On Airplanes

[mcgrew]

Good ol' slashdot, learn something new every day!

So...

[tuxedobob]

I guess I've never actually asked ("Excuse me, but do you have a fire blanket on board?" "Why?), but I'd hope planes carry a fire blanket on them. Maybe it's not so dangerous if you have a quick response?

Re:But what if the do ban laptop batteries?

[mini me]

Yeah, well I have a laptop (G4 Powerbook) that won't start with a battery. Not sure what happened to cause that problem.

Aren't ALL Lithium-ion batteries a risk?

[rotide]

Maybe I'm wrong here, but, isn't the problem with Lithium-ion batteries as a whole? Not just laptop batteries?

Isn't the fire risk greatest with an overcharged and/or damaged battery? If so, isn't the same risk associated with cell phones, PDA's, etc, etc (although, smaller battery, smaller kaboom/initial fire)?

And if _any_ Lithium-ion battery is a potential hazard then it wouldn't matter if it was in the cabin or in the hold underneath, it's still a fire/explosion risk. Why would you allow them on a passenger aircraft, at all?

Now I'm not saying to ban them, or even restrict them, allow them all, that's fine, but if we're going to go all nuts over one type of Lithium-ion battery, we really need to realize they _all_ pose a danger.

Re:Aren't ALL Lithium-ion batteries a risk?

[Maximum Prophet]

Yep.

Any tool's usefulness as a tool, is directly proportional to its usefulness as a weapon. (I thought that was one of Niven's laws, but I can't find a reference)

It's not just lithium batteries. I've seen a CB handheld with 8 alkaline AA cells catch on fire when it shorted out. Modern battery technology has stuffed enough power density into batteries that they are very dangerous if you can make all that energy come out at once.

The thing is, manufacturers are besoming smart, and putting fusable links between cells, and special vents so that the batteries don't explode. However, if you are a terrorist, it's not too difficult to remove the safe cells from your laptop battery, and replace them with unsafe, less than stable cells, with extra shrapnel in the battery case. Ad relay or switch to short them out on command, and bang!

Re:Aren't ALL Lithium-ion batteries a risk?

[Zerth]

I don't know if it was Niven's, but:

The effectiveness of a drive is proportional to its power as a weapon.

Re:But what if the do ban laptop batteries?

[Monkeedude1212]

What good is my water bottle without water?

Downside?

[R2.0]

"Uh, no, I actually CAN'T work on the presentation during the flight."

Can't eliminate every hazard

[MickyTheIdiot]

Is this really enough for us to go running scared about yet another airplane hazard? 22 incidents over 10 years is enough to make you think, but when there are hundreds of flights a day I would have to say it's one of the more minor problems that commercial airlines have to face and it seems like it can be solved by properly training crew members how to deal with that sort of fire. You could probably eliminate loads of possible "hazards" off of commercial flights, but not without major inconvenience and making the entire flight experience more miserable than it already is.

Re:Can't eliminate every hazard

[Anonymous Coward]

+1 (no real mod points). You cannot keep every bad thing from happening in the world. If people would get enough common sense (and balls) to interfere with idiots misbehaving, this world would be a better and safer place.

Also, its thousands of flights per day; somewhere in the range of 20k-30k.

Re:Can't eliminate every hazard

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree completely.

http://www.natca.org/mediacenter/bythenumbers.msp#1

Roughly 28k/day commercial flights. Round down to 25. Roughly 9 million commercial flights per year. 10 years. 90 million commercial flights.

22 incidents?

If anyone is that worried over this, they shouldn't get in their car to drive to work. I'm sure the accident rate is much higher

Re:Can't eliminate every hazard

[Maximum Prophet]

The shoe bomber didn't actually get his shoes to explode, yet they make people remove their shoes for inspection.

AFAIK, no one actually exploded a liquid bomb, but they limit bottles of water.

If you are a terrorist, it's not too difficult to remove the safe cells from your laptop battery, and replace them with unsafe, less than stable cells, with extra shrapnel in the battery case. Ad relay or switch to short them out on command, and bang! The battery in your laptop is several times more dangerous than my shoes or my water bottle, and there have been (accidental) fires. A ban on lithium batteries makes a small amount of sense, banning water bottles, doesn't.

Re:Can't eliminate every hazard

[syousef]

It's a proven fact that if you eliminate all the people from flights and only fly them over completely unpopulated areas, we'll never have another air fatality again! We must do this now! Not just because we can, but because we are fucking morons.

Re:Can't eliminate every hazard

[itsdapead]

Is this really enough for us to go running scared about yet another airplane hazard? 22 incidents over 10 years is enough to make you think,

To get that in perspective, how many serious (presumably non-battery related) air crashes have there been in 10 years? One or two a year sounds about par for the course to me. So the chances of being on a flight with a minor fire, one or two nasty, but non-fatal burns and some smelly fumes are roughly on a par with the danger of becoming geography, which we happily accept every time we step on a plane.

However, after my last flight experience, I think I'm going to skip flying, break into the nearest microbiology lab and snort the contents of a few random petri dishes - the practical effect will probably be about the same. Plus, I'm surprised they have a fire problem on planes, because whatever the shit is that they pump round the cabin, it doesn't seem to bear much resemblance to air.

Re:Can't eliminate every hazard

[turtleshadow]

It would be better to completely re-think the design of the aircraft for the 22nd Century than to keep striping 99.999% of the persons traveling.

Thus far the current design paradigm for air travel is hopelessly stuck in 1950's style.
Even the Titanic had more compartmentalization than a modern aircraft which has nearly 100% shared air, food, water and physical space among crew and passengers. Airlines can not even get the boarding and passenger dis-embarkment to work in under 10 minutes for a small plane through typically a single gate door.

Indeed the cost to weight tradeoff has always been done at the cost of consumers.

How much would it take for 5th element type transport where everyone is in their own tube for the duration of the flight where they are unable to do anything to anyone else not traveling with them! Going to the bathroom in private is already less of a privacy expectation than not being shaken down at security. If I was in my own pod I wouldn't even have to leave me seat -- literally - to go to the bathroom. Groups would get a common stall. Each pod would be sanitized after each trip like the food carts today-- which is actually a huge operation and intense process. You'd get board the plane by 1st getting into them like a Disney Ride and the ground crews would push you into the plane and take out out like a can from a case of coke a cola. Plane transfers would be no longer dependent on politeness but if I got a quick transfer my pod is moved to the top of the queue and shuttled to the next plane.
Window seats are just turning on the OLED screen in the pod and using the joystick to look any direction I want. No more on your Right is Mt. Rushmore -- sucks to be you sitting on the Left.

If it was found out that somebody was a threat you just eject them like R2D2 and C3P0 in epIV. They safely land somewhere else with their own checked and carry on luggage.

The greatest frequent human suffering is if somebody goes into labor or a heart attack or seizure but for most rational people the only real course is to land to take care of this - despite the movies. "Water landings" would just be to eject the pods at low / speed altitude which have a beacon and flotation built in. High speed crash/really bad turbulance - the tube has a self contained restraint system kinda in demolition man's car wreck but reusable many times in a flight.

The savings of properly built cubes/tubes versus Crew Security+ 2 decks + cargo containers + difficult to clean & maintain banked seating arrangements + Pilot Cabin security + multiple door inspection/security+ +baggage handler cost and fiascos+ lost time in boarding/deplaning would I think balance out.

Re:Can't eliminate every hazard

[turtleshadow]

The real danger is when the Bad and Crazy guys learn to try frequently or successfully turn the technology/system back onto itself is the quickest way to create anarchy -- we are all screwed when this happens.

When human panic from memories of past threats: DC Sniper, Columbine Copy-Kats, Shoe Bomber sets into motion the technology/system back onto itself it creates a really screwed up feedback loop. All these crimes were done with "available" means. But the thought of the means paralyzes industries and nations to this day. Technology can not treat the motive and only diminishes the opportunity aspects of crime - the 1st is a social and human dimension, the second is open ended.

The criminal is at advantage when they "control" means and opportunity. The defender even if they are great against defeating means can never be sure they have narrowed opportunity enough.

I don't think that its balls to interfere with idiots misbehaving. It is the _lack of fear_ in the idiots (which is why they are who they are) that all the others can/will do something. When a drunk passenger strikes a cabin attendant is actually allowed to sue the airline or attendant for being restrained or booted off the plane something in society is really wrong.

1) Travel can happen without risk.
2) Travel can happen to be 100% safe.

These are the lies of the tourism/transportation industry

If you don't buy into this stay home or be prepared to make adult decisions about serious and rapidly changing situations.

The real solution is for the defender to defuse the motivation.

  For all the generations of war worldwide there is a lot of motivated people out there and no security screen will stop all of them.

Re:But what if the do ban laptop batteries?

[DoofusOfDeath]

What good is a laptop without one?

What makes you think they care?

I'm guessing because of all the Congressional staffers who carry them?

The airlines themselves won't let it happen

[damn_registrars]

The airline industry makes too much money from business travelers - who are frequently carrying laptops and cell phones onto plates - to be willing to risk jeopardizing their customers. Sure we all know that the airlines screw us individual travelers extra hard when we fly "home" for the holidays, but it is the traveling business sector that keeps the airline industry going. If laptop batteries were banned there would be too much of an uproar, and if people started driving, traveling by train, or teleconferencing, instead of flying, then the airline death spiral would accelerate. And the airlines themselves have more than enough say in the security theater to prevent that from happening.

Re:The airlines themselves won't let it happen

[mcgrew]

people started driving, traveling by train, or teleconferencing, instead of flying

Then there would be less pollution. Especially if they took a train or teleconferenced. There is a commercial for a railroad freight company (making the claims suspect, but whatever) that claims they move 1000 lbs of freight 400 miles on a gallon of fuel. I wish my car got that good of mileage!

Re:The airlines themselves won't let it happen

[damn_registrars]

There is a commercial for a railroad freight company (making the claims suspect, but whatever) that claims they move 1000 lbs of freight 400 miles on a gallon of fuel

I have always viewed those as likely to be based on a train that is already at its cruising (or whatever the railroad equivalent term is) speed, on a level and straight track.

I wish my car got that good of mileage!

Try coasting downhill in neutral? (disclaimer: you may need a really long hill)

Re:The airlines themselves won't let it happen

[mcgrew]

I have always viewed those as likely to be based on a train that is already at its cruising

Most likely; I am skeptical.

Try coasting downhill in neutral? (disclaimer: you may need a really long hill)

I did clock over 99 mpg in my car once. It has one of those mileage computers built in, and will show either your "now" mileage, or in the other position give the average since you zeroed it out. Well, I had it in the "now" position and went to pass some nimrod doing 50 who decided that since I was pasing him he wanted to go as fast as me. Well, I hit 90 very shortly, at the crest of an overpass; I think the computer read something like 5 mpg. I coasted back to 65, by the time I was at 65 the maieage maxed out its two digit display at 99 mpg!

In a not-small V6 sedan!

But that;s nowhere near as good as 400 miles on a gallon. I could drive to St Louis almost as cheaply as I could drive from there to here in 1975!

Re:The airlines themselves won't let it happen

[clone53421]

I always figured it had to do with scaling. You can't move ½-a-ton of freight 400 miles on 1 gallon of fuel (friction loss would be too great). Apparently you can move an 10,000-ton train 400 miles on 20,000 gallons of fuel, or so their claim would seem to say. (I have no idea if 10,000 tons is typical, but it seems reasonable.)

Re:But what if the do ban laptop batteries?

[Presto Vivace]

Reporters carry laptops. We will here about anything that inconveniences reporters.

SHHHHHHH!

[jeffb (2.718)]

Geeze! Do you want them to ban all batteries?

Re:SHHHHHHH!

[Abreu]

I think the point of the XKCD comic is that regardless of the stupidity of the security theater rules, acting like an insufferable know-it-all will get you in trouble...

Re:SHHHHHHH!

[myowntrueself]

Geeze! Do you want them to ban all batteries?

I'd like them to ban glass as well.

Did you know that Al Qaida are training their terrorists in flint knapping these days???

They can make a weapon out of any piece of glass!!!!!

Re:But what if the do ban laptop batteries?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Reporters carry laptops. We will here about anything that inconveniences reporters.

Reporters wear shoes, drink fluids, use toothpaste and shampoo, but hearing about those inconveniences hasn't made an iota of difference.

22 fires out of how many?

[s31523]

22 fires out of how many millions of flights, of which none resulted in any catastrophe.. I think I am more worried about pilots updating their facebook pages and overshooting their destination airport by 150 miles.

Re:22 fires out of how many?

[The Moof]

22 fires out of how many millions of flights

That's still significantly higher than the number of bottled water related casualties, and those are still banned.

Re:22 fires out of how many?

[natehoy]

Well, if laptops had been banned on the plane, the pilots wouldn't have HAD their laptops with them, and they couldn't have been distracted.

In fact, we should ban anything that could be a safety hazard at all. What if a pilot is distracted because his shoelace comes loose, and decides to retie it during the final critical seconds of touchdown? That could be a serious distraction. Ban shoelaces. And don't get me started on the chances of a nonpolarized set of eyeglasses focusing the sun on the seat back magazine and starting a fire - what's a little squinting and bumping against walls and attempting to drive with no visibility for those of us who are very nearsighted compared to the risk of a small paper fire and the resulting scared three people?

I could also rip a strip out of my t-shirt, twist it really tight, and have a garrote. Tie my shoes to the end of it and I have a functioning bola. Oh, God, I could use a FINGER to push a button that releases the coffee pot from its fancy little holder and have a carafe of BOILING WATER at my disposal. Or if I'm allowed to keep my arm I might use it to open the front evacuation door while in flight.

The next terrorist attack will be performed by 12-15 Sumo-sized individuals who will get seats as far back in the plane as possible. Then, in the last 10 seconds of touchdown, they will all get out of their seats and run as fast as they can toward the front of the aircraft, making the plane nose-heavy and causing a crash.

Maybe we ought to just ban passengers. After all, explosive shoes don't blow up planes, PEOPLE with explosive shoes, err, try...

Re:22 fires out of how many?

[CannonballHead]

I think I am more worried about pilots updating their facebook pages and overshooting their destination airport by 150 miles.

That's getting dealt with

22 fires out of how many millions of flights, of which none resulted in any catastrophe..

Your opinion may be different if you were in one of those flights with one of the 22 fires.

Re:22 fires out of how many?

[QuoteMstr]

22 fires out of how many millions of flights, of which none resulted in any catastrophe

Your opinion may be different if you were in one of those flights with one of the 22 fires.

How so? A spark that someone puts out with a fire extinguisher isn't a "catastrophe" in anyone's book. We can talk about this objectively, and say that no battery has caused a major problem on an airliner. That's not something that changes depending on whether you were on any of the planes involved!

Re:22 fires out of how many?

[Creepy]

The TSA was OK with me emptying and bringing empty bottles through security and filling them in the fountain before getting on the plane - they don't really have any clear guideline on that, so it may vary by location. I usually look for the larger refrigerated water fountains because they almost always are filtered. You also can buy bottles in the airport after clearing security, though the last time I did that the big bottles (smaller than a liter) were $4.95 each - the same price as the liter beers I was drinking at the bar.

Re:22 fires out of how many?

[kencurry]

this assumes that logic has anything to do with TSA decision making. Of course, it does not.

Re:22 fires out of how many?

[dontmakemethink]

22 fires out of how many millions of flights

That's still significantly lower than the number of casualties from bomb components that ressembled water bottles, which is why they're banned.

Fixed that for you.

Re:22 fires out of how many?

[dontmakemethink]

Worry more about fires starting from poorly maintained planes, happened to me. Something shorted in the air conditioning system, the whole cabin reeked of smoke, but none was visible, a faint alarm could be heard, and we returned to the airport we just left to be greeted by the fire trucks. They wouldn't let any of us take another flight *that was not full*, instead we had to wait until after it left and take the same hopefully-now-fixed plane.

That flight replaced a 1200mi drive. I'm driving it this year. Seriously.

Re:22 fires out of how many?

[PitaBred]

Since when have those rules been about actual risk, instead of perceived risk?

Re:But what if the do ban laptop batteries?

[TubeSteak]

What good is my water bottle without water?

You can pee in it whe the security screening line gets
backed up because the TSA agents have to screen the battery of every electronic device that comes through.

I'll check my batteries...

[Beau6183]

I'll check my batteries...when you give me 110v AC 60hz plugs in business class. Of course this wouldn't help the international traveler (where laptops REALLY help pass the time). Most airliners have 115v AC @ 400hz and 28vdc systems... Or perhaps a universal 12v DC plug. This would require laptop manufacturers to standardize power supplies and plug fittings (yay!). Not an immediate fix by any stretch, but probably the safest ("low" voltage) most efficient (no inverter inefficiencies).

Re:I'll check my batteries...

[wramsdel]

It's a solved problem. I flew Northwest from Portland to Tokyo, an A330-300, pretty regularly between mid-2005 and mid-2008. 120V, 60 Hz was available in coach class forward of row 21, and throughout business and first. Seat Guru is your friend here. Sadly, after the Delta acquisition they moved the A330 elsewhere and replaced it with a ridden-hard-and-put-up-wet 767. At least I don't have to make the trip any more, I'd probably be bored senseless.

Re:I'll check my batteries...

[novakreo]

I'll check my batteries...when you give me 110v AC 60hz plugs in business class. Of course this wouldn't help the international traveler (where laptops REALLY help pass the time).

Have a look at the small print on your laptop's power adapter; most elecronic devices these days support multiple voltages and frequencies.

Immediately, the summary says nothing

[bugnuts]

More than half of the 22 battery fires in the cabin of passenger planes since 1999 have been in the last three years.

What is the reader supposed to draw from this? Will we see 4x as many in the next 3 years? 1.5 years?

This is a great example of misusing statistics to imply the wrong conclusions. What's the degree of relevance? Or is that left as an exercise for the reader, to guess if we have twice as many people travelling with electronics or if electronics are more dangerous, or what?

We've seen iphones explode and laptop fires, but when you use scary events like that and then add some sort of implication that the rate is increasing, that's bad reporting in my book. It's why concepts that cannot stand up to scientific scrutiny (intelligent design, anyone?) can gain such momentum: pick and choose statistics that sound relevant enough to convince, yet mean nothing without further data and degree of relevance.

In case you don't remember, lighters and matches are allowed on planes again. Isn't that a more obvious, more common fire hazard?

Re:Immediately, the summary says nothing

[Carik]

In point of fact, the rate probably is increasing. Ten years ago not many consumer appliances ran on lithium ion batteries: they used NiMH, mostly. Cameras used little alkaline batteries, and film. Not everybody had a cell-phone, though it was moving that way fast.

These days, just about every tourist has a camera, and a lot of them run on Li-Ion batteries, as do laptops, cell phones, iPods, and everything else anyone carries. The percentage of batteries that explode may not have changed, but the absolute number probably has. Given that the market is probably somewhere near saturation -- there will always be people like me who don't want a cell-phone, and don't want to travel with a laptop -- I'd say the numbers won't do more than double or triple over the next three years, but yes: I think they numbers will go up.

Re:Immediately, the summary says nothing

[bugnuts]

Aye, that is exactly part of my point since they don't say what they're concluding, but make it sound like an exponential epidemic.

The statement about it increasing leads to all sorts of guesses. Is it increasing because more LiIon batteries are out there? Or is it because they're more dangerous? Or is it because more people are bringing electronics in general? Without per capital data or better yet, the degree of relevance, it's just a scary sounding, but meaningless statement.

Re:Immediately, the summary says nothing

[Carik]

True enough. Statistics without numbers are pretty meaningless, really, but the point is still valid: there's a lot more of these exploding, in an absolute sense.

Enough is enough!

[swanzilla]

I have had it with these motherfucking batteries on this motherfucking plane!

Laptop fires on airplanes?

[MarkvW]

Is SKYNET taking over? Should we be concerned. That's one powerful laptop, if it can fire on an airplane.

They won't

[Anonymous Coward]

Because nobody has intentionally tried to start a fire with one.
We take off our shoes because someone tried to light exploding shoes. We surrender liquids because someone tried to use liquid explosive on a plane.

If someone brings an explosive piggy-bank shaped like a Raiders helmet, we will ban piggy-banks... and Raiders gear. We're just proactive like that.

So don't sweat it. Until some 'turrist' uses a laptop battery, you're good to go.

Re:They won't

[Duradin]

I don't recall any public news about anyone actually attempting to blow up an airplane with binary liquid explosives that were mixed in flight. I do recall that they busted a group that was planning to try to do so.

So we have to surrender liquids not because someone tried (like the shoe bomber) but because some people thought about it.

Re:They won't

[Rafe_Aguilera]

Here's an article from just last month about the guys that MI5 nailed in 2006. So, no, this isn't just some security wonk dreaming this stuff up. The TSA Blog has some interesting details that were not available to the public until the trial concluded.

Re:They won't

[PRMan]

Despite scientists stating repeatedly that it would take at least 2 2-liter bottles of binary explosives to cause a problem...

Re:They won't

[Duradin]

And would be rather dicey to make in a airplane's bathroom. Not ka-boom dicey but *fizzle* with a puff of obvious smoke dicey.

Re:They won't

[DavidTC]

And how would that be hard to get that much on a plane? It would just take a dozen people buying tickets.

Not actually getting on the plane, mind you. Just buying tickets on some flight, not even the one they're going to blow up, to get through security.

Or they could even print fake tickets to get through security. You can't get on a plane with a fake ticket, but you can get through security just fine, as they don't actually check that your home-printed ticket is actually legit. As has been repeatedly pointed out. (You could even use people flying in to transport the stuff.)

And then they all sit down next to each other at some terminal at the back of the airport, and pass their little baggies to each other. You can think of less noticeable and more convoluted schemes to pass stuff to each other, but, frankly, most waiting areas at airports have seats that face 'backwards' away from any possible onlookers, so really just having them sit next to each other would work. (And you pass clothing backwards.)

Anyone who thinks this is suspicious has never observed their own behavior at an airport. The very first thing anyone does after sitting down at their terminal is to rearrange their bags (Which were organized weird for security, and now need to be organized for the plane.), often trading items with people who are in their group.

The last collector then purchases some bottled water, goes to the bathroom, pours it out, and sits on the toilet for ten minutes putting it all together. (If it's a binary explosive, have one guy collect one side, and another guy collect the other, and put it together, and then one person does one more handoff.)

Meanwhile, all but that person walk happily out of the airport, or, heck, get on their flight.

Anyone who can't figure out how to get 2 two liters amounts of any liquid, together, behind airport security, is a moron. It's trivially easy. (Although it'd end up being in a plastic bag or something, not a two liter bottle, as those are hard to find at airports, and suspicious for security. 'Luckily', we're supposed to take liter plastic bags through security, and having more than one isn't suspicious.)

Re:They won't

[Kagura]

Would you rather wait to surrender your liquids after an aborted or potentially successful suicide operation with binary liquid explosives? Now, let's not be unreasonable and start forfeiting our pencils, shirts, plastic forks, wristwatches, belts/buckles, USB cords, etc. just because they may be used as weapons. But when you've foiled a group of people that had done the necessary homework to conduct an attack and were following through with the necessary steps to carry out such an operation, then it becomes a little more valid of an argument to have liquids banned.

That said, I always bring an empty water bottle with me to the airport and fill it up the second I step through security. I get too thirsty and I'm unhappy about otherwise having to buy an expensive bottle of water past airport security.

Re:They won't

[amRadioHed]

It's actually even easier than that. You can easily fit 2 liters of liquid inside your pant legs. The only way you'll get caught is if you're frisked, which is very unlikely. Just make sure you avoid airports with millimeter wave scanners, there aren't that many still.

Re:They won't

[profplump]

I'd rather not surrender my liquids at all, even if there had already been a bombing using liquid explosives on a plane. It seems absurd to surrender anything until and unless there's decent evidence that some device/material/etc. poses a practical, likely threat.

The fact that someone planned a liquid-based plane bombing does not make it plausible, and even if it is plausible it does not mean that it poses a statistically significant risk (i.e. that it will happen often enough to be important) or an economically relevant threat (that it's among the cheaper ways to blow up a plane).

Terrorists are, by definition, irrational from a societal viewpoint, so maybe we shouldn't rely on them to determine what constitutes a valid security policy. I'll take that one step further and suggest letting terrorists define our security policy so directly is a bad plan -- we're giving the terrorist the ability to get anything they want banned from flights just by drawing up a crude plan and getting some patsy caught with it.

Re:They won't

[amRadioHed]

But as I recall the group didn't do the homework necessary to pull this off and the plot was trumped up for political reasons.

Re:They won't

[Duradin]

If you caught a bunch of "terrorists", wouldn't you rather have caught "dangerous" terrorists and not "on the verge of stinking up an airplane's cabin with chemical fumes and smoke" terrorists?

Re:They won't

[Obfuscant]

Although it'd end up being in a plastic bag or something, not a two liter bottle, as those are hard to find at airports, ...

not if you carry one with you. the prohibition is on the contents, not bottles themselves.

Re:They won't

[DavidTC]

Yes, but empty two liter bottles are suspicious, like I said.

See, whenever I talk about 'a bunch of people could easily just carry binary explosives through security in pieces', there's always a fool who says 'Yes, but that would be suspicious, and thus somehow they'd get noticed and caught.'. (Of course, there aren't any security personnel walking around inside the security perimeter to notice these 'suspicious' behaviors, but whatever.)

So I specifically figured out a way to do it that not only is within the rules, but no part of it is even slightly suspicious.

People going through security with plastic liter bags that could are watertight and could be filled with explosives: Not suspicious. In fact, required.

People sitting next to each other where you can't see them trading things: Not suspicious.

People actually trading items between carry-ons and poking around in them before a flight: Not suspicious.

People buying bottled water and sticking it in their carry-on: Not suspicious. In fact, almost required

People sitting for ten minutes in a bathroom stall, and taking their luggage in with them: Not suspicious.

Re:They won't

[DavidTC]

Oh, there's even more fun than that.

You know that shoe-bomber dude would have probably tore a hole in the plane, and he fit the explosives within his shoe. (And if he'd been smart enough to light it in the bathroom, he would have succeeded.)

So we now take off our shoes and have them xrayed.

Of course, the amount you can fit in the sole of your shoe can easily be fit pretty much anywhere on your body if you flatten it.

Even millimeter wave won't detect it, because of, because of privacy issues, they blur out specific areas of the body, and the amount of explosives he had was smaller, cubic centimeter-wise, than one breast implant.

I am not suggesting breast implant bombings, but rather that a standard bra could trivially have that much padding inserted in it without the slightest notice.

Likewise, men could pad another area that gets blurred out, without anyone noticing.

And both could probably fit enough between their buttocks.

But, no, we all have to take off our shoes, because apparently terrorists are going to hide stuff in there. Again.

And this ignores the fact there's actually questions about whether or not the xrays could actually see explosives in shoes. Shoes commonly have 'hollowed out areas' in the bottom, where air or liquid is put in, so it is dubious if someone would recognize explosives.

And I, personally, have gone through airport security four times with the steel toe boots I normally wear. Which means, unless the shoe just happened to turn exactly right, they could not, in fact, see inside the toe of the shoe, which could have been full of explosives for all they knew. (Yes, cramped toes...but they don't know my shoe size, perhaps they were three sizes too big.) The last two times I actually watched to see if they reached in and checked inside...they didn't.

Re:They won't

[triffid_98]

If someone brings an explosive piggy-bank shaped like a Raiders helmet, we will ban piggy-banks... and Raiders gear. We're just proactive like that.

I guess I was asleep when terrorists attempted to take over a plane with my nail clippers and 2 8oz bottles of shampoo. How about we just hand everyone a complimentary club during check-in and be done with it? Then we can take the billions we're throwing at Homeland security and throw them at some other overly expensive government mandate. Perhaps we could call it 'health insurance'...

Re:They won't

[alantus]

I'm wondering what will happen when they catch a terrorist smuggling some kind of explosive in his rectum.
After all, they are on a suicide mission, so this is 100% possible.

Re:They won't

[Alioth]

I'm waiting for the anally hidden explosives plot. Terrorists could bring the entire airline industry to its knees if the only way to board a plane was to submit to a medical X-ray or an internal body cavity search. No one would travel by air any more.

Re:They won't

[jfeldredge]

Of course, you have probably just made your way onto the do-not-fly list.

"Yon Cassius has a lean and hungry look. He thinks too much. Such men are dangerous."
William Shakespeare, _Julius Caesar_

Ah ha!

[BlindSpot]

Ah ha! First we get the story about the airline pilots who got off course because they supposedly pulled out their laptops in the cabin, and now, just hours later, we get a story about laptop fires on airplanes.

Conclusion: The pilots' laptops burst into flame and they got lost because too busy dealing with the fire!

See, Slashdot really does have all the answers.

In Related News

[quercus.aeternam]

In related news, Chuck Norris has been banned from all Airlines.

Officials stated that "... Well, obviously he's a weapon. I mean, would you want to travel with a nuclear weapon your airliner?"

It remains to be seen how they intend on /stopping/ Chuck Norris from boarding a plane.

Chuck's only comment on the matter was "why would I need a plane to fly?"

We agree.

Ah, the optimistic type, I see

[danaris]

Yes, I'm serious: Ban everything, and force passengers to maybe, I don't know, read a book perhaps?

Really? You think that would work?

You don't think that what it would actually result in is everyone complaining loudly to their neighbours and the flight attendants about how bored they are because they aren't allowed to have any modern conveniences?

This would cause such a backlash, especially among business frequent fliers, that the airlines would lose more money than they did after September 11.

Dan Aris

Re:Ah, the optimistic type, I see

[pongo000]

Really? You think that would work?

Well, it seemed to work fine during the first 60-70 years of commercial aviation...

Re:Ah, the optimistic type, I see

[danaris]

Really? You think that would work?

Well, it seemed to work fine during the first 60-70 years of commercial aviation...

...During which time, the iPod, cell phone, and laptop were incredibly popular among those most likely to fly airplanes frequently.

No, wait, that's not true at all. In fact, until the 1990s there were very few practical handheld electronics of any kind.

Suggesting that we return to an earlier era when all these devices didn't even exist is not the kind of solution that's likely to, er, fly.

Dan Aris

Re:Ah, the optimistic type, I see

[dontmakemethink]

Well, it seemed to work fine during the first 60-70 years of commercial aviation...

Really? The best form of portable entertainment available to passengers has always been banned?

Re:Ah, the optimistic type, I see

[PitaBred]

But... we're in the post-9/11 era now! Terrists! Boogeymen want to kill all good Americans!

Re:Ah, the optimistic type, I see

[arkane1234]

So THAT'S how those planes hit the World Trade Center back in the late 90's or so!
I knew it wasn't terrorism, it was wireless interference!

Re:But what if the do ban laptop batteries?

[TheLink]

Yeah that rule is crazy. It's crazy to prevent people from carrying water or their cosmetics and similar stuff onboard.

They stop someone from bringing in a bottle of moisturizer, but when someone goes through the scanner and it beeps, they just look at his keys, coins etc and let him through.

Given their procedures I think it's easy to sneak onboard a dangerous amount of [fill in the blanks yourself terrorist, I'm not gonna help you that much ;)].

It's all to make people feel safe, not to actually make people safe.

That said, people feeling that plane travel is unsafe (even if untrue) could actually cause a lot of damage to the airline industry.

Re:But what if the do ban laptop batteries?

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

What makes you think they care?

What makes you think they should?

Re:But what if the do ban laptop batteries?

[Bakkster]

But you just named things that don't affect the flight itself. Nor do they affect the reporter/congressmen/businessman's work if they are not allowed to have toothpaste in their carryon. Comparing the backlash of not being able to clip your fingernails to that of not being able to use a laptop is silly.

Re:But what if the do ban laptop batteries?

[martyros]

Reporters wear shoes, drink fluids, use toothpaste and shampoo, but hearing about those inconveniences hasn't made an iota of difference.

If reporters were required to walk through the airport and the airplane without shoes entirely, we'd hear about it for sure. And if fluids, toothpaste and toothbrushes were both expensive and used for several hours between security at the point of departure and security at the point of arrival, we'd hear about it too.

My point is that your analogy isn't very analogous.

Re:But what if the do ban laptop batteries?

[maharb]

They don't need to use these things while on the plane and all of these are allowed anyway. You are allowed to wear shoes, you are allowed to bring toothpaste, you are allowed to bring shampoo. That might be why it hasn't made a difference. If you were going to bring anything up it should have at least been true, as there are some things that are banned that people could use.

Regardless, laptops are going to be allowed because they have the same risk of (malicious) fire as carry on as they would in checked baggage. Try telling the world they can't transport laptops in a plane and see how well that goes over. I would predict the death of the public airline industry and a rise in video conferencing and private jets.

Re:xkcd wrong

[Nick Ives]

Laptop batteries have protective circuits to prevent rapid discharge and eliminate that risk

I bet you could open a laptop battery and bypass those circuits, then you'd just have the positive and negative poles connecting straight to the contacts on the outside of the battery. After that it's just a matter of shorting the battery out.

The advantage of doing that rather than just filling a laptop battery shell with other more powerful explosives is that, if done with skill, it'd look just like a normal laptop battery in the X-Ray machines.

I seriously doubt Islamic-fascist terrorists have failed to think of this. The reason why no more planes have gone down is because either nobody wants to suicide bomb planes or because our security services are doing a good job of stopping such plots. If anyone really wants to bring down a plane they can and nobody can stop them, security theatre be damned!

Business business model

[carvalhao]

The type of customer regular airlines take the most profit from is the business customer. Now, let me see: I can take 4 hours by train to get there and get 4 hours of work in the meantime OR spend 30 minutes going through security check, spend 2 hours on flight with no laptop and work 1 and a half hours when I get there... Hummmmmmmmmmmm... It ain't going to happen.

Re:Business business model

[NevarMore]

I wish I lived someplace civilized with a decent private rail system.

Re:Business business model

[carvalhao]

The one that drops me in the center of the city I'm headed instead of 50 kms off.

Re:Business business model

[xkcdFan1011011101111]

Ditto. I live in DC, home of a fantastic public rail system (for the US), but it doesn't help me at all with my daily 6 mile commute (that takes 45 minutes each way) that I can't bike on (because the roads don't have room, no bike paths, no sidewalks, etc). Grumble grumble grumble...

Nickel Metal Hydride?

[reub2000]

If you're designing a device to be used by flight attendents, why wouldn't you make it use a NiMH battery? Seems safer.

Sloppy reporting

[greyhueofdoubt]

Per the summary:

More than half of the 22 battery fires in the cabin of passenger planes since 1999 have been in the last three years.

Why not just say, "12 fires have been started in planes in the last three years"?

Flying = Pain

[Azghoul]

Why not just ban laptops from planes and make it EVEN MORE painful to fly? There's almost zero reason to use an airplane any more as it is...

Re:Flying = Pain

[gujo-odori]

No kidding. I recently attended a security conference. It was 800 miles from where I live. I *drove* to it. Figured the drive would be 12 hours in good traffic (it was; 14 on the way back) and door to door time by air would be no less than four hours and might well be six, with the possibility of being even longer than that. Driving seemed like a good valued proposition, and I probably spent less on gas and food on the road than I would have on airfare.

Re:But what if the do ban laptop batteries?

[Audguy]

I'm not sure i want to ACK that sig.

Oh yeah, the WORST offender for sure...

[swordgeek]

"One air safety expert suggested that these devices might be 'the last unrestricted fire hazard' people can bring on airplanes."

Really now? More of a hazard than lighters and matches?

Re:Oh yeah, the WORST offender for sure...

[longbot]

I don't mean to be insensitive... but fuck smokers. They can buy a new 99 cent lighter after the plane lands.

Re:But what if the do ban laptop batteries?

[Mister Whirly]

They wouldn't care because I borrowed it from their helmets.

Re:But what if the do ban laptop batteries?

[Thinboy00]

Agree with parent, mostly, but:

You are allowed to wear shoes, you are allowed to bring toothpaste, you are allowed to bring shampoo.

I think GP had something else in mind here.

• You have to remove shoes temporarily in order to get through security
• You can't have those other things in the carryon

Nonetheless, the GP is worng here.

Re:But what if the do ban laptop batteries?

[Thinboy00]

What makes you think they care?

What makes you think they should?

He doesn't... (I think).

just because Randal proposed it

[nimbius]

doesnt mean we need a slashdot article so we can masturbate about it.

flight crews are trained to handle a fire, planes carry surplus breathable oxygen and fire extinguishers, and a laptop fire can easily be smothered out with one of the conveniently fire-retardant and incredibly uncomfortable blankets or pillows most airlines offer.

Re:But what if the do ban laptop batteries?

[Mister Whirly]

The airlines are trying to protect their profits, not their customers. Of course it is all feel-good security theater, real security isn't cost effective. But as long as the illusion of safety exists, Joe Sixpack will continue flying.

I'd carry a portable fire extingusher, but

[mcwop]

it only holds 3 ounces, and is not effective in putting out laptop battery fires.

Re:But what if the do ban laptop batteries?

[CrimsonAvenger]

Reporters wear shoes, drink fluids, use toothpaste and shampoo, but hearing about those inconveniences hasn't made an iota of difference.

Reporters have expense accounts to cover the things they can't bring with them, and the shoes isn't enough inconvenience to waste much thought on.

Re:But what if the do ban laptop batteries?

[cayenne8]

"But you just named things that don't affect the flight itself. Nor do they affect the reporter/congressmen/businessman's work if they are not allowed to have toothpaste in their carryon. Comparing the backlash of not being able to clip your fingernails to that of not being able to use a laptop is silly."

Maybe people will go back to just having sex in the bathrooms?

I hear over the years, the mile high club has really declined in membership...

Damn

[overcaffein8d]

i knew there was something wrong with buying a macbook pro with a non-removable battery...

Re:But what if the do ban laptop batteries?

[PrimaryConsult]

That's not quite the same analogy... You can fill an empty water bottle at a water fountain or (if your airport has deemed such things unnecessary) the bathroom sink. If they make you separate the battery from the laptop and either transport it as checked or (worse) mail it to your destination, you can't exactly build a new battery on the other side of security...

Free market

[QuoteMstr]

Isn't this the kind of situation best managed by the free market? Why not allow each airline to set its own level of security? Customers will leave the airlines that they feel don't provide the right balance of security and convenience, and the market will find its own equilibrium. I don't think, for example, that simple metal detectors would disappear if security screenings were no longer centrally managed, but I guarantee that the day the law went into effect, we'd be able to wear shoes again.

Re:Free market

[QuoteMstr]

Clearly, airlines would be liable. They'd have to get liability insurance, and the insurance premium would reflect the airline's security measures.

can never fully eliminate fire hazard

[dUN82]

I was once given a portable DVD player on a flight that feature a 6 hr playback battery pack since the entertainment system on my seat failed ! I was much appreciate it...

Airline Gowns Here We Come

[Temujin_12]

I'm just waiting for the time when you must ship your belongings ahead of time and when you go through security you are issued your official air-traveler gown to wear for the duration of the flight. Your civilian clothes/effects would be wrapped, checked as luggage, and ready for you to pick up at your destination.

Bonus conspiracy points if your gown has a bar code printed on it identifying you which is scanned anywhere you need identification or money in the terminal or on the plane.

Re:But what if the do ban laptop batteries?

[Kemanorel]

Last time I checked (30 seconds ago), you are allowed to bring all of those in the carryon. The TSA's 3-1-1 rule allows you to bring as many 3.4 oz. (100 ml) containers of any liquid (or toothpaste) as you can fit in a single 1 quart clear plastic bag. It's just a pain to limit to those amounts and have the bag separated from your carryon at security.

I could put out the fire...

[MiniMike]

...if only I still had my bottle of water.

I'm just waiting for the inevitable final step to the airport security process- after you put your shoes back on, the agent smacks you in the head with a bat. You wake up (hopefully) at your destination airport (hopefully). Your luggage has already been abused, and all that remains is to get in line to fill out claim forms for your missing property (bonus points to agents who leave a list of what they took to help you fill out the forms). Surely something like this can not be too far off...

Watch batteries?

[HockeyPuck]

Are watch batteries made from Li-Ion?

Yep.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watch_battery

Re:But what if the do ban laptop batteries?

[justdaven]

Probably because Condoms are on the watch list. :)

It matters who is doing the search.

[zippthorne]

When it was a private security firm hired by the airlines, it was a perfectly reasonable term of sale. "You want to travel on my plane, you agree to my let agents verify that you're not taking anything aboard that will increase my liability. You don't agree, well, here's a refund." They were conspicuous about it, too, the security checkpoint was a selling point.

But it is no longer a reasonable term of sale. The TSA is a federal agency, and the officers are federal agents. They are governed by the Constitution, which not only does not grant them the authority to molest passengers, but also specifically forbids them from unwarranted search and seizure, which a choke point search of EVERYBODY who passes certainly is.

It is also not the same thing as customs enforcement, which obviously must happen at a border, or at least at a virtual border. Completely domestic travel most certainly does not justify border search authority, let alone for reasons unrelated to customs enforcement.

Re:It matters who is doing the search.

[Obfuscant]

When it was a private security firm hired by the airlines, it was a perfectly reasonable term of sale.

And it still is. If you don't want to agree to it, don't buy a ticket, and don't get in a line where your presence is a sign you've waived your rights.

It's no different than trying to get onto a military base where you are clearly advised prior to the attempt that you and your vehicle are subject to search by US military personnel. Try pulling up to a Air Force base and waving a copy of the Constitution at the gun-weilding folks there. Good luck, hope Leavenworth is your kind of place.

The TSA is a federal agency, and the officers are federal agents. They are governed by the Constitution, which not only does not grant them the authority to molest passengers, but also specifically forbids them from unwarranted search and seizure, which a choke point search of EVERYBODY who passes certainly is.

By entering the line you waive your 4th amendment rights against search. Period. What you waive you cannot claim protection under. You are not forced to waive your rights, you freely chose to do so because you wanted the convenience and expedience of flying. There no longer is any question of "unwarranted" -- the courts have long held that permission is sufficient.

It is also not the same thing as customs enforcement, which obviously must happen at a border,

Now THAT's being consistent ... not. If you don't think you've waived your 4th amendment rights when you enter a TSA screening line, why do you think you've waived them when you enter an ICE line with the same conditions? Why "obviously" must people be searched for money and personal property that the government says you can't have, even if none of it harms anyone else, if "obviously not" you must be searched for weapons that you could use to hijack or destroy an airplane?

Completely domestic travel most certainly does not justify border search authority,

You're right, it doesn't, and if you travel by car you aren't subject to search without probable cause, etc. If Montana set up a border crossing point and tried searching every car that came into the state from Idaho, there'd be court cases out the wazoo until SCOTUS stepped in and put the caibosh on it.

When you want to pack yourself in with a hundred or so of your neighbors and get in a line that says "you are subject to search", then sorry, you've waived that right by doing so. All it takes to preserve your rights is to not enter the line.

Re:It matters who is doing the search.

[IndustrialComplex]

All it takes to preserve your rights is to not enter the line.

So how do I get to Sacramento CA from Alexandria, VA while preserving my rights?

Re:It matters who is doing the search.

[commodore64_love]

>>>>>When it was a private security firm hired by the airlines, it was a perfectly reasonable term of sale.
>>
>>And it still is. If you don't want to agree to it, don't buy a ticket

By that logic there is no end to government power. The government could make the argument, "If you don't agree to a random road block/search of your trunk, don't buy a car." Or "if you don't agree to a random police patdown on the sidewalk, don't walk on the public thoughfare." Your logic is flawed and the SCOTUS agrees (random searches are unconstitutional).

Re:It matters who is doing the search.

[commodore64_love]

P.S.

I think it's about time somebody challenge the TSA authority. I suspect it's only a matter of time until somebody refuses to consent to search, ends-up arrested, the court case rises to the level of the Supreme Court, and they declare random searches on *domestic* flights to be unconstitutional..... just the same as they declared random searches of cars by the DHS to be unconstitutional.

International flights which cross the U.S. border will likely still allow searches.

A new revenue stream from flights

[Valdez]

I can see it already...

TSA bans the carrying of batteries over a certain size (size is their "see, we thought this through and want to be reasonable" argument). They'll release a special video on YouTube showing exactly how big an explosion they can get from a common laptop battery, and the masses will be in awe that they ever boarded a plane with such a disaster waiting to happen. Mystbusters will also film an episode where they Confirm the "Exploding Laptop Battery" myth... the episode will when a laptop battery they stuffed with 11 pounds of C4, rolled in a coating of thermite, and dipped in ball bearings is used to destroy 4 decomissioned planes somewhere in the middle of the desert.

This ban will affect laptops, portable game systems, video players, etc... the things you actually use during the flight. You'll have to remove your battery at the ticket counter, and your airline will give it to TSA to put in a special fireproof container for the duration of the flight.

The airlines come in and say "We're on your side, travellers" and begin to retrofit planes with power outlets at the seats. Ticket prices will increase slightly to help cover this retrofitting on behalf of all travellers.

Of course, 110v will be "too dangerous" and 12V cigarette lighters will be "too big to fit", even though both would allow you to use things you probably already have in your laptop bag.

Instead, they fit the planes with 8.23 V outlets which require a special 103, 72, or 45.8 degree angle doohicky (depending on the aircraft manufacturer) with three and a half prongs, which is now the special "Saf-T-FlitePower" plug. You can buy cheap throwaway adapters on each flight for something like $25 (these fall into 23 pieces or short out after 3 uses), and travel accessory companies will start selling slightly better made adapters for $75-$150. Dell will add one to your laptop for $250 if you check the correct box on the 8th tab while building it online, but it's ok, because 67% of the time the box will magically be checked by default (people who didn't mean to get one will wonder WTF this this with 3.5 plugs is when they open their UPS box and it will ride around in their laptop bag unused for 4 years).

Now, when you're on the plane, your outlet will be disabled, and it will take the flight attendant typing in a special code with your seat number to turn it on. You can buy one of these codes with your ticket, or may get one automatically if you purchase a certain fare class, and the reason for the whole thing is to cover the cost of the retrofitting (nevermind that they already increased the base cost of the ticket to help cover this, and the functionality which allows them to turn off individual outlets quadrupled the cost of the retrofit in the first place). Also, please be patient while the flight attendant enters your code... for safety reasons this has to be done after reaching cruising altitude, so on some flights you may be halfway through the flight before you even get power. (No kidding, if you've ever been on Frontier and gotten a DirecTV access code).

Once you get off the plane, you'll travel down to the baggage claim, where an avalanche of special fireproof containers will come tumbling down the little ramp. Have fun sorting them out with everyone else on the flight who had to check their battery.

Of course, those of us who don't check bags (I haven't checked a bag in over 10 years and fly 4 segments a week), will just be screwed, but luckily the SkyMall catalog will start selling a cool new device which allows you to pedal up some power for your laptop while in flight! (Eventually, there will be alternatives, such as The Wind Powered Laptop Energy Device" you attach to the overhead air duct, and The Solar Laptop Power Supply which you suction cup to your window and hope you have an AM flight with a starboard window seat on a flight headed due north.)

Here's how this is going to go down...

[NevarMore]

-1. XKCD writes comic and STARTS a meme instead of referencing one
0. News article on li-ion batteries
1. TSA begins to crack down on enforcing no li-ion batteries in *carry on* baggage
2. Airlines now have a regulation that forces consumers to pay for a checked bag
3. Profit

Personal griping anecdote follows:
I flew recently, from MEM to SNA and from SNA to SDF with just my backpack. It had the liquids (in a seperate bag, that hotel shampoo and my Irish Spring are dangerous), nicer shoes, a suit, a 1000 page hardback, a 300 page paperback, my laptop, and some salty snacks. I had to give it a pretty good shove to get it stowed in an approved location because the under seat space was a hair too small and the overhead was full up with rolly suitcases.

The bitching about air travel and the TSA has gone well beyond a few loud, pissed off customers. Its par now to find most people unhappy with flying.

Me, I've learned to cope. I get a thrill out of finding holes in games with poorly written rules. Both the airlines and the TSA have placed an arbitrary set of rules in front of me. I get a kick out of walking around the airport barefoot, I get a thrill out of understanding basic science and knowing what I can do to ruin a flight thats far worse than what the TSA can stop*, I'm enough of a nerd to watch the system grind away**, and at the end of it I get to sit in a rare-metal and epoxy tube and travel at hundreds of miles an hour.

I was going somewhere with this. Post probably isn't worth my karma mod, but oh well. Lets discuss a little.

*point of the article plus my feet are bare, therefore my well worn hiking boots are emanating their scent freely from their place in my pack
**think about all the people that are involved just to get me on a plane, clerks, air crew, stewardesses, ground crew, security goons. Shit no wonder it costs so much to fly

Non-removable batteries are GOOD for TSA

[alispguru]

It's much harder to explosively short a battery if you can't remove it.

(You and I know it's still possible, but remember, we're doing TSA CYA logic here - if they can say "we did our best" they're covered).

Re:Non-removable batteries are GOOD for TSA

[conspirator57]

only for certain values of "can't".

http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/18/2227231
which links to:
http://www.pcauthority.com.au/News/137639,macbook-unremoveable-battery-is-a-doddle-to-replace.aspx
which links to:
http://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/MacBook-Pro-17-Inch-Unibody/618/1#s3248

Re:But what if the do ban laptop batteries?

[cayenne8]

"The airlines are trying to protect their profits..."

From what I can tell...it isn't like the airlines are making money hand over fist. They seem to be running razor thin margins with fuel costs and all. I saw a tv show about the airlines, and they showed on one flight from say, NYC to L.A., all things considered, they only had like a $360 or so profit. If one less person had booked, it would have lost money on that flight.

Lets look at the numbers...

[osjedi]

There are over 30,000 commercial flights per day in the USA alone. Assuming the article is only discussing fires on US carriers (doesn't specify, but we'll give it to them). That means that even if all 22 fires happened this year the chances of a fire on a flight is 0.0002009%. Or in other words less than 1 in 497,727 thousand flights. The simple answer is know where the fire extinguisher is. Problem solved. Since in actuality only 1/2 the 22 fires were in the past 3 years the odds today are about 1 in 2.98 million. Compare that to the odds of me having to share a row with a fatty or a stinker which are about 1 in 3.

Re:But what if the do ban laptop batteries?

[cayenne8]

"Probably because Condoms are on the watch list. :)"

I don't use them if at all possible...

Kinda like eating steak with one on your tongue, just no sensation or enjoyment of the act at all...

Re:But what if the do ban laptop batteries?

[davidphogan74]

A correction for you: We will hear about what the reporters' management expects the most people to want to read/watch.

Re:But what if the do ban laptop batteries?

[s2theg]

The carriers would be happier to charge you to plug into a laptop electricity port.

Last fire hazard?

[dontmakemethink]

One air safety expert suggested that these devices might be 'the last unrestricted fire hazard' people can bring on airplanes.

Umm... they still allow cigarette lighters... How does an "air safety expert" miss that one?

Re:But what if the do ban laptop batteries?

[Mister Whirly]

So is every other business. Maybe they should wisely spend their security budget, and stop wasting money for things/policies that don't actually make anyone safer. Or maybe they should realize that for years and years they were doing great and maybe it wasn't so smart to not invest back in to the security infrastructure. If they had been slowly spending to increase actual security, they would not have all been hit with big bills in the post-9/11 scramble to pretend to have adequate security systems.

Re:But what if the do ban laptop batteries?

[conspirator57]

you might get caught in a syn-ack attack. which is even worse than a big-mac attack.

lithium batteries

[Mr 44]

Yeah, that XKCD was pretty clever, except for the fact that they've acknowledges the dangers of lithium batteries, and placed limits (based on Watt-hour capacity) for almost two years now:
http://it.slashdot.org/story/07/12/28/1944208/TSA-Limits-Lithium-Batteries-on-Airplanes

Re:lithium batteries

[conspirator57]

and these regulations have clearly been effective? no.

Re:lithium batteries

[russotto]

Yeah, that XKCD was pretty clever, except for the fact that they've acknowledges the dangers of lithium batteries, and placed limits (based on Watt-hour capacity) for almost two years now:

There are no limits on small lithium-ion batteries in carry-on luggage. Where small is defined as less than 300Wh, which covers pretty much every internal laptop battery I know of.

Re:But what if the do ban laptop batteries?

[conspirator57]

except for the athlete's foot. and gangrene. and cooties.

Re:But what if the do ban laptop batteries?

[Presto Vivace]

you may be right :)

Ultracapacitors instead?

[sunderland56]

So, when will laptops start to use ultracapacitors instead?

wow.

[zippthorne]

Guy with the fancy cowboy boots;
    Woman wearing Prada shoes;
Urbanite with Evian;
    Helicopter-Soccer Mom;
Socially Enabled 12-Year Old;
    Electronic [game]-Dependent Child;
and PhotoAmateur Dad...

Is there anyone you don't have contempt for?

Re:wow.

[natehoy]

In the immortal words of Foghorn Leghorn, "It's a joke, son..."

Apparently, it wasn't taken as such.

For the record, I am former "Business Traveler Man" and current "PhotoAmateur Dad", so if contempt is involved I'm at least consistent, since I included myself in the list.

I worry more about lightning strikes.

[mstrcat]

Just a bit of statical analysis:
30,000 flights/day * 365.25 days/year*10 years = 110 million flights.
22 laptop fires
1 in 5 million odds of having your flight involved.

Apparently someone decided that they needed some press coverage, as I'm not buying it as a credible hazard.

Hey, at least ...

[PPH]

... the occasional laptop going 'Bang!' will keep the Northwest pilots awake.

Re:Liquids on planes (slightly OT)

[maxwells_deamon]

Bring an EMPTY water bottle and fill it with water after you get through the check points. Generally works fine if you put it in your carry on luggage. Some people have reported problems with some guards however ...

You could also probably buy Vodka at the bar past security and fill it with that as well. :-)

Re:But what if the do ban laptop batteries?

[vikstar]

how is parent offtopic? stupid mod.

Re:But what if the do ban laptop batteries?

[amRadioHed]

Have you ever tried stowing a desktop tower, monitor and keyboard under an airplane seat? I'd say the laptop is still relatively portable even if it needs to be plugged in.

Don't matter, he can still feel smugly superior

[SmallFurryCreature]

While of course he himself also goes into the line, like everyone else. After all, the alternative is to take a train. That is borderline communist.

Re:Don't matter, he can still feel smugly superior

[kwerle]

While of course he himself also goes into the line, like everyone else. After all, the alternative is to take a train. That is borderline communist.

I'm guessing you never priced a train ticket in the US. Besides taking ridiculously long times to get anywhere (as opposed to europe), they are often more expensive than flying.

The bus is cheaper, and for distances less than 300 miles may actually be faster than the train. It's pathetic.

Re:But what if the do ban laptop batteries?

[bsDaemon]

It's not abstinence if you're never in a position to have to make a choice :-p

What about humans spontaneously combusting?

[c4str4t0]

We should start banning humans from boarding aircraft as well since they could be another potential fire hazard.

nothing to see here

[TRRosen]

That works out to a bit over 3 "battery" fires per year (not just laptops but all batteries) out of more than 10 million flights in the us alone,
That takes it down to statistical anomaly area. and the number of injuries? None?..two? basically minor burns for the person holding the device at the time. Batteries don't just explode you have too short them with a solid piece of copper to get those kinds of reaction (don't bother sending links to people purposely shorting RC batteries that would never happen in a consumer electronic device) at best they go poof. Scary as shit if it happens in your lap but Hot coffee is probably a bigger threat to air safety.

Re:nothing to see here

[aXis100]

Did you not hear/read about the several large battery recalls last year? The batteries were internally shorting on their own (flakes of lithium floating around), no solid piece of copper required.

Re:nothing to see here

[TRRosen]

I was referring to the "BATTERIES EXPLODE" paranoia. What you get from purposely shorting a high capacity battery. What your talking about is a defective battery that will overheat expand and off gas or POOF as I called it. Scary if its in your lap but about as dangerous as lighting a pack of sparklers.

Car Analogy to the rescue!

[Arthur Grumbine]

If an Autobot does not want to allow you on for a ride because you are taller than 5ft, it is their right to deny you, even if you just know they can support your height and weight without problems.

The Autobot is a sentient being and they can deny you access for whatever reason, even if you don't like it.

Hmmm... not sure this is the best analogy...

Re:xkcd wrong

[LuxMaker]

You should not have mentioned this. Now you will probably be put on that no fly list.

Re:FIRST

[Duhavid]

Laptop fires on planes.

Not quite as catchy as "Snakes on planes", but scarier, really.

Re:But what if the do ban laptop batteries?

[maharb]

Exactly. So if you need to shampoo and brush your teeth while on the plane you can.

Ice

[shadowblaster]

I wonder if anyone has tried bringing in a bottle of solid water (ice). Explain at the security personnel that it is not a liquid. No way they can argue with that, you are backed by the law.

The law of physics.

Statistics game

[Silicon_Knight]

There's two issues here: There's the issue of whether current (or more stringent) security measures can still be beaten by a determined foe, then there's the issue of actual Li-Ion batteries going kaboom. I'll address the later.

Li-Ion batteries are some of the highest energy-density storage devices available to the general public. As such, they *are* dangerous. I design battery packs for a living, and let me tell you - if not for microprocessors and safety circuits, we wouldn't use Li-Ion batteries.

They are the only batteries that I know of that can fail dangerously when over-discharged. You start creating internal shorts of lithium whiskers between the cathode and anode, which bypasses any cell safety circuits.
They go boom very spectacularly if you overcharge them. The model RC heli folks have found this out the hard way, as they tend to run bare cells without protection circuits to save weight. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcwOwf55Rtc).
They have very low internal resistance, which means in a short circuit, they can release energy very quickly. Every manufacturing engineer at the company I work at have welded calipers to cell tabs, from accidentally touching the wrong stuff while taking measurements.

For a good cell manufacturer - and I'm talking about the LiShens, Sanyos, Kokams, and Panasonics of the world, the failure rate is 1 in 1 million. It's just a fact of life. The fly-by-night operations in China, responsible for some of the god-awful counterfeit cells out there, god knows what those failure rates are. And the vendors who use these cells tends to not put in the safety features (look up a BQ20Z70 chip, for example) to make a failure more likely.

The nightmare scenario would be some dude getting some last minute work in at the terminal, plugging the battery in for charging. Then the plane takes off with the laptop in the overhead compartment where the oxygen lines for the safety masks are kept, and the cells let go. Judging from how much energy a single 18650 cell can contain, it could easily do some very serious damage.

With the prices on Li-Ion dropping and more devices using them, it's no wonder that almost all of the 22 incidents reported occured in the last 3 years. Still a small number considering the amount of airplanes in the air at any given time, but enough for someone to pause and think...

Re:Statistics game

[xkcdFan1011011101111]

There isn't any pure oxygen in those oxygen lines, the little yellow masks that drop down in the event of a loss of cabin pressure are fed by sodium chlorate candles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_oxygen_generator.

I do imagine that a burning laptop battery in contact with one of those candles would be scary.

Re:But what if the do ban laptop batteries?

[BrokenHalo]

It's "jury-rig", not "jerry-rig" you dumb piece of shit.

If you insist on being pedantic (not to mention gratuitously obnoxious), you should be aware that both are now regarded as correct, although the latter has different etymology. The language evolves whether you like it or not, and attempts to cast it in bronze are doomed to failure.

Re:But what if the do ban laptop batteries?

[Meski]

What if they ban (lithium) laptop batteries? We move to fuel-cell technology! Let's see how they like methanol as a carry-on!

Re:xkcd wrong

[roguetrick]

t Lithion Ion batteries still explode with the protective cirtuits.

I had no idea oranges were a safety feature.

Re:xkcd wrong

[Nick Ives]

Yea, realised that wasn't clear after posting. I meant to say "stopping such plots before they reach the airport."

I don't think it's possible to stop someone of reasonable intelligence from bringing down a plane once they've arrived at an airport. I don't mind metal detectors and baggage x-rays - that's just part of the standard idiot filter that's been effective for ages - but no liquids? Taking shoes off? Please.

Re:But what if the do ban laptop batteries?

[Spazztastic]

Have you ever tried stowing a desktop tower, monitor and keyboard under an airplane seat? I'd say the laptop is still relatively portable even if it needs to be plugged in.

Yes. It almost worked but the person next to me spilled their dry martini on my CRT and got electrocuted. Stupid turbulence...

Where does this mindset come from?

[e-scetic]

What produced the mindset that there must not be any blown up/hijacked/whatever planes no matter what? This baffles me.

If lessening these ridiculous security measures means the occasional plane gets blown up or driven into some tower, I'm willing to take that risk. I recognize that, statistically, I'm more likely to accidentally drown in my own bathtub or get hit by a car while walking down the street. And I don't know if this is just me, but the thought of being on one of those planes doesn't frighten me? If it happens to me it happens to me, I'll do my best to fight the attackers and land the plane but if I die then so be it.

In many places in the world this sort of thing goes on every day. Hell, the US blows up a lot of ordinary and innocent people every day.

If most Americans were polled on this would they side with the increased security in return for giving up their rights and freedoms? Has anyone actually polled them on this question? How is this happening?

Re:But what if the do ban laptop batteries?

[clone53421]

It's either-or. Know what you're talking about before you bitch out people to avoid looking like a complete asshat in the future.

"Jerry-rigged" was employed by British troops during World War Two to refer to the German use of scavenged parts to keep vehicles and weapons functional, based on the use of "jerry" as a pejorative term for German soldiers.

Re:Liquids on planes (slightly OT)

[knarf]

Really? Not where I come from... I tried to take an almost empty tube of toothpaste on a short trip. As the trip was short I did not need much toothpaste, see? The security clown did not see, no. The tube, when full, contained 125 ml of toothpaste. It was clearly not full, anything but full, nearly empty even but it clearly stated '125 ml' so I was not allowed to take it on board. Of course I was free to purchase a new, full tube on the other side of the security charade. It was only two and a half times more expensive than in normal shops without such protection agreements. I guessed they sold toothpaste at my destination as well, no sale...

not quite

[Nekomusume]

"the last unrestricted fire hazard' people can bring on airplanes."

Actually, that would be the passengers themselves. You actually can kill somebody with your bare hands, or even your teeth, if so inclined.

Re:But what if the do ban laptop batteries?

[Zancarius]

So is every other business

I don't think so. MS had about $40 billion (with a "b") in the bank prior to the recession. Doesn't seem like they're operating on razor thin margins to me.

Maybe they should wisely spend their security budget, and stop wasting money for things/policies that don't actually make anyone safer.

So what do you propose they do instead?

Here's what I imagine part of the problem is: If the airline industry didn't do anything to increase security measures as observed, they'd be damned by the public. They'd be doubly damned if another 9/11-like attack or hijacking occurred. So, they come up with ridiculous policies to make it appear as though they're doing something that's genuinely protecting the public at large.

Ultimately, there really isn't anything that can be done. 9/11 showed that a well-organized, well-planned attack can be performed regardless of the security measures in place. Anyone determined enough could doubtlessly circumvent the draconian policies we have for air travel now. The difference? It looks like they're actually doing something.

I might also remind you that no one was expecting an attack of the magnitude we saw on Sept. 11th.

Re:Liquids on planes (slightly OT)

[maxwells_deamon]

Ah... but completely empty is different. I do not carry them through in my hand, I just pop them in my laptop case or my jacket. They generally hand inspect my laptop case anyway as I have more than the usual amount/type of junk in it. They see it is empty and go on.

That said, the rules of security theater are not written down in the script.

Re:Liquids on planes (slightly OT)

[skeeto]

Saline solution is allowed, so just label your water bottles "saline" and you can bring them through security, even if it's multiple large bottles. You probably want to wait to drink any of them, though, until you're out of their sight!