Slashdot Mirror


Steve Jobs Tries To Sneak Shurikens On a Plane

An anonymous reader writes "Steve Jobs, while on a family vacation to Japan in July, picked himself up some Shuriken, otherwise known as Ninja throwing stars, as a souvenir. In his wisdom he decided to put them in his carry on luggage for the return journey. As it was a private plane he probably thought there would be no issue, but he was wrong. Even private plane passengers have to have all their baggage scanned, and the throwing stars were detected and deemed a hazard. It's alleged that Jobs argued that he could take them on the plane as no one could steal them on his private jet and use them. Security at the airport disagreed and demanded he remove the stars. Jobs, clearly angry at losing his throwing weapons, stated he would not be returning to the country." Undoubtedly this is part of the iNinja project.

661 comments

  1. Shurikens on a Plane by tonique · · Score: 3, Funny

    Check out the new hit movie, Shurikens on a Plane!

    1. Re:Shurikens on a Plane by Anonymusing · · Score: 3, Funny

      Enough is enough! I have had it with these motherfucking shurikens on this motherfucking plane!

      --
      Liberal? Conservative? Compare perspectives at Left-Right
    2. Re:Shurikens on a Plane by slapout · · Score: 1

      Can't wait for the iPhone app based on the movie!

      --
      Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
    3. Re:Shurikens on a Plane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's almost as thrilling as "Jobs on a Plane!"

    4. Re:Shurikens on a Plane by Alien1024 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah, or jobs in Java coding.

    5. Re:Shurikens on a Plane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Samuel L. Jackson as "Steve Jobs"

    6. Re:Shurikens on a Plane by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Enough is enough! I have had it with this motherfucking meme on this motherfucking slashdot!

      I will concede however (as reported to me by old Koreans' robots) that in Soviet Russia, this motherfucking meme has had it with me!!!!

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    7. Re:Shurikens on a Plane by ravenspear · · Score: 1

      Enough! I've had it with this motherfucking joke about motherfucking planes!

    8. Re:Shurikens on a Plane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're talking Steve Jobs here. Why not 'Snake on a Plane'?

    9. Re:Shurikens on a Plane by deniable · · Score: 1

      Jobs in Flash programming.

  2. and... by spiffydudex · · Score: 3, Insightful

    this makes the front page why? Its common knowledge...don't bring sharp objects into airports unless you are checking the bag.

    1. Re:and... by Pharmboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But he is RICH! It is wrong to think that rich people should have to follow the same rules as the unwashed masses.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    2. Re:and... by mark72005 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The point is that even on a private plane, even on YOUR private plane, you are subjected to the same rules. I don't think most people would intuitively know that.

    3. Re:and... by oldspewey · · Score: 3, Funny

      There's an app for that.

      --
      If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
    4. Re:and... by Amouth · · Score: 2, Interesting

      but how do you check your bag for a privet jet?

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    5. Re:and... by Mongoose+Disciple · · Score: 1, Funny

      Hey, it's Steve Jobs and this is /.

      Someone will post that bringing shurikens onto a plane is a brilliant innovation of the plane user experience, and someone else will post complaining that airport security is a walled garden.

    6. Re:and... by blair1q · · Score: 5, Funny

      While they were paying attention to the throwing stars in his backpack, he stole the electronics industry of Japan and sold it to China.

    7. Re:and... by Pharmboy · · Score: 4, Funny

      Someone will post that bringing shurikens onto a plane is a brilliant innovation of the plane user experience, and someone else will post complaining that airport security is a walled garden.

      You forgot the guy who will claim that GNU/Star is better because it is open source.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    8. Re:and... by Kalidor · · Score: 1

      IIRC, generally the same place you check-in with the airport to let them know you are there. The plane still gets assigned a "gate" even if that gate is simply a virtual tarmac parking location, so it can be sent along with a gent on a luggage trolly.

      --

      Code softly but carry a big magnet.

    9. Re:and... by Defenestrar · · Score: 1

      But he'll market it to US.

    10. Re:and... by mark72005 · · Score: 1

      Annoyed with the market leaders' crash bugs, I have decided only to travel in kit planes that you can build at home from publicly available blueprints.

    11. Re:and... by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 3, Informative

      IIRC, generally the same place you check-in with the airport to let them know you are there. The plane still gets assigned a "gate" even if that gate is simply a virtual tarmac parking location, so it can be sent along with a gent on a luggage trolly.

      I've flown on private jets many times. Perhaps at larger airports, but when I went I was never searched, or had any of my luggage inspected. I walked up to the terminal, waved to the pilot, and walked onto the plane. If I was going on a trip longer than a few days, he would load my luggage into the plane, but didn't search it.

      That's one of the perks about flying chartered I thought. I walked up, 5 minutes later I was on board and all we waited on was departure clearance.

      Does this have something to do with Japan or their export restrictions?

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    12. Re:and... by Darkness404 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Its not because he's rich, its because its his own fucking plane and quite honestly he should be able to do whatever he wants to with his own property, just like there are rules in buses and taxis that don't apply to your own personal cars.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    13. Re:and... by Defenestrar · · Score: 1

      Yes, but did he have an iPhone, iPad, or iLaptop with a battery?

      Those things can be worse than any Ninja weapon

    14. Re:and... by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "Hey, it's Steve Jobs and this is /."

      Yes, it could be worse. Imagine it's the other Steve (Ballmer) the one having at the reach of his hand some throwable weapons that, for once, are not chairs.

    15. Re:and... by nine-times · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There are still rules about what you can do in your personal car.

    16. Re:and... by localman57 · · Score: 1

      In many mid sized US airports there is a "General Aviation" gate for private planes which is separate from the high-security area. I dont' know about Japan. He might have had problems with Customs rather than security.

      By the way, throwing stars are illegal in many states, including mine: http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title35/ar47/ch5.html (Search for "star" in the text)

    17. Re:and... by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      You forgot the guy who will claim that GNU/Star is better because it is open source.

      And they'll claim that people who fly coach value freedom more than those who fly in private jets.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    18. Re:and... by Hatta · · Score: 1

      I think they'd be better if we called them GNUrikens.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    19. Re:and... by jittles · · Score: 2, Interesting

      He must have been using the same terminal. I've had the priviledge of flying on a private, corporate owned, jet. We went thru a general aviation terminal and we did not have to go through any security whatsoever. This was post 9/11. It was also here in the US. Maybe the terminal he was at was used by airlines, I don't know.

    20. Re:and... by Defenestrar · · Score: 1

      1: Get Steve Jobs to demo a product - thus making international headlines

      2: Call it iShurikens and TM it, regardless of other products already bearing the same name

      3: ???

      4: Profit!

    21. Re:and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not about what plane he was flying. Do you honestly think they would care about that? He could carry a gun on board if it's his plane. What they cared about was a weapon being transported through a common area...an area where the weapon could have changed hands or wound up on any plane. It's a valid concern and Jobs is an idiot for not thinking. Maybe his new liver went to his head.

    22. Re:and... by oldhack · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But it's a good story.

      Once in a blue moon, assholes do good despite themselves.

      --
      Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
    23. Re:and... by Sir_Sri · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well except that he's in japan. What you can, or cannot do on your private plane in any other country has nothing to do with what you can, or should be allowed to do in Japan. If you want to fly in japan, you follow japans rules. And really, aren't most american planes private? They're owned by either leasing companies(GE) or the airlines, they have one set of rules of what you can, or cannot do on their planes, and the government has others, and you have to follow them all.

      Also, I would think if you wanted to park a plane in your yard you can probably put whatever weapons on it you want, but if you want to be allowed to take off, well then the FAA might have a few things to say about it.

    24. Re:and... by equex · · Score: 1

      What if he got hammered on taxfree booze and shuriken'ed his pilots and the plane went down over a japanese school ?

      --
      Can I light a sig ?
    25. Re:and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you talking about domestic or international travel? Obviously there is no luggage checking going on for state travel.

    26. Re:and... by bsDaemon · · Score: 2

      No, there are rules about what you can do on the public highways. He's more than welcome to sleep in the back seat of his car and drinking Mad Dog 20/20 out of a brown paper sack, but if he tried that on a city bus, that's a no-no. If he tried driving while drinking said Mad Dog 20/20, then that's putting other people's lives in danger, and again, a no-no.

    27. Re:and... by v1 · · Score: 1

      you are subjected to the same rules

      Rules don't just apply everywhere, they have to state where they apply.

      Now we're assuming their rules say "ALL planes", and then that would include private jets, and I'm ok with that, but why does the rule have to include private jets?

      I'm not arguing about the enforcement, but rather about the rule. Isn't it reasonable to assume owners of private jets are assuming responsibility for their own security against their passengers trying to hijack them?

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    28. Re:and... by MBGMorden · · Score: 2, Informative

      In this case, I do think there is a point to be made that we was taking them onto HIS OWN PRIVATE JET. Any set of laws that doesn't allow the OWNER of a plane to make an exception for certain types of materials when the contents are known is just stupid. What's he gonna do - hijack his own plane?

      Don't know about the situation in Japan, but I know that in the US there are some smaller General Aviation airports that are large enough to handle a smaller sized business jet without this sort of hassle. I'd say to fly into those types of destinations for any future trips.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    29. Re:and... by zach_the_lizard · · Score: 3, Insightful

      He didn't say there were no rules; he said there were some rules that applied only for buses and other public forms of transportation that don't apply in your own vehicle. Maybe the bus won't let you bring an animal aboard, but you can bring it in your own personal vehicle. The bus company / city / etc. might have to worry about the animal attacking passengers, flaring up allergies, etc. that the private citizen has no need to worry about in his own vehicle. The same applies in this case: an airline has to worry about hijackers, bombers, etc., while the owner of a private jet doesn't need to be worried about whether he's going to bomb it, hijack it, etc. by virtue of the fact that it's his own plane.

      --
      SSC
    30. Re:and... by Defenestrar · · Score: 1

      While walking through security where he could hand the weapons off to anybody else?

      It's his plane and he can have the luggage checked into the main compartment where he can throw them to his heart's content after he exits the public zone of the airport.

      Why there is an exception to the Second Amendment at 30,000 feet above ground on a domestic flight while participating in interstate commerce is a separate issue since this is an international flight. Although I'm sure shurikens have been defined as firearms in some of the more restrictive domestic jurisdictions.

    31. Re:and... by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Well, this report is wrong, this thing didn't happen, HOWEVER your comment is also out there, with the rest of the gov't rules and regulations.

      WTH would he be doing with those ninja stars on his own private jet? Hijacking himself? Fighting the attendants? Really?

      Yes, he is rich, no, it would make no sense to stop him from carrying knives and even guns on his own plane.

    32. Re:and... by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      The point is that even on a private plane, even on YOUR private plane, you are subjected to the same rules.
      Maybe that is true in Japan, but it is not true in the United States. You can carry weapons onto your plane in the United States. In fact, many people that own a plane will take their plane to their favorite hunting grounds. Often they are inaccessible or difficult to access by car.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    33. Re:and... by demonbug · · Score: 1

      The point is that even on a private plane, even on YOUR private plane, you are subjected to the same rules. I don't think most people would intuitively know that.

      Depends on the airport. It sounds like the only reason this was an issue was that he was going through the main terminal to get to his plane. It doesn't matter that he was going to his own plane, he was going through a controlled area where no weapons are allowed.
      I can take all the guns I want on my own private plane (well, assuming I had one), but that doesn't mean I get to carry them through the airport terminal.

      Could be a pain, I guess... I'd say he should have just put them in his checked luggage, but if he is flying on his own private plane does he have a deal in place for someone to handle checked luggage? I would guess not. He was probably pissed off because he hadn't thought of that, and there was no immediately available way to transport the items through the secure area to his aircraft.

    34. Re:and... by zach_the_lizard · · Score: 1

      Japan might have different rules. Last time I was there (pre-9/11), I seem to recall them having somewhat different security checks. I distinctly remember having to turn on my Gameboy (the original) to prove that it wasn't a bomb. I don't remember having to do the same here in the States, even with the post-9/11 hysteria. Whether that has something to do with not having flown internationally since then, I don't know.

      --
      SSC
    35. Re:and... by Amouth · · Score: 1

      But the place you check-in at the airport is part of the airline .. this isn't a chartered but rather a private airplane.. they don't even get assigned a gate normally (or they will share a tarmac gate with other privet fights.

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    36. Re:and... by nine-times · · Score: 1

      He's more than welcome to sleep in the back seat of his car and drinking Mad Dog 20/20 out of a brown paper sack

      Depends. I believe people have been arrested for being drunk in a parked car on private property.

      Regardless, there are rules about what you can do in your car in a on the public highways in your private car, and there can be rules about what you can bring through an airport to your private jet.

    37. Re:and... by cHALiTO · · Score: 1

      well, by that logic, the plane wasn't going to be just parked there so that Steve could play with his shuriken. It was going to fly, so they're not only responsible for the plane and passengers, also for the people that same plane could be crashed on if it were hijacked by some wacko with the stolen shurikens. So no, you don't get to carry weapons on board while flying I guess.

      --
      "Luck is my middle name," said Rincewind, indistinctly. "Mind you, my first name is Bad." -- Terry Pratchett
    38. Re:and... by uniquename72 · · Score: 1

      2 things:

      1) In many places in the U.S., getting caught drinking Mad Dog in your car -- even in the backseat, and even in your own driveway -- will get you a DUI (unfortunate but true).
      2) The airways are public, just as roads are public, so any plane using them is subject to certain rules and regulations.

    39. Re:and... by magarity · · Score: 4, Informative

      Don't know about the situation in Japan, but I know that in the US there are some smaller General Aviation airports
       
      And that's the problem; he was going through the security in the main public airport. There's no control preventing an item that comes through security with a passenger headed for private plane A being handed over to a passenger headed for commercial plane B. Duh.

    40. Re:and... by Dr+Herbert+West · · Score: 1

      Actually, that varies from state to state. In Illinois (may have changed since last I was there) if you go to a bar, get too drunk to drive and crawl in your back seat to sleep it off--- no keys in the ignition, just sleeping in the back seat-- you can technically get a DUI.

      As I recall, you can take your keys and lock them in the glove box and still be liable.
      Don't know if this applies to being parked in your driveway or garage, however.

    41. Re:and... by Amouth · · Score: 1

      that is why most of the ones in the states are blunted - there for they are decorative not functional and not weapons.

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    42. Re:and... by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>his own fucking plane and quite honestly he should be able to do whatever he wants to with his own property,

      That changed when some guy flew his private plane into an IRS building. Even private planes can be used for terrorism, so now they are as strictly regulated as public planes. Same rules.

      "He not comin back? Thankee God." - Japanese

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    43. Re:and... by just_another_sean · · Score: 1

      See: here.

      --
      Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
    44. Re:and... by donny77 · · Score: 1

      They were not confiscated at the door of HIS plane. They were confiscated at Airport security. He could have given those weapons to someone on the other side of the checkpoint and then they end up on a public flight. The Airport was definitely in the right.

    45. Re:and... by demonbug · · Score: 1

      Depends on the airport. Many airports have separate terminals for general aviation/private aircraft/non-scheduled service, so you don't need to go through the same security procedures. Apparently at Kansai they do not (which isn't really a surprise if you take a look at the place).

      It is a very space-limited airport, they don't really appear to have a place for a general aviation terminal - it is clearly designed to offer a place for round-the-clock commercial aircraft operations. of course, this could also be something specific to Japan, but I don't see any evidence of that.

    46. Re:and... by GameMaster · · Score: 1

      Actually, having open alcohol in a moving vehicle is illegal in most places I know of, regardless of whether you are driving or not.

      --

      Rules of Conduct:
      #1 - The DM is always right.
      #2 - If the DM is wrong, see rule #1
    47. Re:and... by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      ...except in this case Japan is probably just enforcing OUR rules.

      Dealing with a Japanese beaurocrat can be a bitch and a half and I don't just mean government employees.

      Even trying to get some kid at the Pokemon Center to bend the rules a little bit will be an uphill battle.

      Nevermind an airport.

      This is probably a side effect of increased security measures after 9-11 taken to a sort of samurai-esque Japanese extreme.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    48. Re:and... by Kalidor · · Score: 1

      Has to do with the services the airports provides. Almost all class A's and B's and most class C's in the US have enough money, staff, and area to provide for private terminals. There however, still a number that don't have some combination of these, (and then there are you lower level airports). Kansai Int'l ... iirc is the one on the artificial island connected to Osaka. It's also sinking, btw. A question of room and mass is probably the reason they don't have private terminal services.

      --

      Code softly but carry a big magnet.

    49. Re:and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I prefer gnome-chucks myself.

    50. Re:and... by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      It must depend on the system at the particular airport/country. As you indicate, he must've been going through the common terminal. There are places in the Newark airport that seem to be used for that purpose. On the other hand, if you're flying between smaller airports in the US using private prop planes, you don't even have to step in to the public terminal and nobody polices what you take aboard.

    51. Re:and... by Anarki2004 · · Score: 1

      As long as the keys are accessible to the driver, a DUI can be brought against said driver. This reminds me of a story: I was drinking with my buddies in my old home town and the party was dieing down. Being that there was nowhere to sleep and it was cold out, I figured my car was the best bet, but I was aware it was possible to get a DUI without even actually driving (or even being intoxicated, but that's a story for another day). Luckily, I had a remote starter installed a couple winters back, so I had somebody else hit the button for me a couple times to get the car warmed up. I'm not sure if I was bypassing any laws or still could be convicted, but I felt as if I was within the boundaries of the law. Anybody with a law degree care to weigh in?

      --
      The teachers will crack any minute, purple monkey dishwasher.
    52. Re:and... by confused+one · · Score: 1

      no open containers (containing alcoholic beverages) in the car. That's the rule where I am.

    53. Re:and... by Real1tyCzech · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      "because its his own fucking plane and quite honestly he should be able to do whatever he wants to" ...In public airspace? Over public property?

      So...all the terrorists need to do is purchase their own jets?

      Did you actually bother to think that through at all before posting your emotional knee-jerk?

    54. Re:and... by Volante3192 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Which results in the bigger question of... "So what?"

      So someone brings ninja stars on a 747 and goes on a bloody rampage (or...well...two, three people before everyone in the 5 rows above and behind tie him up with seat belt extenders...)

      How different is this from someone taking a tie and strangling the person in front of them? Or breaking off the tray table? Or using any one of a hundred other improvised weapons?

      Security theater is not security. There are more cases of passengers stopping lunatics on planes than there are of TSA stopping lunatics from getting on planes.

    55. Re:and... by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      ...been there more recently. Was never bothered over my mountain of electronic devices.

      Although I did get bothered leaving Prague over my mountain of electronic devices.

      It's like they've never seen a geek American tourist go back home before.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    56. Re:and... by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      No. I bet it was an issue because he was an outbound flight leaving for the US.

      It was probably US entry rules that the Japanese were enforcing.

      Perhaps they were being a bit too diligent and literal.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    57. Re:and... by bberens · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No tyranny is so irksome as petty tyranny: the officious demands of policemen, government clerks, and electromechanical gadgets.
      ~Edward Abbey

      --
      Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
    58. Re:and... by Pojut · · Score: 1

      Combined with marketing to make it's buyers feel a sense of smugness!

    59. Re:and... by vell0cet · · Score: 1

      But then... does that mean that a bunch of terrorists can BUY a plane and carry whatever they want on it and fly it (into) where ever they want?

      It IS their own property afterall...

    60. Re:and... by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 0

      Unless he's using a different airport from everyone else, it's moot. There is no point in checking 99% of passengers if you let the 1% carry whatever they like into the same area along the concourses where things can be handed off or stolen.

    61. Re:and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Some guy could drive an SUV or even a semi-truck into a building and cause a whole bunch of damage. Does that mean we have to go through security checkpoints every 100 miles on American highways?

      Seriously, at some point this insanity about being paranoid about what flies in the air has got to end. Yes, some nut jobs might do something dangerous with a machine. People some people need machines in order to prosper and certainly I don't want to see a general government ban on heavy machinery except to those who are especially licensed to use them.

      In terms of the nut job that flew into the IRS building..... that is one incident out of how many general aviation flights? Did keeping a Shuriken, a vial of gasoline, or even a handgun off of a private airplane ever going to prevent somebody from turning that airplane into a weapon?

    62. Re:and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they purchase their own jets, they won't need shurikens to hijack them.

    63. Re:and... by bberens · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, let us all fear terrorists who bother to purchase their own private jets so that they can launch shurikens out of them at 30k feet.

      --
      Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
    64. Re:and... by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      Even at large American airports, you don't go through general security for your own aircraft, you drive out to your plane and get on.

      The only time you go through security is when you're getting near commercial carriers.

      Jobs wouldn't have a problem in the US as he never would have went through security to get on his own aircraft ... which he could have stocked with throwing stars in advance.

      Why is he going through carrier level security to get on his own aircraft?

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    65. Re:and... by Americano · · Score: 3, Informative

      If the terrorists purchased their own jets... would preventing them from bringing a shuriken on board their private jet prevent them from flying that same jet into a building?

      No?

      Did you actually bother to think that through at all before posting your emotional knee-jerk?

    66. Re:and... by hey! · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, while you're driving. That has a rational purpose: to ensure that you conduct your vehicle with reasonable respect for the safety of others. If the car is sitting in my garage, it's nobody's business whether I sit in the driver's seat to drink a beer.

      If A has the right to make the rules for B, surely that right is contingent on such rules serving a rational purpose. Of course, such rules are often an injustice to others. For example, not being able to carry my pocket knife in my pocket is an injustice of a sort to me, since I'm not going to hijack the plane. However, it is rational for me to accept this rule, since I don't want planes (even ones that I'm not on) being hijacked. You could think of it this way: rule minimizes the *net* injustice to me, so it's in my interest to accept this rule.

      This particular argument doesn't apply to a private jet. Does that mean that the rule is irrational? Not necessarily.

      I suspect this may involve scenarios that people aren't taking into account. One such scenario might go like this. We're talking about security at the perimeter, right? So Steven Jobs points out to the security screener that this is a private plane. Why would he want to hijack it? The screener agrees and Steve takes his Ninja stars inside the security perimeter. Once there, he transfers them to a confederate who takes them aboard a commercial flight.

      But wait! Steve isn't a terrorist, and he would do no such thing. But neither am I, and *I* can't bring throwing stars inside the security perimeter.

      Now I should point out I have no idea whether this scenario is possible. I'm just saying that there is often more to a situation than what is "obvious".

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    67. Re:and... by BitZtream · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not in America. And thats probably why he didn't know that.

      In America you only go through all that screening if you are part of the general public flying on a public carrier.

      When I want to fly out of RDU, I simply drive to the airport, park, walk to my aircraft, and leave. I don't go through baggage screening, I don't go through security check points (other than confirmation that I do own an aircraft at the airport and am allowed to go out on the tarmac)

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    68. Re:and... by SirWhoopass · · Score: 1

      When I was flying out of Japan in the mid 1990s the security measures at Narita were very strict. My personal impression is that US airport security after 9/11 is more like Japan's prior to it.

      I haven't been there since, perhaps they are even more stringent. I do not, however, think Japan needed any lessons from the US on how to implement airport security measures.

    69. Re:and... by LBArrettAnderson · · Score: 1

      To the 3 comments above mine: Real1tyCzech's example means that they would then be able to give the weapons to someone else after they pass through security, who could then use them to do whatever they want with a passenger airplane (and to the passengers on the plane).

    70. Re:and... by Vegemeister · · Score: 1

      Well, yes! If somebody wanted to commit an act of terrorism with an airplane, and they had the resources to buy an airplane, you really couldn't do anything about it short of discovering the plot ahead of time and arresting the conspirators or shooting down the plane mid-flight.

    71. Re:and... by LBArrettAnderson · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't know how you're at +5 right now. Based on the /. summary it appears that this was a public airport. What's to stop him from giving the weapons to someone else who is getting on a public flight? No point in having the security check at that point.

    72. Re:and... by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Playing Devil's advocate...once his private plane landed, he could theoretically then go to a public plane at another airport without first having to go through a security checkpoint. The throwing stars would then pose a hazard to the public. This is the only rationalization I can imagine for this rule.

      --
      "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
    73. Re:and... by spazdor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, there are rules about what you can do on the public highways.

      And remind me, whose airways was Steve planning on running his private plane through?

      --
      DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
    74. Re:and... by ktappe · · Score: 1

      I've flown on private jets many times. Perhaps at larger airports, but when I went I was never searched, or had any of my luggage inspected. I walked up to the terminal, waved to the pilot, and walked onto the plane.

      Does this have something to do with Japan or their export restrictions?

      No, it has something to do with the story being completely false.

      --
      "We can categorically state we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman, July 2007
    75. Re:and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe the point is that people will continue to debate the concepts within a story even though the story was never true in the first place. This one is already debunked.

    76. Re:and... by Real1tyCzech · · Score: 0

      *sigh*

      So we'll let Jobs..and anyone else with a private jet, walk through public airports with as may weapons as they can carry. Surely *none* of those weapons would ever make onto a plane that could be hijacked....Right??

      Think.

      Please?

    77. Re:and... by kevinNCSU · · Score: 1

      This would be absolutely true if his own plane was at his OWN airport and he only had to walk through his OWN secure area. I mean seriously, even before 9-11 allowing someone who has their own plane to bring any sort of weapons into the secure area where they could potentially give them to any other passenger would be an unbelievably gaping hole in security of both the real and theater variety.

    78. Re:and... by Real1tyCzech · · Score: 0

      Ahh... Someone with a brain.

      Thank you.

      It's sad that rational posts on this site are so greatly outnumbered by the "shuriken @ 30k feet" imbeciles...

    79. Re:and... by dcollins · · Score: 4, Funny

      "Its not because he's rich, its because its his own fucking plane"

      So it's because he's rich.

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    80. Re:and... by Tuidjy · · Score: 1

      You are confusing two issues. Yes, you can take guns on your plane. BUT, you can not carry your guns through a public checkpoint, then walk through a public area to get to your plane.

      I feel dumb having to explain this, so think about it for a second. Once past the checkpoint, you could give away your guns (or have them stolen, or have them forcibly taken away) Then someone else would be free to take those weapons on a different plane. The officials were 100% correct in what they did.

      --
      No good deed goes unpunished...
    81. Re:and... by Real1tyCzech · · Score: 0

      While the image of terrorists throwing ninja stars out of jumbo-jets is highly amusing...did you perhaps miss something in your desire to get that lovely image out to the rest of the world?

      ..like maybe that allowing these people to walk through airports with weapons unchecked might lead to some of those weapons making it aboard planes that are *not* privately owned??

      Regardless....the story is a fake....but I just love the absolute inability of so many people here to be able to think beyond...

      Oh!! Shiney!! ;)

    82. Re:and... by mbone · · Score: 1

      I have never had access to the commercial passenger space in an airport while taking a corporate jet. They are always in separate "general aviation" buildings. I have never had to go through security at general aviation either.

    83. Re:and... by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      On an intercontinental flight? That sounds good for cocaine dealers. I doubt they do not search you top to bottom regardless of it being a private jet, or not.

    84. Re:and... by Hooya · · Score: 2, Insightful

      that's so retarded. It's called a D.U.I, as in DRIVING Under the Influence. That seriously needs to be challenged in court.

    85. Re:and... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I do not, however, think Japan needed any lessons from the US on how to implement airport security measures.

      There are two kinds of security: there's the theatrical version, whose only function is to encourage a feeling of safety among the population, and then there's real security, which is less concerned about appearance and more concerned about results. I don't know about Japan, but I'm sure Israel could teach us a few things.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    86. Re:and... by Real1tyCzech · · Score: 1

      It's not about the plane. It's about the OP's idea that being a private jet owner should allow you to walk through public airports armed to the teeth.

    87. Re:and... by morgaen · · Score: 1

      After throwing a few of those bad boys around the plane anyone on the receiving end is sure to be open source too...

    88. Re:and... by jdgeorge · · Score: 1

      Security theater is not security.

      True, in the same sense that "security through obscurity" is not security.

      There are more cases of passengers stopping lunatics on planes than there are of TSA stopping lunatics from getting on planes.

      Is there data you can share that supports this statement?

    89. Re:and... by sub67 · · Score: 1

      As I read it, the issue wasn't with him taking them on his plane so much as through the general airport population shared by both public and private passengers. He's not allowed an exemption to carry weapons through the terminal just because he owns a jet.

    90. Re:and... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      I prefer gnome-chucks myself.

      Gnome-chucks, that's good. I swear, this is the least informative and most entertaining Slashdot story I've encountered in a while.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    91. Re:and... by mqduck · · Score: 1

      Airport security is ridiculous. We all know that. That's not news. What's news is that he threw a temper tantrum and vowed to never grace the country with his magical, revolutionary presence again.

      --
      Property is theft.
    92. Re:and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Gee, sounds kind of familiar. Even on a private iPhone, even on YOUR iPhone, you are subjected to Apple's rules.

      Taking your own medicine's a bitch, eh, Steve?

    93. Re:and... by darien.train · · Score: 3, Informative

      I had to fly through Narita once on my way to Beijing during the bird flu scare and I saw things at the airport there that I will never forget. Mainly the hordes of doctors, nurses, and security people who all boarded the plane upon landing (probably 20 people total) and put infrared cameras right in everyone's faces (like really strangely and aggressively). People who were deemed "a risk" had these funny yellow stickers attached to them by the doctors (weird!) and were herded off the plane. We were all then given "health history" forms to fill out that were in some of the most ridiculous Engrish I have ever seen - I could only barely understand about a third of the questions. The half American/half Japanese guy sitting next to me said that he considered the event and specifically the form a true embarrassment for his country and we then proceeded to repeat the medical inspection routine two more times are different points along the way to pick up our bags. You also should have seen the smoking lounge there...it's incredible and also permanently staffed with a clean-up crew in hazmat gear with masks and vacuums that attach to their backs to clean up the butts and ashes.

      My point is that crazy shit happens in Japanese airports and it's best to just accept it...it comes with the territory. Jobs should have been prepared for this being the frequent jet-setter that he is. I've only been to a Japanese airport once and wasn't surprised at all by the story.

      --
      I don't know how many years on this Earth I got left. I'm going to get real weird with it. - Frank Reynolds
    94. Re:and... by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      I am an unwashed mass, you insensitive elitist clod.

    95. Re:and... by Kumiorava · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure how private airplane terminal works in that particular airport, but nobody should be able to bring dangerous weapons into the area where everyone are screened for these items. Who would prevent Steve from giving these items to someone who is not travelling in his own airplane. This is clearly security issue and doesn't have anything to do with lack of common sense.

    96. Re:and... by Pojut · · Score: 2, Informative

      Depends. I believe people have been arrested for being drunk in a parked car on private property.

      Only if the key is in the ignition.

    97. Re:and... by Hooya · · Score: 1

      Eh?

      If you've got a private plane to carry out nefarious deeds, once loaded up with fuel, you don't NEED firearms to carry on-board to cause harm. I fail to see the logic of searching the contents of carry-ons (or otherwise) of private plane owners - except of course for contraband.

      If you are queasy about "..In public airspace? Over public property?" the only recourse is to ban all planes from flying over public property. Never mind what the plane owner carried on board.

    98. Re:and... by c-reus · · Score: 1

      I'm hoping that someone famous (like Jobs certainly is) drawing attention to the airport security checks will have a positive effect. Perhaps the mass media would publish an article about some of the more stupid rules or pressure them to use a bit more common sense at the security check points.

      I, for one, would love to fly without having to think if my toothpaste will be confiscated at the next security check.

    99. Re:and... by nine-times · · Score: 1

      Yes, while you're driving. That has a rational purpose: to ensure that you conduct your vehicle with reasonable respect for the safety of others.

      I agree with you, but still the rules that apply to you outside of your car continue to apply in your car, and there can also be further rules that apply to you for being in your car.

      So yes, he's in a private jet, but that doesn't generally mean that security is pointless. As you mentioned (and this was something that went through my head) if he's passing through an airport to an otherwise secured area, then he also needs to be secured.

      I could also see someone saying, "I don't care if it is your private jet, we won't allow you to bring weapons and explosives on." Just because, you know... it's dangerous. And it's not just dangerous for the people on the plane, but for anyone that the plane might crash into. Not that it'd be easy to enforce universally, but I don't think it's necessarily unreasonable. We do have laws regarding how you can transport guns or explosives-- which aren't the same as shurikens, but...

      Apple is claiming the whole story is fiction anyway, so I'm not sure it matters.

    100. Re:and... by DinDaddy · · Score: 1

      They are now more stringent. They fingerprint your two index fingers and photograph you upon every entry. More bans on liquids etc.

    101. Re:and... by joggle · · Score: 1

      He's not flying the plane. The flight would also be mostly in international airspace which doesn't belong to anyone.

      Japan can be very annoying with their security for flights, even violating their own rules. For example, I was flying back with a coworker once from Japan. He bought a bottle of water at a store right next to the gate we were departing from. He turned the corner, started to go past security to get on board and they promptly took the bottle from him even though he hadn't even opened it yet. I checked Japan's airline security policy later and found that they explicitly allow people to bring unopened water bottles bought in the secured part of the airport on flights.

    102. Re:and... by nine-times · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There was a case where a guy was arrested without the key being in the ignition. I think he may not have even been in the driver's seat. I'm not sure if it held up, though.

    103. Re:and... by EvilBudMan · · Score: 1

      --There are more cases of passengers stopping lunatics on planes than there are of TSA stopping lunatics from getting on planes.--

      I would like to see some data on that. The ones passengers stop always gets news while the rest don't. Did you know explosives can be smuggled in the same was as drugs and only a dog or a cavity search can find that and it has already been tried on a Saudi prince so yeah those guys were probably just following their rules and want to keep their jobs as well. So I wouldn't be so quick to judge. Sorry, I can't take up for SJ on that one. If he would have declared them from the start he could have probably took them to CA where they are banned anyhow. It makes the whole story suspect with me.

    104. Re:and... by lancelotlink · · Score: 1

      So what? You want to be one of the first 3 people that got a star in the forehead and now are dead? yes, he gets hogtied ina matter of minutes but you are still dead. That's what.

    105. Re:and... by spazdor · · Score: 1

      Ok, and how exactly does one get into international airspace, from an airport in a sovereign nation? You just take off and suddenly there you are, in open air without any population centers in sight?

      --
      DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
    106. Re:and... by mbone · · Score: 1

      The point is that even on a private plane, even on YOUR private plane, you are subjected to the same rules.

      Actually (as will be clear if you read the rest of the threads here), you are generally not.

    107. Re:and... by Caerdwyn · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I can carry a gun in my private car, even onto an airport, even in Washington DC or New York City. I do not need a permit to do so. Federal law and legal precedent clearly state that you may transport a firearm from place A to place B as long as it is legal in the endpoints, and intermediate jurisdictions may not interfere as long as the firearm is secured. I can even take it INTO an airport, as long as it's unloaded and in my luggage and is declared at the counter for tagging so some TSA monkey can steal it.

      When I fly my own plane, I can carry a gun, not just in my baggage, but on my hip. For private aircraft, it's the pilot-in-command that makes that decision, and has full legal authority to do so. I can also choose to allow my passengers to do the same. I can also let them have as much alcohol as I, the pilot, think is prudent (though I can't have any. I don't work for Northwest, after all...) As long as the gun stays in the airplane, no local authority can gainsay me. That's the law too. Note the difference between "private plane" and "chartered plane".

      The above are US laws, applicable to US territory. Japanese laws are more restrictive. While the interior of an aircraft registered in a given country is technically the sovereign territory of that country (same laws as a ship), the fact is that local law enforcement does have considerable authority as to what happens on their airports. Not everybody is aware of this. Assuming this story is true-as-reported (and I am not assuming that, given the... bias which a lot of people have about Mr. Jobs, both against and for), it's likely that Jobs was thinking American laws apply on American planes regardless of location. That's true, but only to an extent. And there IS the possibility that the Japanese authorities overstepped their bounds. To know for sure would require a careful examination of AMerican law, international law, Japanese law, and any treaties which may be in effect. We don't have that information.

      It's also worth noting that other high-profile CEOs (Larry Ellison) have run into issues with the Japanese authorities regarding export and carrying of Japanese bladed weaponry, though in Ellison's case it has to do with laws regarding antiquities. Ellison is a well-known fan of Shogunate-era arms and armor, and has a substantial collection (one of the largest). However, Japan does not allow the export of antiquities without a permit, and Ellison has run afoul of this from time to time. Japan's export laws arose in response to the very large amount of antiquities which were claimed as war prizes following World War II, and as soon as Japan regained its sovereignty it passed those laws to stem the flow of its cultural heritage out of the country. It is possible that, if the shuriken in question were old and "real" (as opposed to cheap tourist-trap knockoffs), that Jobs ran afoul of the same law. Again, we don't know. The law might not differentiate between new and antique items in that category.

      Like most sensationalist stories which are relevant to nothing in particular except fueling dislike for someone famous and controversial, I'd take this one with a huge grain of salt.

      --
      Everybody gets what the majority deserves.
    108. Re:and... by seven+of+five · · Score: 1

      You're right. In this case, the lunatic got on the plane. The shirukens didn't make it, tho.

    109. Re:and... by at_slashdot · · Score: 1

      1. Buy jets.
      2. Get shurikens on board.
      3. ...
      4. Terrorize.

      --
      "It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." -- Prof. Dumbledore
    110. Re:and... by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Oklahoma City, McVey
      WTC 93
      USS Cole

      Terrorists don't need planes to blow up buildings or ships.

      Do YOU even think before posting emotional knee-jerk? (That is, unless I misunderstood your position)

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    111. Re:and... by tweak13 · · Score: 1

      This is one of the dumber comments I've seen in this discussion. That incident changed nothing. I can still walk on to an airport and get in a private plane without ever speaking to anyone. At a commercial airport, I might have to have a badge, or an escort, but generally the private aircraft are served from a separate ramp, so all they worry about is people crossing over to the commercial side.

    112. Re:and... by KarmaMB84 · · Score: 1

      If you're already screening for guns and bombs, why would you allow other weapons when you find them?

    113. Re:and... by Real1tyCzech · · Score: 0

      "I fail to see the logic of searching the contents of carry-ons (or otherwise) of private plane owners - except of course for contraband."

      Like...weapons?

      "If you've got a private plane to carry out nefarious deeds, once loaded up with fuel, you don't NEED firearms to carry on-board to cause harm"

      Not the point. Allowing the owner to walk through airports *with* those weapons is the point. According to the OP....Job's should be able to walk through the airport with knives, guns, bombs, etc without nary a word from the security personnel.

    114. Re:and... by Americano · · Score: 2, Informative

      You're the one who brought up the fallacious terrorist tangent. If terrorists buy their own private planes, telling them they can't bring a weapon on board is not going to matter a bit.

      That point is, conveniently, completely orthogonal to the issue of whether someone traveling on a private plane may bring a weapon through security at a PUBLIC terminal which services private and public flights from the same common area. And lucky for us, that answer is "No, they may not."

      Your response, invoking terrorism, was more emotional knee-jerk than the person you replied to. Just sayin'.

    115. Re:and... by AdamThor · · Score: 1

      he should be able to do whatever he wants to with his own property

      Maybe in the plane, but you still can't bring them past the security check in the airport!

      --
      -- "Oh. This guy again."
    116. Re:and... by iamhassi · · Score: 1

      "hijacked by some wacko with the stolen shurikens"

      What wacko? It's his own plane, who's the wacko, himself? His pilot? He doesn't need a shuriken to hijack his own plane, he owns it, he could crash it into anything he wants as one pilot made very obvious earlier this year.

      I agree with him, if you own the plane and there are no other passengers besides yourself and immediate friends and family then you should be able to take anything you want.

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    117. Re:and... by lgw · · Score: 1

      Hell, in Texas people have been arrested for being drunk in bars. In hotel bars, where there was no driving involved. The temperance movement is alive and well, sadly.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    118. Re:and... by Philomage · · Score: 1

      Heh... the image of two garden gnomes in big red hats tied together by their beards and being swung over-under the shoulders of a big bearded programmer confronting airport security...

    119. Re:and... by tweak13 · · Score: 1

      ..like maybe that allowing these people to walk through airports with weapons unchecked might lead to some of those weapons making it aboard planes that are *not* privately owned??

      I've probably posted enough times in this story for this to be getting redundant, but airports don't work that way. Passengers of private aircraft board their aircraft at private businesses at the airport. They do not use the main terminal, and do not at any time mix with passengers on those aircraft. I'm sure that people flying with weapons regularly fly out of commercial airports, they just never go through security since their only interactions at the airport are with a private business who doesn't care what they carry on the aircraft.

    120. Re:and... by Volante3192 · · Score: 1

      And I'm still dead if he strangles me with a tie, stabs me with a broken off piece of tray or attacks me with any number of other improvised weapons that are already on planes.

      So your argument is "it's better to die from a something not prohibited by the TSA than it is to die from something prohibited?" Either way I'm still dead.

    121. Re:and... by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not necessarily. They can give you an "intent to drive" DUI if the keys are even in your possession. I know someone who got one passed out in a car with the keys in his pocket. He was deliberately not driving becasue he was intoxicated, but that didn't matter. Someone else recently in the news got one in their own driveway becasue he had a fight with his wife and went out to the car to sleep. Had not driven at any point after he started drinking, but again it didn't mater. When you start criminalizing someones intention, I think we are getting a little to close to Minority Report for my comfort.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    122. Re:and... by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      You'd think that Jobs would have clearance for his armed bodyguards anyway to protect him against disgruntled Slashdotters.

    123. Re:and... by tweak13 · · Score: 1

      PUBLIC terminal which services private and public flights from the same common area

      I highly doubt such an area would ever be allowed to exist.

    124. Re:and... by Volante3192 · · Score: 1

      Define weapon.

      A tie can be a weapon if one uses it as such.

    125. Re:and... by iamhassi · · Score: 1

      "That changed when some guy flew his private plane into an IRS building."

      um.... no one forced that guy to crash, no hijacking, he did it himself. If Jobs wanted to crash his plane into a building he wouldn't need shurikens to do it.

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    126. Re:and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I guess the question is one of the "letter of the law" vs the "spirit of the law".

      There are arguments for and against each, depending on the situation.

      In this case, I doubt Jobs is a security risk, even if he had a loaded gun hidden in his bag. Thus the spirit of the law, keeping things safe, would let him off, in this case.

      And for you "the law's the law" folks, how many times have you gotten a parking ticket on street sweeping day ("no parking 8am-4pm") - HOURS after the sweeper had gone by, but before 4pm?

    127. Re:and... by coastwalker · · Score: 1, Troll

      It is indeed delightfully amusing to hear that the god of Apple has been nannied in exactly the same way his evil monopolistic company does to the rest of us. ha ha! Take that O grey suited old fart.

      --
      Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
    128. Re:and... by partyguerrilla · · Score: 1

      Yes, but how many livers did he steal from the japanese? That is what they should be inquiring about.

    129. Re:and... by iamhassi · · Score: 1

      " Does that mean we have to go through security checkpoints every 100 miles on American highways?"

      According to the logic of some /.ers it means we should have checkpoints on our driveways before we enter the public roads.

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    130. Re:and... by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      But that's stupid, why do you have to be on a plane to kill somebody with a freaking ninja star or a knife or any weapon?

      What kind of stupidity is that, so you may or may not kill someone, you'll end up dead, but you want to be doing this on the plane where you are certain to get caught and nowadays probably also lynched?

      it's a nonsense point.

    131. Re:and... by tweak13 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Commercial and private areas of an airport are separate. To leave a private aircraft and board a commercial flight, you would have to go through security the same as everyone else. You would also not be allowed outside on the ramp in the commercial areas.

    132. Re:and... by iamhassi · · Score: 1

      "Did you actually bother to think that through at all before posting your emotional knee-jerk?"

      obviously not

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    133. Re:and... by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      He shouldn't have to follow those rules, and neither should we. The only difference is that he can afford to throw a fit and we can't (without losing $1000 airline tickets).

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    134. Re:and... by lgw · · Score: 1

      Private jets are in a diffeent security area than public jets. I'm getting quite tired of irrational security measures that harm liberty while providing no safety. Enough with this nonsense already.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    135. Re:and... by Volante3192 · · Score: 1

      Is there data you can share that supports this statement?

      I wish I had anything concrete. While they claim they've stopped a lot, there's never any name attached, only vague statements. I wager the TSA is chomping at the bit for their first real capture so they can display them on the news and go, "SEE!? We ARE being productive!!"

      But instead there's simply crates and crates of confiscated scissors... ( http://www.cockeyed.com/photos/airport/airport.html )

    136. Re:and... by Real1tyCzech · · Score: 1

      But they do apparently need weapons. Which is what the article misrepresented as what Jobs was trying to bring into an airport.

      The story is false....it's all just rambling now anyway. ;)

    137. Re:and... by Enzo1977 · · Score: 1

      SSSHHHH!!

      What the heck is wrong with you? Now the TSA and FAA are going to make it mandatory that we fly wearing only paper gowns or we submit to being restrained in a straight jacket through the entire flight.

      --
      I hate all sigs, even this one.
    138. Re:and... by lgw · · Score: 1

      So we'll let Jobs..and anyone else with a private jet, walk through public airports with as may weapons as they can carry. Surely *none* of those weapons would ever make onto a plane that could be hijacked....Right??

      You're being quite foolish now. People carry weapons into public airports all the time - in baggage that gets checked. There's a security cordon around the public gates. Jobs never crossed that cordon, which was sort of the point here. It's emotional nonsense.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    139. Re:and... by iamhassi · · Score: 2, Informative

      "So we'll let Jobs..and anyone else with a private jet, walk through public airports with as may weapons as they can carry. Surely *none* of those weapons would ever make onto a plane that could be hijacked....Right?? Think. Please?"

      Do you think private planes pull up at the same terminals 747s do?

      I think you need to do some more thinking.

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    140. Re:and... by Volante3192 · · Score: 1

      Paper gowns?! Heck no, imagine the paper cuts!

      And for a straight jacket, terrorists will simply learn how to dislocate their shoulders.

    141. Re:and... by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo · · Score: 1

      Well damn. Thanks for the clarification, so much for logic and government not being mutually exclusive.

      --
      "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
    142. Re:and... by lgw · · Score: 1

      Mordo says: AIRPORTS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY.

      Have you ever actually been inside an airport? Maybe you just haven't seen how private planes work - it's not the same security line. The whole thing is a farce anyway, as maintentance workers and so on *do* get inside that cordon without going through security on a regular basis. It's like people are looking for any excuse to be good little fascists, instead of loudly protesting every infringment on liberty and demanding a compelling good to be gained from each.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    143. Re:and... by Real1tyCzech · · Score: 1

      The *story* (which was wrong, admittedly) involved Jobs not being allowed into a public terminal with weapons.

      The OP stated it should be allowed.

      I disagreed based on the story and the response by the OP.

      Back in reality, I believe you, and I agree wholeheartedly regarding the sacrifice of liberty for "security".

      I simply disagreed with the "logic" used by the OP.

    144. Re:and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, this has to do with that he was going through security at Kansai International Airport. TFA states that they do not have separate, isolated gates for private aircraft. Thus, you can mingle with passengers flying on public airlines, and as such, you must be held to the same security standards.

    145. Re:and... by lgw · · Score: 1

      That's not how airports work. Life isn't always as simple as you imagine. Passengers on private planes aren't in the same secure area as the gates for public flights.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    146. Re:and... by pgmrdlm · · Score: 1

      There are two kinds of security: there's the theatrical version, whose only function is to encourage a feeling of safety among the population, and then there's real security, which is less concerned about appearance and more concerned about results. I don't know about Japan, but I'm sure Israel could teach us a few things.

      And if the United States followed Israels mode of security, your fellow slash doters would be crying:

      1. 1). Invasion of privacy.
      1. 2). Over reaction
      1. 3). Ethnic profiling.

      But than, because most slash doters are hypocrite's. If something happened, loss of lives. They would be the first to bitch and moan that enough wasn't done.

      --
      Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Time
    147. Re:and... by iamhassi · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Real1tyCzech's example means that they would then be able to give the weapons to someone else after they pass through security,"

      Same question: do you think private planes pull up at the same terminals 747s do? Private planes go to an entirely different area with different security (just a security gate really) and everything.

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    148. Re:and... by Real1tyCzech · · Score: 1

      See my 2nd reply to Americano.

      Same-same. Based on the story and the OP's comment, I disagreed with his "logic". Your are, I am sure, entirely correct and it's entirely moot at this point.

    149. Re:and... by lgw · · Score: 2, Insightful

      One of the 9/11 flights was stopped by its passengers. The approach of hijacking a plan with iprovised weapons stopped working the same day.

      By contrast the TSA has never been of any use whatsoever in its long and sad history (we had the same metal detectors before, without the pointless security lines).

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    150. Re:and... by rainer_d · · Score: 1

      I'm hoping

      Hope dies last.
      The disaster that airport security checks are has been publicized to death in the last 9 years. Nobody wants to even read about it anymore and be reminded of it.
      Sleazy sex-scandals and racial/religious hate sell much better.

      --
      Windows 2000 - from the guys who brought us edlin
    151. Re:and... by Locutus · · Score: 1

      it sounds like it has nothing to do with being _on_ your private plane and it is all about how you get _to_ your plane. The airport did not have a special area for boarding private planes and passenger inspection, therefore Jobs had to go through the same screening areas as all other fights and there in lies the rub, as they say. He probably could have had checked it all and once he got to his plane, had the bags brought inside. He goofed and supposedly got made. He probably flies quite a bit and probably should have known this already.

      LoB

      --
      "Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
    152. Re:and... by moeluv · · Score: 1

      Regardless of the ownership of the fucking plane the fucking airport still runs the fucking terminal. So yeah he can do what he wants with his fucking plane but he still doesn't get to carry weapons across their fucking terminal. Rich or not.

    153. Re:and... by iamhassi · · Score: 3, Informative

      "Based on the /. summary it appears that this was a public airport. What's to stop him from giving the weapons to someone else who is getting on a public flight? No point in having the security check at that point."

      And what's to stop him from landing his plane anywhere he wants, buying weapons, flying to a public airport and jumping out to supply everyone in the terminal with weapons? I guess they do a security check for people that get off planes?

      No, of course not, because private planes don't land at the same terminals as big 747s. They land at the airport and taxi over to a smaller hanger area where you get off your plane, get in your car and drive way. No gift shop, no lines, no security besides the security gate that your car drives through.

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    154. Re:and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Buy plane, fill with explosive, fly into building. Yep, you can do what you want in your own fucking plane.

    155. Re:and... by panda · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Anecdotes are not data.

      Unfortunately, the TSA has impressive statistics for the number of bottles of water and shampoo, small knives, etc. that they confiscate every day.

      As far as I know, 0 terrorist attacks on air planes have truly been thwarted by passenger action. The United flight that crashed in Pennsylvania can't really be counted as a success because the plane still crashed and everyone on board was killed. The success was partial because the plane was stopped from hitting its ultimate target, which was likely the White House or the Capitol.--It likely would have been shot down by fighters that had already been scrambled for that purpose, however, had the passengers not "succeeded."

      The shoe bomber and the underpants bomber were not really stopped by passengers, either, though passengers did intervene. They were both thwarted ultimately by their own incompetence.

      That said, I do agree that much of what the TSA does is pointless. Note that I'm sarcastic above when I mention their "impressive" statistics.

      --
      Just be sure to wear the gold uniform when you beam down -- you know what happens when you wear the red one.
    156. Re:and... by gander666 · · Score: 2, Informative

      They do that (fingerprint & picture) because the US now harasses all foreign nationals, even from "friendly" countries.

      Sucks, because japan used to have the world's best and fastest customs at Narita. Sigh.

      --
      Suppose you were an idiot and suppose you were a member of Congress ... but I repeat myself. - Mark T
    157. Re:and... by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Wow, the IRS has a building in Japan!?

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    158. Re:and... by BattleApple · · Score: 1

      Connecticut allowed open containers for passengers for a long time, but I think they recently passed a law to prohibit it.

    159. Re:and... by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 2, Funny

      Depends. I believe people have been arrested for being drunk in a parked car on private property.

      True fact. When it happened to me it was on my ex-girlfriend's private property, in her father's car. Also I was naked and singing "my heart will go on".

    160. Re:and... by jc42 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      [I]f you own the plane and there are no other passengers besides yourself and immediate friends and family then you should be able to take anything you want.

      Yeah, you'd think so, but there's no government in the world that would agree with you. Smuggling stuff into a country has been illegal as long as there are countries.

      We could equally well argue that if it's your plane, you have a right to take those large containers of drugs home with you. Do you think that argument would be accepted by the border guards anywhere (except maybe Netherlands ;-)?

      You're free to feel that you have such a right. But the border guards are free to do anything they like to you, regardless of your so-called "rights". Good luck trying to get restitution from the courts.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    161. Re:and... by ildon · · Score: 1

      What, is he going to lob the shurikens from the open window of his plane at other planes?

    162. Re:and... by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>Does that mean we have to go through security checkpoints every 100 miles on American highways?

      I see you've never driven the I-8 or other highways along the mexico border. Oh and yes I agree it's "insane" the rules which have been applied to airplanes such that you can't even carry mouthwash on board.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    163. Re:and... by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      It's also worth noting that other high-profile CEOs (Larry Ellison) have run into issues with the Japanese authorities regarding export and carrying of Japanese bladed weaponry....

      Cue the rumors that Jobs and Ellison are preparing for a throwing star battle to the death....

      --

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

    164. Re:and... by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      I didn't say I agree with applying the same rules to private planes as public planes. I merely stated the badthought of those idiots in charge.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    165. Re:and... by Petaris · · Score: 1

      To go though customs and immigration perhaps? He was in a foreign country heading for another country. He had to go through customs and immigration so they knew he was leaving and could process that in their visitors database. To do that he needed to be in the public terminal I am sure, so there is a reason for the security. It might be different if he was merely flying to another airport within the same country.

      --
      ~Petaris "The world is open. Are you?"
    166. Re:and... by westlake · · Score: 1

      So someone brings ninja stars on a 747 and goes on a bloody rampage (or...well...two, three people before everyone in the 5 rows above and behind tie him up with seat belt extenders...)

      You cannot predict how people will behave in a crisis.

      Least of all, perhaps, when they are belted down in the confined spaces of an airliner - and the killer on board has weapons he has shown beyond doubt that he knows how to use.

      Security theater is not security.

      The Shuriken was often a simple, improvised, weapon, a secondary weapon, but never, historically, a toy.

      There are more cases of passengers stopping lunatics on planes than there are of TSA stopping lunatics from getting on planes.

      Citation needed.

    167. Re:and... by Idbar · · Score: 1

      he should be able to do whatever he wants to with his own property

      Like, for example, crash it into a building?

    168. Re:and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lol this guy I know got a DUI for riding his gramps hoverround drunk at 4am.

    169. Re:and... by Oceanplexian · · Score: 1

      Why not just do like the Woz bring a ceramic knife? I see a lot of possibilities where someone could bring a deadly weapon
      onboard an aircraft undetected -- not to mention the social engineering factor and even assuming *perfect* security there's always the human element.

    170. Re:and... by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      The GP post was insinuating that it takes a plane to blow things up, and that planes were the only means of traveling on public/open routes.

      I also forgot that guy that flew his own plane into the IRS building in Texas. Throwing stars are red herring for security theater.

      On a related and humorous note, when I was in college (25 years ago), I was pulled aside while going through security at an airport.

      It seems the guy saw a throwing star in my back. He asked me if I had one, and of course I said I didn't (I didn't!!!). He got really angry and demanded to go in my bag.

      I let him in my bag, and he pulls out a magnet in the shape of a sheriff badge. We had a great chuckle after that, he had never had that happen before.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    171. Re:and... by swfranklin · · Score: 1

      Its not because he's rich, its because its his own fucking plane and quite honestly he should be able to do whatever he wants to with his own property

      Agreed. I have never flown a private airplane to Japan but here in the US private airplanes are NEVER accessed through commercial gates, i.e. you don't go through the normal security areas. I have flow into countless small airports but also O'Hare, Nashville, Philadelphia, Cleveland, and many other large airports - and only one time (O'Hare) did I even go through a metal detector. It went off like a brass band (I had 2 knives plus keys, watch, phone, etc) - the guard just waved me on through. Now, if I were going to bring throwing stars home from Japan - I'd ask about it, not assume same rules as home. But, if I had such items at ANY airport in the USA with a private plane, I would have no qualms about carrying them in my briefcase.

    172. Re:and... by Real1tyCzech · · Score: 1

      "Jobs never crossed that cordon" ...

      You are right...Jobs never did anything of the sort. The story was a fake. The point was merely that I disagreed with the logic used by the OP claiming that because Jobs had his own plane, he should not have been stopped at the public terminal.

      Sure...he shouldn't have been. Had the story been factual, he would not even have *been* at the public terminal...but that wasn't the OPs argument.

      The OP suggested that because Jobs owned his own plane he should be allowed into the public terminal without a security check. I don't think there is anyone here who agrees with that...

    173. Re:and... by yotto · · Score: 1

      Seems like a great reason to drive home anyway.

      Not that I'm condoning it. Punishing someone for doing a crime that they not only DID NOT DO, but INTENTIONALLY AVOIDED DOING, is asinine.

    174. Re:and... by spazdor · · Score: 1

      Actually, there are lots of rules about what kind of potentially dangerous items you're allowed to have in your private car, regardless of any guarantee you can give that the items aren't dangerous in your specific situation. Cars are so ubiquitous and the regulation so streamlined now that it's easy to forget: you need special government permission to operate one in public.

      --
      DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
    175. Re:and... by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The United flight that crashed in Pennsylvania can't really be counted as a success because the plane still crashed and everyone on board was killed.

      Only because the second piece of the scheme that made 9/11 style attack pointless on 9/12 and onwards was not in place: reinforced cockpit doors.

      Should the idiots with box-cutters try this again, not only would they face enraged passengers but would be doing so while not in control of the plane.

      So GP is quite right, repetition of the exact 9/11 attack scheme was pretty much impossible right after the method became known and the whole neo-fascist exercise of the "fatherland se... " I mean "homeland security" is a result of various greedy authoritarians taking advantage of the panicked sheeple to shear them of their money and any vestiges of personal liberties not yet consumed by their "protectors".

    176. Re:and... by xenapan · · Score: 0

      Dude. you were arrested for disturbing the peace and public indecency. Not intent to drive drunk :p

      --
      insert funny sig here
    177. Re:and... by big+dumb+dog · · Score: 1

      I know about civil rights, but the intention of being a miniature Ninja is serious business. If we all have to give up some of our freedom to stop it, I say that’s a price we all must pays

      --
      "Seven years of college down the drain. Might as well join the f-ing Peace Corps." - John 'Bluto' Blutarsky
    178. Re:and... by thesandtiger · · Score: 1

      You do know that if a terrorist were to buy a private plane that the plane would be the weapon, right? I mean, I suppose they could put some explosives on board to up the oomph, but it's kind of beside the point. But yeah, throwing stars, box-cutters, random objects that aren't hundreds of pounds of high explosives, it does kind of make sense that a private plane wouldn't have the same restrictions on it.

      What is someone who owns a private plane going to do with shit like throwing stars, anyway? Hijack themselves at bladepoint?

      There was a story a while back about a pilot for a commercial carrier who was forbidden from bringing his eyedrops onboard a flight because he might use them to take over the plane. Which he was already in charge of. It's security theater and it's absurd.

      What you asked the other person I ask of you: Did you actually bother to think your comment through at all before posting?

      --
      Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
    179. Re:and... by spazdor · · Score: 1

      There are more cases of passengers stopping lunatics on planes than there are of TSA stopping lunatics from getting on planes.

      You might be suffering from sampling bias. When the TSA's efforts are successful, are you likely to hear about it?
      think: Heroic passenger saves planemates from certain death
      is a juicier headline than
      Ornery gate guard asks many questions and deters a shifty-looking guy who might or might not have ended up trying something

      --
      DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
    180. Re:and... by xenapan · · Score: 1, Funny

      No no. Ninjas vs Samurai. You musta missed the part where Ellison was getting armor as well. And we know that Steve's black turtle neck is actually part of his ninja uniform.

      --
      insert funny sig here
    181. Re:and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Security theater is not security. There are more cases of passengers stopping
      >lunatics on planes than there are of TSA stopping lunatics from getting on planes.

      Except the airport in question is in Japan.

      [Hint: TSA does not operate in Japan]

    182. Re:and... by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 2, Funny

      Agreed. Regular ninjas don't scare me, but could you imagine an army of ninjas wearing black turtlenecks? Frightening indeed.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    183. Re:and... by yabos · · Score: 1

      Just wait to see if that new law is going to be passed forcing you to screen all passengers, even in your 4 seat Cessna.

    184. Re:and... by Intron · · Score: 1

      Its not because he's rich, its because its his own fucking plane and quite honestly he should be able to do whatever he wants to with his own property, just like there are rules in buses and taxis that don't apply to your own personal cars.

      He might threaten himself with the shurikens and force himself to fly the plane into a building. Didn't think of that, did you? These terrorists will stop at nothing to attempt exactly the same tactic that worked 9 years ago. Fortunately they haven't thought of any other approach in all that time so we can spend our resources on guarding the doors to this empty barn. TSA is approximately $8 billion of the $55 billion DHS budget. The rest goes to little things like the Coast Guard, FEMA, Customs, Borders, Immigration and Secret Service which are all hurting because of this lopsided concern over "Sheiks on a Plane."

      --
      Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
    185. Re:and... by rdmiller3 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because you might threaten yourself and hijack your own plane. Right?

    186. Re:and... by Asm-Coder · · Score: 1

      Maybe some airports are like that, but I know at least some of the smaller airports (Midland international, Easterwood, to name 2) are set up so that passengers of private planes and commercial planes are processed through the same terminals. (I don't think the pilots at Easterwood have to go through security)

    187. Re:and... by broknstrngz · · Score: 1

      Security theater is not security.

      Yeah, it's more like theatre these days.

    188. Re:and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IANAL

      It depends on what state you are in I suppose. Many states use the 'actual physical control' to determine dui. You could be drunk in a bar with the keys to your car and get a dui.

    189. Re:and... by Volante3192 · · Score: 1

      You cannot predict how people will behave in a crisis.

      United 93.
      American Airlines 63.
      Northwest Airlines 253.

      I dunno...you're unsourced claim seems to hold less water than my unsourced claim.

      Citation needed.

      I have 2 cites above in favor of passengers (3 if you count 'foiling the plan' and omit 'and live to tell about it') and can find 0 cites in favor of the TSA.

    190. Re:and... by Your.Master · · Score: 1

      And what's to stop him from landing his plane anywhere he wants, buying weapons, flying to a public airport and jumping out to supply everyone in the terminal with weapons?

      I don't know this airport. To disembarking passengers enter the same secure area as embarking passengers at this airport?

    191. Re:and... by Real1tyCzech · · Score: 1

      "Did you actually bother to think your comment through at all before posting?"

      I did.

      Did you read the rest of my comments? The situation was a farce. The GP stated Jobs should be let into a public terminal regardless of what he carries because he owns the plane.

      None of that happened, of course, but for him to suggest that struck me as ... odd. So I argued.

    192. Re:and... by Adult+film+producer · · Score: 0

      Depends on that state... in Florida you can be charged if the keys are accessible or in your possession.

    193. Re:and... by jdgeorge · · Score: 1

      I appreciate the genuine reply.

      It seems to me it's really hard to tell how much stuff really has been prevented by the TSA. If their show of security is successful, they will never have a "first real capture", because the legitimate threats will look for a less inconvenient way to cause trouble.

      But I do agree that it seems as if there's a large amount of silliness taking place.

    194. Re:and... by bberens · · Score: 1

      On a scale from 1->10 (1 being OMGPOWNIES! and 10 being OMGWTFBBQ) how much fear should I have of a terrorist PURCHASING A PERSONAL JET because doing so would be the most expedient method for getting a hand full of shurikens on a commercial flight?

      --
      Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
    195. Re:and... by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      So, he stole the electronics industry of Earth and sold it to Earth, but he'll market it to Earth.

      Sorry, did which specific region of the planet actually make much difference to what you were saying? How 19th century...

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    196. Re:and... by Real1tyCzech · · Score: 1

      42.

      Obviously. :)

    197. Re:and... by BigSlowTarget · · Score: 1

      Consider going out to a regional airport and taking a first flight with a flight instructor in a private plane. I have a feeling you will find it an amazingly eye opening experience. Private flying and public flying are about as different as taking your motorboat out on the lake vs. a cruise line tour of South America.

    198. Re:and... by Volante3192 · · Score: 1

      If their show of security is successful, they will never have a "first real capture",

      The problem I have with this, though, is it essentially demands the TSA is working as theorized, except people sneaking contraband aboard is easy fodder for slow news days.

      Don't have time at the moment to search, but people have snuck banned objects (including boxcutters) aboard. Sure, in these cases the sole purpose is to make the TSA look stupid(er), but what if one of those people really WAS a lunatic and used it to kill someone on board? Won't exactly look good for the TSA...

    199. Re:and... by haruchai · · Score: 1

      I'm with you on this one. I'm not even close to being a Jobs butt-monkey but this is stupid. Unless possession of these is illegal in Japan, he should have had every right to take them on his personal aircraft. Someone probably got pissed that the fucking rich American bastard didn't offer to grease some palms.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    200. Re:and... by CheerfulMacFanboy · · Score: 1

      [I]f you own the plane and there are no other passengers besides yourself and immediate friends and family then you should be able to take anything you want.

      Yeah, you'd think so, but there's no government in the world that would agree with you. Smuggling stuff into a country has been illegal as long as there are countries.

      Unless he was smuggling Shurikens out of Japan, what's that got to do with the issue at hand?

      --
      Fandroids hate facts.
    201. Re:and... by haruchai · · Score: 1

      Cops can pretty much always find a reason to arrest you and maybe even charge you.
      Whether it holds up in court is another matter. Asshole cops routinely do this to teach intimidate someone knowing that the accusation carries a lot of weight if made public as many folks will simply assume that you must be guilty if you were accused.

      And, at least one fine upstanding public servant - yes, I mean you, Sheriff Arpaio - has made a career out of treating the accused as if they were already tried and sentenced.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    202. Re:and... by Moridin42 · · Score: 1

      My trip to japan a couple years ago..

      departing the US, I had to take my shoes off, seperate the liquids in my toiletries, and I could not take a drink through security. I spent an hour waiting to clear the checkpoint. And coming back I had clear security after transferring from international arrivals to domestic departures. That checkpoint took 90 minutes to clear. Ridiculous.

      departing Japan, I didn't have to take my shoes off, I didn't have to dig out anything from my carry on to seperate it out, and I could take a drink through after I set it on a little scanner. I have no idea if that was a chemical sniffer or if it was just a little scale with a red and green led. But if it was security theatre, the Japanese are a lot better at it than the US. It was much faster clearing security in Japan, and less annoying. Took me about 10 minutes, maybe, to clear the checkpoint.

      Sign me up for the Japanese version of airport security any day of the week.

      --
      I don't expect morality, equality, consistency, or justice from the law. I expect only legality.
    203. Re:and... by tsm_sf · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure why you'd want to punish the sort of behavior you're trying to reinforce in the first place.

      --
      Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
    204. Re:and... by Gazzonyx · · Score: 1

      [...] I swear, this is the least informative and most entertaining Slashdot story I've encountered in a while.

      You gotta' admit, both of those bars have been set fairly high.

      --

      If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.

    205. Re:and... by IWannaBeAnAC · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think that misses the point. It was a public airport remember. Once the shuriken got into the secure area of the airport, there is no way to keep track of them to make sure that they stay in Jobs' possession. They could have been stolen by another passenger and taken onto another flight, or Steve may have accidentally left his bag somewhere, for example. Normally, discovering a weapon or other forbidden item inside the secure area is grounds for evacuating the entire airport and rescreening everyone (after searching the place), so why should Jobs have it any different?

    206. Re:and... by element-o.p. · · Score: 2

      I would think if you wanted to park a plane in your yard you can probably put whatever weapons on it you want, but if you want to be allowed to take off, well then the FAA might have a few things to say about it.

      Would you care to find what the FAA says about it and point it out for me? Because in 19 years of flying, I've never seen the rule that prohibits me from carrying a shuriken, a knife or even a gun of some kind in my own airplane while flying. Even when flying out of public airports (which, in all honesty, is all I've ever flown out of).

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    207. Re:and... by nashv · · Score: 1

      Fine. Split hairs. There are rules about what you can do in public airspace. Happy now?

      --
      Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.
    208. Re:and... by nsheppar · · Score: 1

      How different is this from someone taking a tie and strangling the person in front of them? Or breaking off the tray table? Or using any one of a hundred other improvised weapons?

      It's different because you can generally do more damage, and more quickly, with an object designed to hurt people than with a tie, a tray table, or a pencil.

      --
      Correctness matters. Mercy matters more.
    209. Re:and... by willy_me · · Score: 1

      True, I don't remember having to be fingerprinted and photographed when entering Japan a couple of years ago. Of course, I am Canadian and Canada also does not require such things. It could be that Japan is like Brazil in that they require the same from US visitors as the US requires of Japanese visitors. That would explain why I walked right through.

    210. Re:and... by magarity · · Score: 1

      Why is he going through carrier level security to get on his own aircraft?
       
      First, as others already pointed out, the local general aviation airport at that city (somewhere in Japan) may not have customs and
       
      Second, what kind of hugeass private jet does Steve "whopping piles of cash from Apple stock" Jobs rides around in. For example, a BBJ needs to pull up to a jetway if you don't get the internal stair option to save the weight (and increase the range). Most general aviation airports can't accommodate them and one MUST pull into a commercial airport.

    211. Re:and... by Myopic · · Score: 1

      You nailed it. This discussion is over. Last person to leave, please turn out the lights.

    212. Re:and... by willy_me · · Score: 1

      As far as I know, 0 terrorist attacks on air planes have truly been thwarted by passenger action.

      Shoe bomber.. And the Pennsylvania incident does count because the passengers prevented the plane from destroying the white house. And as others have noted, reenforced doors like those now present on planes would have saved the plane.

    213. Re:and... by Unkyjar · · Score: 1

      It's kinda unfair to say there have been no terrorist attacks prevented by passengers in one breath, and then decide to rule out any instance in which terrorists WERE stopped by passengers in the next one.

      I mean, its kinda like saying that no terrorist attack has ever been stopped by anyone, ever, except when terrorists are incompetent.

    214. Re:and... by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      That changed when some guy flew his private plane into an IRS building. Even private planes can be used for terrorism...

      Seriously...I really, really despise the "OMG! Terrists!!!" culture of fear we've developed since 9/11. It's time for Americans to grow a pair. My motorcycle is more dangerous than my airplane. My airplane has approximately the same mass as my motorcycle (450 pounds airplane vs. 440 pounds motorcycle, when empty; 730 pounds airplane vs. 663 pounds motorcycle, typical). My motorcycle is *much* faster than the airplane (120 mph max vs. 90mph max). Kinetic energy is mass x velocity squared, so the my motorcycle has close to *twice* as much kinetic energy as my airplane at max speed and typical load. My motorcycle is also smaller, can carry a heavier payload, and can disappear in traffic much easier than my airplane. So by that logic, motorcycles should be subject to even more stringent regulations than private airplanes!

      ...so now [private planes] are as strictly regulated as public planes. Same rules.

      Uh, no, they aren't. 14 CFR 91 governs "General Aviation" (i.e., "private" planes) and 14 CFR 121 governs commercial airliners. If you are talking maintenance (which from the context, I don't think you are), then you are still mistaken, even though I don't remember which parts of 14 CFR apply (I'm a flight instructor, not a mechanic).

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    215. Re:and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Were you flying to the US? If so, your co-worker was probably a victim of more stringent US rules, not Japanese ones. I've seen this at many airports now - flights to the US have an extra level of security (at the request of the US, of course). This means that you often cannot even take on liquids bought in the departure lounge. There is no problem doing this when flying to other destinations - as there is no additional security when boarding the flight from the departure lounge.

      The US has very stringent security requirements for flights entering its airspace. Even if local security would have allowed the stars on board (which I'm sure it wouldn't, as this was a public airport) they would have been breaking agreements with the US if they had.

    216. Re:and... by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 1

      What, is he going to lob the shurikens from the open window of his plane at other planes?

      Hey, my dad was killed by a shuriken thrown at over 600 mph, you insensitive clod!

    217. Re:and... by Volante3192 · · Score: 1

      I don't know, I think it's a great argument!

      "I mean, if you don't count 1923, 1927, 1928, 1932, 1936-39, 1941, 1943, 1947, 1949-53, 1956, 1958, 1961, 1962, 1977, 1978, 1996, 1998-2000, or 2009, when have the NY Yankees EVER won a World Series?!"

    218. Re:and... by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 1

      Although I'm sure shurikens have been defined as firearms in some of the more restrictive domestic jurisdictions

      Unfortunately, there is no National Shuriken Association.

    219. Re:and... by Unkyjar · · Score: 1

      *laugh* I tip my hat to you sir!

    220. Re:and... by JamesP · · Score: 1

      That would be dealt with on arrival, at customs, not at departure

      --
      how long until /. fixes commenting on Chrome?
    221. Re:and... by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      ...In public airspace? Over public property?

      So...all the terrorists need to do is purchase their own jets?

      Did you actually bother to think that through at all before posting your emotional knee-jerk?

      Yeah, he did. Did you?

      Let me help you out here. Since you specifically stated, "So...all the terrorists need to do is purchase their own jets?", suppose that a terrorist has the money to buy his own jet. Why is he trying to sneak a shuriken onto the airplane? Are you worried he is going to throw shurikens out the window at people on the ground?

      If a terrorist wants to do 9/11 over again with his own jet, *nothing in the world* will prevent him from doing so. He is already in the cockpit because HE OWNS THE ******* AIRPLANE ... in which case, it really doesn't matter if he has a box cutter, a shuriken or an AK-47 in his carry on luggage, does it?

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    222. Re:and... by mysidia · · Score: 1

      How exactly do you 'check a bag' to be carried on your private plane? And what does that matter anyways?

    223. Re:and... by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      I'm sure that people flying with weapons regularly fly out of commercial airports, they just never go through security...

      As a private aircraft owner who regularly flies his airplane out of public airports, frequently with a firearm in his survival gear, I can confirm that you are entirely correct.

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    224. Re:and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you tried killing yourself lately? I hear it'll do wonders for the slashdot user community when you'll finally succeed.

    225. Re:and... by pookemon · · Score: 1

      A nice thought but he was taking the Shuriken out of Japan. And they're probably an allowed import to the US (Speculation there). Whether or not you can take something into a country is the responsibility of Customs at the destination, not the origin.

      --
      dnuof eruc rof aixelsid
    226. Re:and... by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      Hey, it is the law, I never claimed it made sense. I thought the exact same thing you did - way to punish someone who was trying not to be irresponsible.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    227. Re:and... by iivel · · Score: 1

      Strange thing about that. As a private pilot in Alaska I was actually required by law to carry weapons with me (though the purpose being survival in case I were to crash).

    228. Re:and... by iivel · · Score: 1

      Yep; the secure area of the airport is "secure" ... that's why flights returning from overseas have to be rescreened and baggage handlers don't require any "real" background investigation.

    229. Re:and... by blair1q · · Score: 1

      When China gets out of the 19th century in terms of human rights, we'll talk. Until then, you're hoist.

    230. Re:and... by capebretonsux · · Score: 1

      So, if I own a plane and want to transport a few hundred kilos of pot I should be allowed to? I've handled explosives before, if I owned a plane should I be allowed to do the same with a few hundred kilos of that? Dangerous territory. I think the authorities were correct, illegal/not permitted is simply that. They're responsible for pretty much everything that flies, for the safety of the airspace, aren't they? Partially at least. Fame shouldn't be a factor. Once arbitrary decisions start being made you'll end up with aviation security rules equivalent to the approval process of the app store. Not that I agree with many of the current rules, but I'd rather they err on the side of caution.

    231. Re:and... by LBArrettAnderson · · Score: 1

      Did you read the part where he got stopped at security (ie the entire point of the article)? He was at the same security checkpoint as everyone else.

    232. Re:and... by LBArrettAnderson · · Score: 1

      FTA:

      "The airport doesn’t have separate boarding arrangements for private-jet users, Uno said."

    233. Re:and... by LBArrettAnderson · · Score: 1

      FTA::

      "The airport doesn’t have separate boarding arrangements for private-jet users, Uno said."

    234. Re:and... by LBArrettAnderson · · Score: 1

      FTA:::

      "The airport doesn’t have separate boarding arrangements for private-jet users, Uno said."

    235. Re:and... by exomondo · · Score: 1

      Its not because he's rich, its because its his own fucking plane and quite honestly he should be able to do whatever he wants to with his own property, just like there are rules in buses and taxis that don't apply to your own personal cars.

      He can do whatever he wants with his own plane, in the same way that you can do whatever you want with your own car. However if you choose to drive that car on public roads you are subject to the relevant transport, road, police, etc... authority regulations/laws, just as if you choose to fly your plane from a public airport in public airspace you are subject to the relevant transport and aviation authorities rules and regulations as well as the policies of that airport and their security. Pretty obvious if you think about it.

    236. Re:and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was fingerprinted at narita a few months ago, there were plenty of foreign passports in that line, and everyone got fingerprinted, so it's probably just a recent law.

    237. Re:and... by IWannaBeAnAC · · Score: 1

      Well sure, but those aspects are out of sight and therefore irrelevant to the public performance of the security theatre. Whereas, irrespective of the 'actual' risk, if the public (more correctly, the media) found out that someone got past security with a bag full of shuriken, then they would demand that heads roll.

    238. Re:and... by Tracy+Reed · · Score: 1

      This is completely false. I can bring anything I want on my own private plane. There is no security at all nor should there be. I have flown all manner of things that would never be allowed on a commercial airline flight. The whole article is bogus.

    239. Re:and... by crasher35 · · Score: 1

      Yes, but he's going through a public airport...

      --

      I don't like to sit. Sitting is for people who like to sit.

    240. Re:and... by dido · · Score: 1

      I flew through Narita on my way back home from the USA at the height of the bird flu scare as well. What they were doing was not entirely unexpected, as we were all talking about how it felt like we were living through the first few chapters of Stephen King's The Stand, even before I had left America. Yes, we were detained on the plane for over two hours (there went my chance of puttering around on the Internet in the airport lounge while waiting for my connecting flight to board, and my chances of browsing at the airport bookstores went down greatly) and there were those guys in the hazmat suits scanning everyone and there was that silly health history form, but no, once they allowed us to deplane nothing else was unusual at Narita. There was that security inspection right after you get off before you get back to the boarding gates but they didn't do any further medical inspections. Being a smoker I didn't see those hazmat folks you describe in the smoking lounge at the time when I had a light after the ten-hour flight from Minneapolis-St. Paul to Narita, and the grueling two-hour "inspection" on the plane.

      I fly to Japan and through Japan several times a year as our company's airline of choice uses NRT as a hub, and I've seen more weird shit happen in US airports than at Narita. In any case what seems to have happened to Steve Jobs here is the Japanese complying with TSA inspection rules imposed on all flights entering the United States.

      --
      Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre.
    241. Re:and... by bendodge · · Score: 1

      No, if this story is true at all, it is because of customs, not TSA-style goons. If you fly from point A to point B in the USA on your private jet, you drive your car out to the plane and take whatever you want aboard. The complication in this story is that it was international travel, meaning customs had to inspect everything for export laws. Perhaps he was required to go through general security, because, say, customs was behind the secure area or something.

      --
      The government can't save you.
    242. Re:and... by Sir_Sri · · Score: 1

      The article you link is only a handbook any only covers narcotics. Cargo is covered by a different set of TSA and FAA rules. Oh and it's a private site the official FAA site says the same thing, but is well, official.

      http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/RL32022.pdf has a half decent, if somewhat long (and admittedly largely unnecessary discussion) about how cargo is to be carried.

      Radioactive and hazardous goods, and goods in general need a TSO number from the FAA.

      The TSA has a (very long and nearly impossible to read) breakdown of their rules http://www.tsa.gov/research/laws/regs/editorial_1786.shtm. Going back to february they were looking to extend existing rules to basically block all sorts of stuff from private use the way commercial use planes are. They have backed off much of that plan, but you don't extend rules that don't exist. In short, basically anything they class as hazardous in a plane of appropriate size they get to approve, or not.

      Being neither an american nor a private plane owner I feel no compelling reason to try and hunt down hand weapons in their documentation, but if they don't like it, they have rules about it. That's what government is for I suppose.

    243. Re:and... by pclminion · · Score: 1

      If he tried driving while drinking said Mad Dog 20/20, then that's putting other people's lives in danger, and again, a no-no.

      Wow. Seriously, dude? You think Steve Jobs is gonna kill you from 40 thousand feet with a fucking ninja star? Or was he planning on murdering his own private flight crew and thusly dying? What exactly is the DSM-IV classification of your particular mental problem?

      It's one thing to have rules, it's another thing to be completely fucking batshit insane non-competent god damn fucking crazy. Such as suspecting Steve Jobs of planning global death from private air transport via ninja star. Please, pass the hookah in this direction.

    244. Re:and... by deniable · · Score: 1

      Free iPads for the survivors?

    245. Re:and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My gosh, did anyone here read the article? It specifically states that he was going through the same security point as everyone else. There isn't a separate boarding method for private planes.

    246. Re:and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't answer that specific question, but other posters have pointed out statements from this airport that private plane passengers do not have their own separate area. So regardless of all the anecdotes from the USA that so many Slashdotters (including, it seems, a sibling reply) love to post, it didn't apply in this case.

    247. Re:and... by LBArrettAnderson · · Score: 1

      Read the article. This is ridiculous. Not a single person here has read the dang thing. It says *clearly* that there is NOT a separate security checkpoint for private and public planes.

    248. Re:and... by oljanx · · Score: 1

      "The airport doesn’t have separate boarding arrangements for private-jet users". Person A is boarding a private jet and therefore can carry whatever the hell he wants. Once past the security checkpoint person A hands off ninja throwing stars to person B who boards a commercial flight.

    249. Re:and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this makes the front page why?

      Its common knowledge...don't bring sharp objects into airports unless you are checking the bag.

      Is it stupid in here or is it just you?

      1. Allegedly, Steve Jobs tried to take shuriken throwing stars onto a plane.
      2. Allegedly, Steve Jobs whined that he should be allowed because he was going on his very own private plane.
      3. Allegedly, Steve Jobs then threw a hissy-fit when they were confiscated and vowed never to return to Japan.

      Oh...and did I mention the person alleged to have been involved was Steve Jobs , co-founder and CEO of Apple? If it's "common knowledge" then it's all the more newsworthy that the CEO of Apple wasn't aware of it.

      Oh...and it only appeared on your front page because you haven't filtered out Apple stories in your /. preferences.

    250. Re:and... by someone1234 · · Score: 1

      By the time China gets human rights, the rest of the world will lose them.

      --
      Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
    251. Re:and... by gamricstone · · Score: 1

      So your fear is that steve jobs would endanger other passengers, on other planes, by possessing shurikens on his private plane? I can see it now
      Pilot: Attention passengers, we will be making an emergency landing, it appears Steve Jobs has flown up next to us and lodged a shuriken in our fuselage

      --
      The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil. - Einstein
    252. Re:and... by nine-times · · Score: 1

      Federal law and legal precedent clearly state that you may transport a firearm from place A to place B as long as it is legal in the endpoints, and intermediate jurisdictions may not interfere as long as the firearm is secured.

      Yeah, so there are still laws governing the transport, which was my point. In has to be legal at both endpoints, and it needs to be secured.

      I believe the gun must be unloaded while in transport, and it must be somehow contained. Like you can have the gun in your trunk, but you can't drive around with a gun in your lap. So the point remains: there are laws about these things.

    253. Re:and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its not because he's rich, its because its his own fucking plane and quite honestly he should be able to do whatever he wants to with his own property, just like there are rules in buses and taxis that don't apply to your own personal cars.

      Yeah like take the plane over to Taiwan and crash it in Taipei 101?

    254. Re:and... by PseudonymousBraveguy · · Score: 1

      The obvious difference is: Those drugs are illegal outside the plane, too. Shurikens are legal to own in the countries involved in that incident.

    255. Re:and... by Ceriel+Nosforit · · Score: 1

      ...don't bring sharp objects into airports...

      But... but where do I put my MIND?

      --
      All rites reversed 2010
    256. Re:and... by BlackCreek · · Score: 1

      Its not because he's rich, its because its his own fucking plane and quite honestly he should be able to do whatever he wants to with his own property, just like there are rules in buses and taxis that don't apply to your own personal cars.

      So would you argue that a very rich person should be allowed to carry whatever he wants in a private plane, say, in the US?

      I can imagine that a very rich saudi (Osama Bin Laden) would agree to pay for such a plane, while some recruits of his board the plane with guns (or box cutters), to later surrender the pilot, and crash the plane. I mean, according to you, being it a private plane, these fellow friends of mister Osama should have the right to carry anything into the plane since they are paying for it.

      If you don't think that these folks should have the right to board private planes carrying prohibited items, why do you think Jobs has that right?

    257. Re:and... by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      However being a drunk passenger in a car which is driven by someone sober is not illegal at all.
      Steve Jobs wasn't flying his own plane, he employs a pilot to do that.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    258. Re:and... by Alphathon · · Score: 1

      The difference there is that it is generally illegal to possess said drugs, so he would have no right to have them regardless of whether they were on a plane. Then there's smuggling of legal items (i.e. items you are allowed to possess in both countries) which is evasion of taxes, import duty (or whatever it's called in the US) etc. Assuming for a moment that neither is the case, and that it would be legal for the Shurikens to be shipped to the US (which I assume it would be), why should the same not hold for his private transport? If he were going to the UK for example, I could understand it as I'm fairly sure it's illegal to possess them here, but when going to the US, why not?

    259. Re:and... by spazdor · · Score: 1

      My fear is that he isn't as good at guaranteeing the security of his own plane as he says he is, kind of like his OS.

      When you're operating a machine with the potential to kill lots of other people, you have to do better than "don't worry about it, I got this." You have to jump through some hoops to demonstrate that you're doing it safely to everyone else's standards, you can't just 'know' it's safe. Just like in math class. Show your work.

      --
      DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
    260. Re:and... by vegiVamp · · Score: 1

      Ahh, but you see, security is layers. Even if the TSA doesn't stop many lunatics, every one they *do* stop is one less lunatic that the passengers have to stop.

      *cough*

      --
      What a depressingly stupid machine.
    261. Re:and... by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1

      Well, to be fair, there are other ways of obtaining a plane without having to be rich first.

      To be even fairer, most of those ways would earn you an indefinite stay in a prison without trial.

      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
    262. Re:and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not. At. This. Fucking. Airport.

      Sorry for really hammering it out - but this has been covered about 300 times so far.

    263. Re:and... by briareus · · Score: 1

      I think you need to do some re-reading as you clearly missed something important above.

    264. Re:and... by briareus · · Score: 1

      Same answer: RTFA. Stop assuming that you know what it says.

    265. Re:and... by briareus · · Score: 1

      You're right. Life isn't as simple as you imagine. RTFA to see why you're wrong.

    266. Re:and... by briareus · · Score: 1

      Nope. RTFA before you post this incorrect and irrelevant bit yet again...

    267. Re:and... by memnock · · Score: 1

      you mean like stop-and-frisks? and arresting without charges to sort things out later? cops wouldn't needlessly harass people. never in a million years. but they do have jobs to do and numbers to meet and their bosses won't suffer a poor attitude.

    268. Re:and... by Atryn · · Score: 1

      It's one thing to have rules, it's another thing to be completely fucking batshit insane non-competent god damn fucking crazy. Such as suspecting Steve Jobs of planning global death from private air transport via ninja star. Please, pass the hookah in this direction.

      I, for one, would like to thank the Japanese airport security folks for giving us the opportunity to imagine "Steve Jobs planning global death from private air transport via ninja star"... Seriously, my day is much more amusing now.

      --
      Come play Moral Decay!
    269. Re:and... by yodleboy · · Score: 1

      dunno... he's a major technology figure, not a small number of people on /. worship him, it's kind of a funny story (rich guy can't bring what he wants on own private plane) and it's kind of shocking (rich guy can't bring what he wants on own private plane).

    270. Re:and... by Stray7Xi · · Score: 1

      Any set of laws that doesn't allow the OWNER of a plane to make an exception for certain types of materials when the contents are known is just stupid.

      Great so Southwest should be able to exempt their passengers from the TSA liquid requirements? US Airways can allow knives with blades under 2 inches long. Ryanair can charge you a fee to skip security all together.

      Every plane has an owner. I don't agree with most of the security theater but the idea of a secure zone only works if they don't grant exemptions. After an item is past the security gate there is no tracking of where it ends up.

    271. Re:and... by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      But these rules you are speaking about are for protecting commercial planes form hijacking.
      Obviously it is possible to transport weapons by plane, they do it all the time.
      and obviously Steve Jobs is not going to hijack his own plane.

      So as long as they are not worrying about smuggling their is no reason to restrict what goes on a private plane.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    272. Re:and... by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      The article you link is only a handbook any only covers narcotics.

      No, I linked to 14 CFR Part 91 and Part 121, which are the operating regulations that govern general aviation and scheduled airlines, respectively.

      Cargo is covered by a different set of TSA and FAA rules.

      For air taxi aircraft (part 135 operations) and scheduled commercial aircraft (part 121 operations), that may be the case, but I have yet to see such a regulation for general aviation. I'll admit that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but in 18 years of flight training and flight instruction given (I'm a flight instructor), I have never run across it.

      Oh and it's a private site the official FAA site says the same thing, but is well, official.

      If it says the same thing, what difference does it make? I linked to that site because I didn't have a lot of time to search, and that site was easier to find than the official regs on the faa.gov web site. Just about every pilot in the country flies with a copy of the regs that are from commercial vendors (like Jeppesen or ASA), rather than "official" documents that came from the Government Printing Office. For that matter, I'd wager that most professional pilots fly with charts and instrument approach plates from a commercial vendor rather than the government published ones.

      http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/RL32022.pdf has a half decent, if somewhat long (and admittedly largely unnecessary discussion) about how cargo is to be carried. Radioactive and hazardous goods, and goods in general need a TSO number from the FAA.

      I will confess, I was unaware of that document. I'll check it out, and thanks for the link.

      The TSA has a (very long and nearly impossible to read) breakdown of their rules http://www.tsa.gov/research/laws/regs/editorial_1786.shtm.

      Yes, but you specifically said "...the FAA might have something to say about it.", so I specifically addressed the FAA's regulations. In truth, what you carry into a secure zone at an airport is more a TSA issue than an FAA issue, which, in a round-about way, was more or less my point.

      Going back to february they were looking to extend existing rules to basically block all sorts of stuff from private use the way commercial use planes are. They have backed off much of that plan...

      Yeah, they've basically been in a power grab since their inception. Don't get me up on my soap box. AOPA and other pilot groups (successfully, so far) have lobbied against the less reasonable and more onerous of their power grabs.

      ...but you don't extend rules that don't exist.

      Since when was the U.S. government constrained by logic? I think you are giving TSA *waaaaay* too much credit (but then again, I'm a cynical old curmudgeon).

      Being neither an american nor a private plane owner I feel no compelling reason to try and hunt down hand weapons in their documentation, but if they don't like it, they have rules about it. That's what government is for I suppose.

      Being neither American nor a private plane owner, then no, it probably has little relevance to you. I suppose I could have just posted, "[citation needed]" after you claimed that the FAA might have something to say about what you can carry in your own, private airplane because in my experience, the FAA actually says very little about that.

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    273. Re:and... by Caerdwyn · · Score: 1

      The question is jurisdiction. I CAN drive with a loaded gun in my lap in some states. I CAN drive with an unloaded gun in my trunk in ALL states regardless of local law. I CAN fly with a loaded gun in my lap in my own plane in the United States regardless of local law.

      International law is somewhat murky over jurisdiction. Does Japan have jurisdiction over the airport? Absolutely. Does Japan have jurisdiction over the interior of an American-registered aircraft in Japan? Absolutely not... that's American soil, and basic international law says that a Japanese customs officer or police officer has no more authority there than in my living room. However, there are agreements in place that allow some cross-agency authority with regard to airport security. Some of those agreements are contradictory (it really is a mess, ask anyone who has to work with customs agents in an export role and what hoops you have to jump through sometimes), and some are contradictory with both international and local law. There's also the problem of mordidas, to which no country (U.S., Japan, England, NotFromAroundHereIstan) is immune.

      Legally, could I fly my plane (assuming it could reach that far) into Japan with a gun? Yes. Would I? Hell no; I've heard horror stories about Japanese jails and the huge engine of bureaucracy that can be used to harass even if a jail isn't involved. Just because something is legal that doesn't mean an overzealous agency (I'm looking at YOU, TSA) or corrupt petty official (still looking at you, TSA) will obey that law.

      As a side note. I RTFA, and there is no confirmation in any way that Jobs "swore to never return to Japan". It's a chain of hearsay. The only confirmable facts seem to be "something was disallowed and the passenger complied". Yet another reason to not believe everything you read on the internet; it's packed full of people who will make shit up to attack people/organizations/countries they don't like or to use the Slashdot effect to spike their per-view ad revenues, and some of them have slick-looking websites.

      --
      Everybody gets what the majority deserves.
    274. Re:and... by BCGlorfindel · · Score: 1

      How different is this from someone taking a tie and strangling the person in front of them? Or breaking off the tray table? Or using any one of a hundred other improvised weapons?

      Seriously? Failure to understand the difference between a throwing star, a necktie and a dinner tray is +5?

      I'll help you out captain obvious. We'll put throwing stars, neckties and dinner trays on a table. Then we can each pick our weapons and have a little 'demonstration'. If you suddenly figure out the difference before picking your weapon, the demonstration won't be necessary.

    275. Re:and... by talz13 · · Score: 1

      I was there in '08 and '09, and Narita airport seemed much more lax than any of the 4 US airports I went through to get there and back (Cleveland, Newark, Minneapolis, and Salt Lake City). On the way back my last time visiting, I walked right through the metal detector with my belt on in Narita and was fine. When I walked through the metal detector in Minneapolis with the exact same stuff (everything out of my pockets, only my belt which I assumed was fine from before), the same belt set off the metal detector and I had to remove it.

      On the whole, however, I was rather pleased with the speed and courtesy afforded to the customers on both sides of the Pacific, and am glad that I haven't been witness to any of these airport horror stories that have come about lately. I just try to be courteous and patient with the people running the airport, and they seem to extend the same back to me.

    276. Re:and... by talz13 · · Score: 1

      Could he bring the shurikens on board if he were flying from a private airport?

    277. Re:and... by Volante3192 · · Score: 1

      I'll pick the broken tray. First, I'll block your thrown stars (assuming you can even get a good windup given the claustrophobic environment inside a plane) and, now that you're disarmed, beat you over the head with said tray.

      Or if it's a flimsy kind like in school, break it in half and stab you with a shard.

      Or can I establish the criteria of the demonstration? In which case I'll take the necktie and you can sit in the seat in front of me.

      Where's your sharp object now?

    278. Re:and... by BCGlorfindel · · Score: 1

      I'll pick the broken tray. First, I'll block your thrown stars (assuming you can even get a good windup given the claustrophobic environment inside a plane) and, now that you're disarmed, beat you over the head with said tray.

      Sounds like you don't even need the tray. You might as well declare that guns are harmless as well. Potential victims can simply dodge the bullets and then finish the fight with a Chuck Norris roundhouse kick.

      For those of us with less Ninja skills than yourself, better weapons offer an advantage in a fight.

    279. Re:and... by Real1tyCzech · · Score: 1

      He can bring his shurikens onboard at a public airport. :) ...just not through a public terminal.

    280. Re:and... by SETIGuy · · Score: 1

      You can't just look at FAR Part 91 and claim you're OK carrying a weapon. You need to look in parts 107-109 if your plane is located at an airport. And then check Part 121 if you fly passengers for money. And in this case the overriding item is found under "Operations in Foreign Countries" which states that if you are in a country that has a rule that is more strict than the FARs, you follow the stricter of the two.

      At any rate Part 108 Section 201 Paragraph (e) says "(e) Explosive, incendiary, deadly or dangerous weapon: Prohibitions. (1) Except as provided in 108.219, 108.221, and 108.223, no aircraft operator may permit any person to have an explosive, incendiary, or deadly or dangerous weapon, on or about the individual's person or accessible property when onboard an aircraft."

      In the US, that section applies to charter and scheduled passenger operations. It also, according to some readings, may apply to Part 91 operators going to or from airports where Part 121 operations occur. Consult a aviation lawyer before carrying an accessible weapon aboard a private airplane if you want to keep flying.

      There's no reason that Japan can't make a similar rule extended to all private operators. Some countries where private small airplane ownership is rare, they might not have separate rules for private operations. Or they might base their rules on aircraft weight rather than the purpose of the flight.

    281. Re:and... by Volante3192 · · Score: 1

      Oh, like throwing stars? If you throw them, you lose your weapon, and up close they're as good as a pen. You'd have better luck with a blowgun. (Straws haven't been confiscated yet, btw.)

      Or how about an airtight container filled with some poisonous gas? Envelope with anthax?

      Fine, keep collecting scissors and two inch long pocket knives. Clearly thinking like it's accomplishing something is more important than whether or not it's actually doing something.

    282. Re:and... by SETIGuy · · Score: 1

      How many times have you flown a private plane to Japan? Are you entirely sure it works the same way there?

    283. Re:and... by TheABomb · · Score: 1

      And I don't think most people should intuitively know that. As Jobs himself said in TFA, it makes absolutely no sense for a person to hijack his own plane, as the pilot already has to fly to wherever Steve tells him to go -- and there aren't other passengers in danger. Instead, the rule exists to cultivate a submissive-populaced police state by incrementally adding new rules that almost make sense and are almost good ideas, but in the end only foster an inability or apprehension to question the rules that blatantly don't (like the "no water on a plane" rule because it could ignite -- because, you know, planes are made out of pure caesium -- or the "we can no-knock raid your house on drug suspicion and kill all its occupants because drugs are bad, mmkay?" rule).

      --
      MSIE: The world's most standards-complaint web browser.
    284. Re:and... by digitig · · Score: 1

      Also I was naked and singing "my heart will go on".

      Piss off ASCAP and what do you expect?

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    285. Re:and... by catmistake · · Score: 1

      He might be a clumsy ninja, but if I were Japan, I'd be pretty worried about pissing off someone as connected as Steve Jobs... he's probably negotiating to sell plutonium to whales right now. And once whales get the bomb, Truman will look like a kitten.

    286. Re:and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, there are rules about what you can do on the public highways.

      And remind me, whose airways was Steve planning on running his private plane through?

      The same airways where a bunch of dumb fucks who had sharp objects hijacked a few planes and flew them into a few well known buildings...
      With an Ego like Steve Jobs and a health condition like his it wouldn't surprise me if he wanted to go out with a bang like that...

      Then again, who's gonna hijack a plane with Shuriken... The idiot still shouldn't have done it.

    287. Re:and... by hmar · · Score: 1

      No, there are rules about what you can do on the public highways.

      And remind me, whose airways was Steve planning on running his private plane through?

      Just out of curiosity, do you think he can take down another plane with his throwing star?

    288. Re:and... by spazdor · · Score: 1

      See above.

      --
      DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
    289. Re:and... by spazdor · · Score: 1

      And parallel to your own reasoning, do you think an open liquor bottle in a car poses a threat to anybody if the driver isn't having any?

      No, in this case the threat is nil. The point isn't just to be safe, it's to be provably safe. That means overdoing it sometimes.

      --
      DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
    290. Re:and... by iamacat · · Score: 1

      It's wrong to think that people with their own plane should follow the same rules as someone booking one seat among hundreds of passengers?

    291. Re:and... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      But than, because most slash doters are hypocrite's. If something happened, loss of lives. They would be the first to bitch and moan that enough wasn't done.

      I disagree. The vast majority of Slashdotters I've interacted with on this topic are dead-set against security theater (because it's stupid, wasteful and accomplishes very little.) Saying "most x are y" is not a very convincing argument.

      And before decrying our concerns over privacy invasion, overreaction and ethnic profiling, keep in mind that our government has been doing a lot of bad things since 9/11 (and prior to that, actually.) In a word, overreacting. So our wanting to make sure that the Feds don't overreach any further than they have is entirely reasonable, and furthermore if we are going to be subject to additional loss of our rights, it had better be for a good reason. Accepting the a bunch of 3-letter organizations' collective word that they need any more power (much less what they've already arrogated to themselves) is something that I would also say "most Slashdotters are against." But that's just my perception: I don't claim to have any hard numbers of how many /.ers believe anything whatsoever.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    292. Re:and... by pgmrdlm · · Score: 1
      The point was made we SHOULD learn from the Israels. Are you saying they are over reacting? Seems to me they are fighting the same extremists that the United States is.

      I have yet to read a post where the ANY slash doter has made a positive statement about ANY agency of the US government. They ridicule when the government makes mistakes and they ignore when the government does something right. They refuse to acknowledge ANY advancements this nation has made against the extremists. I can't remember one positive post on this fucking site and I read the articles every day. Would you like to enlighten me as to why this is so?

      I originally came to slash dot to read various story summaries, follow the links for the full stories. Than watch the threads that developed. I have found that most slash doters are.

      • 1). Immoral. They have no guilt about taking from others work without compensating them.
      • 2). Hypocritical. Be the first to complain when they feel they are not getting their fair share, after they readily admit taking from others.
      • 3). Left wing. If this crew can't have what others earned on their own, they call that person a crook because they have succeeded the slash doter couldn't. Typical liberals.
      • 4). Anti Business. I know, same as liberal. But this crowd is rabid in how much they hate business. I have never seen a group of people that claim they are so intelligent that do not understand that if it wasn't for business, they would not have a job. And that business is about making money, just like working for someone is about making money.

      I know, your going to ask why I come here if I hate it so much. It's simple. No matter what source you read, no matter what the position the source is taking. If you cut through the spin, there is always truth in it someplace. If you don't take the time to read it, you will never know of that truth.

      Can you say the same? Can you say that you read various materials, even if you don't agree. Just to find the grain of truth in the material? Or are you biased in everything you read like I would be very willing to bet most slash doters are.

      --
      Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Time
    293. Re:and... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      The point was made we SHOULD learn from the Israel

      Actually, I was the one who made that point. Credit where credit is due. The next guy in the thread simply decided to make a generalization with which I disagreed. He said "all Slashdotters" (the implication being, "all Americans") and I simply pointed out that he was being overbroad in his claim.

      And do not believe that I was being unreasonable in stating that, if we're going to suffer more encroachment on our privacy and what freedoms we have left, it should be for a goddamn good reason. I didn't say that there were no good reasons. I was also, in my original post (which you apparently didn't read) commented that I believed that security theater was worthless.

      And furthermore, if the government would like us to accept that what they've done since 9/11 in the shadow of the Patriot Act has been worth it, then a little more transparency would be helpful. However, they are asking us to spend untold billions of dollars on arguably ineffective security measures with little or no public accountability. Sorry, that's just not good enough.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  3. Oh boy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    An article about rich people doing stupid things!

    1. Re:Oh boy! by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      The problem is with the airport, not the country. He's an idiot!

      Airport security must do their job at all airports they are mandated to operate. No exceptions. Obviously this is one of those airports. If he had really wanted to bring them home he should have either checked them or made sure his plane was at an airport which didn't have security.

      Since the US has the same rules, hopefully he'll pull the same stunt here and never want to come back to the US.

      For him to be pissed at a whole country for his own stupidity and huge ego speaks exceedingly poor for him. What a douche.

  4. Already denied by Again · · Score: 4, Informative
    Denied here:

    “Steve did visit Japan this summer for a vacation in Kyoto, but the incidents described at the airport are pure fiction. Steve had a great time and hopes to visit Japan again soon.”

    http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20100914/qotd-the-ninja-throwing-stars-they%E2%80%99re-for-my-friend-larry-ellison/

    1. Re:Already denied by Plazmid · · Score: 1

      Perhaps this is yet another one of Steve Wozniak's pranks...

    2. Re:Already denied by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was the best first post I've ever seen! Anyway, even if it was true, he was probably just angry at the moment and didn't mean it. Denying it is the best thing to do, considering that the press can't wait to make a scandal out of every single sentence said by people like him. (be it Jobs or Ballmer)

    3. Re:Already denied by elrous0 · · Score: 2, Funny

      This is no doubt really going to disappoint all the pirates out there, who were hoping that Jobs was secretly a ninja. Sorry mateys.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    4. Re:Already denied by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 1

      Actually, the denial was in the article linked in the summary, too. Basically, there's an unconfirmed report that this happened to Jobs, a report that Apple denies. Guess which part of that the summary/press is paying attention to?

    5. Re:Already denied by commodore64_love · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >>>a report that Apple denies

      They also deny that iPods sometimes spuriously start smoking and then blow up (due to the Lithium battery short-circuiting), despite many many instances of it happening. So I don't know who's telling the truth - Apple or the Japanese security guards. It could go either way.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    6. Re:Already denied by Dreadrik · · Score: 1

      That's not iPods. They are called "ninja flash bombs".

    7. Re:Already denied by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

      Surely the Narita airport has video surveillance; if there is any truth to this, a video will surface eventually if it evades the RDF.... The article claims he basically threw a fit; if there is sound, I'm sure it would make for some entertaining video remixes...

    8. Re:Already denied by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 1

      What do you mean? Japanese security isn't saying it was Jobs, they're saying someone tried it. Admittedly, I can't read the original source (I don't read Japanese), but that's what's being reported in the linked article. So it's either "SPA Magazine" or Apple.

    9. Re:Already denied by D+Ninja · · Score: 3, Funny

      Surely the Narita airport has video surveillance

      I'm guessing they do...and don't call me Shirley.

      (That quote is totally on topic for this thread.)

    10. Re:Already denied by nomadic · · Score: 1

      Plus, if this did happen, the tantrum is perfectly consistent with Jobs' personality.

    11. Re:Already denied by jewishbaconzombies · · Score: 1

      Yeah - this is believable because billionares often will travel on private planes and subject themselves to the riff-raff. Little people stories are so CUTE!

      I bet you pay all your taxes too - instead of forming an offshore company.

    12. Re:Already denied by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Japan's a kip

    13. Re:Already denied by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So just because someone denies something, the press has no reason to report it?

    14. Re:Already denied by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      So I don't know who's telling the truth - Apple or the Japanese security guards. It could go either way.

      You mean, you don't know who's telling the truth - a Japanese gossip magazine which peddles Mina Asakura's porn, or Steve Jobs.

      I agree, that's a tough call. I'm beginning to lean toward the gossip magazine on this one.

    15. Re:Already denied by jrobot · · Score: 1

      uh looks like he flew out of Kansai (KIX)

    16. Re:Already denied by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Surely the Narita airport has video surveillance

      I'm guessing they do...and don't call me Shirley.

      (That quote is totally on topic for this thread.)

      Well, isn't your name "Shirley Ujest"?

    17. Re:Already denied by CheerfulMacFanboy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So I don't know who's telling the truth - Apple or the Japanese security guards. It could go either way.

      Since when is Bloomberg quoting a story of an Japanese Tabloid a Japanes security guard? Next you are going to tell us that the last big Bloomberg story on Jobs, also wildly denied by Apple, was in fact true - you know, the one about his death in 1998.

      --
      Fandroids hate facts.
    18. Re:Already denied by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We got motherfucking shurikens on this motherfucking plane!

    19. Re:Already denied by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Roger!

    20. Re:Already denied by grouchomarxist · · Score: 1

      The video is now on YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8FS03ddILY

  5. Jobs v Stallman by dkleinsc · · Score: 4, Funny

    He needs the shuriken for his upcoming bout with Richard Stallman, who's ninja skills are well-known.

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    1. Re:Jobs v Stallman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      "whose ninja skills"

    2. Re:Jobs v Stallman by WWWWolf · · Score: 1

      He needs the shuriken for his upcoming bout with Richard Stallman, who's ninja skills are well-known.

      Nope, Stallman will defeat all ninjas.

      Obviously, Jobs has started smuggling authentic ninja weaponry for American ninjas, who will keep attacking Stallman and keeping him busy while Jobs develops his iDiabolicalDeathmachine. Initial FSF recon suggests the doomsday weapon is 50% matte steel design, 25% BSD Unix stack, 12.5% proprietary software and 12.5% heart-wrenching evil DRM. However, they are fooled! This false information was leaked so that Stallman would think that the device was just another Apple plan! Actually, the robot is 100% evil!

      (OK, I suck at celebrity fan fiction.)

    3. Re:Jobs v Stallman by gmuslera · · Score: 3, Funny

      That match only will happen if Jobs win over Ballmer. Im not sure if Jobs skill throwing shurikens will have a chance against Ballmer with a few chairs at hand.

    4. Re:Jobs v Stallman by CharlyFoxtrot · · Score: 1

      Actually I think Larry Ellison is more worried right now.

      --
      If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
    5. Re:Jobs v Stallman by BitZtream · · Score: 0, Troll

      All he'd have to do to defeat Stallman claim his doughnuts were closed source and his stupid fat ass would end up starving to death instead of eating them. As an alternative, he could just move the box about 10 feet away from Stallman and he's starve anyway, since he probably couldn't roll over enough times to get to the doughnuts.

      No throwing stars needed, its far easier to use Stallman against himself than to put any real effort into it. He is his own worst enemy.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    6. Re:Jobs v Stallman by Americano · · Score: 1

      Needs more nubile just-18 girls with heaving bosoms and or "hips like pow, azz like wow." These girls usually have an irresistible urge to get naked and explore the sensual delights of intercourse with the fan-fiction author's Mary Sue character. I'm guessing on Slashdot, the Mary Sue character would be Stallman's young protege, who has demonstrated an amazing aptitude for programming & rational thought, and who will one day rule the GNUniverse when Stallman retires. And the protege is much smarter than anybody else, and perceives 'everything' very clearly with his rational insight, and demonstrates this by wearing funny t-shirts with manga characters on them, and avoiding mass market pap like the iPod. This is where the conflict between Stallman and Jobs arises - perhaps the protege could be Jobs' nephew - think of the tension and drama that could cause!

      Now go back and try again.

    7. Re:Jobs v Stallman by Maury+Markowitz · · Score: 1

      > Jobs develops his iDiabolicalDeathmachine

      I always imagined my last moments on Earth would be leading a tank platoon in a doomed effort to re-take the Apple Campus (formerly known as San Francisco).

    8. Re:Jobs v Stallman by virtualonliner · · Score: 1

      He needs the shuriken for his upcoming bout with Richard Stallman, who's ninja skills are well-known.

      ...whose ninja skills are well-known.

      - Grammar Nazi.

    9. Re:Jobs v Stallman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jobs : I know Kung Fu.
      Stallman : Show me.

    10. Re:Jobs v Stallman by ebuck · · Score: 1

      That match only will happen if Jobs win over Ballmer. Im not sure if Jobs skill throwing shurikens will have a chance against Ballmer with a few chairs at hand.

      A well thrown chair can block a few shurikens and still take out its target.

    11. Re:Jobs v Stallman by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Coming soon on pay-per-view.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    12. Re:Jobs v Stallman by dido · · Score: 1

      Steve Jobs already lost to Richard Stallman once, back in the NeXT days. That's why GCC has an Objective-C front-end, and why Apple still distributes a patched version of GCC in full compliance with the GPL. Maybe he wants a rematch. :)

      --
      Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre.
    13. Re:Jobs v Stallman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He needs the shuriken for his upcoming bout with Richard Stallman, who's ninja skills are well-known.

      whose

    14. Re:Jobs v Stallman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you referring to http://imgs.xkcd.com/blag/rms_katana.jpg [xkcd]?

  6. Smart thinking by Spiflicator · · Score: 0

    He's got to protect himself from inception somehow.

  7. Not the first time he has be hassled by the man. by strangeattraction · · Score: 1

    Once while return from Japan Steve tried to bring back 100 of his "Trademark" black turtlenecks. The US customs hit him up for import duty because of the number of shirts. It sucks being rich.

  8. Meanwile, back in Redmod ... by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 3, Funny

    Jobs, clearly angry at losing his throwing weapons, stated he would not be returning to the country.

    And then he threw a Shuriken at the press, just to make the point clear . . .

    Jobs with shiriken; Balmer with chairs . . . who wins . . .?

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    1. Re:Meanwile, back in Redmod ... by Pharmboy · · Score: 4, Informative

      And then he threw a Shuriken at the press, just to make the point clear . . .

      Jobs with shiriken; Balmer with chairs . . . who wins . . .?

      We do.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    2. Re:Meanwile, back in Redmod ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bravo, sir.

    3. Re:Meanwile, back in Redmod ... by tool462 · · Score: 1

      It's the new Rochambeau: Chair, Shuriken, Developers.
      Chair beats Shuriken.
      Shuriken beats Developers.
      Developers beats Chair.

    4. Re:Meanwile, back in Redmod ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And then he threw a Shuriken at the press, just to make the point clear . . .

      Jobs with shiriken; Balmer with chairs . . . who wins . . .?

      Stallman with his Katana, of course!

    5. Re:Meanwile, back in Redmod ... by DarthVain · · Score: 1

      http://xkcd.com/225/

      For those that thought "wtf?"

    6. Re:Meanwile, back in Redmod ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Linus with his linux manual

    7. Re:Meanwile, back in Redmod ... by MiniMike · · Score: 1

      Jobs, clearly angry at losing his throwing weapons, stated he would not be returning to the country.

      Missing the obvious question- what can they confiscate when he lands in the U.S.?

    8. Re:Meanwile, back in Redmod ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Whoever wins, we lose" (AVP)

    9. Re:Meanwile, back in Redmod ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Next week in deadliest warrior...

  9. Jobs Elite by ezwip · · Score: 1, Funny

    Sorry Jobs, but it appears that you are not on the list of the elite. It sucks doesn't it?

    --
    "I guess I'm gonna fade into Bolivian."
  10. In other news... by A.+B3ttik · · Score: 5, Funny

    Steve Ballmer was recently forbidden from trying to sneak chairs onto a plane.

    1. Re:In other news... by DeadDecoy · · Score: 1

      In fact, the airline in question had to remove all chairs from the plane, making it standing room only. Suffice to say, all of the passengers felt safer.

    2. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since I am a avid console gaming system user, I think it would be great if there was a game like Tekken or Mortal Combat where you could pick characters to fight each other.

      Kinda like Celebrity Death Match

      Kage Match: Jobs vs Balmer
      Grudge Match: Gates vs Ron Hovsepian
      Crack House Match: Rourke vs Lohan

    3. Re:In other news... by iceborer · · Score: 1

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

    4. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Steve Ballmer was recently forbidden to board a plane. Security said "No snakes on this plane"

    5. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The joke's on them. Sure, Steve didn't get the chairs on the plane, but little did they know... Steve Ballmer had 12 monkeys in his butt!

    6. Re:In other news... by bennomatic · · Score: 3, Funny

      Why do I hear Samuel L. Jackson's voice when I read your post?

      --
      The CB App. What's your 20?
    7. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Enough is enough!!! I have HAD IT with these monkey fightin' Shurikens on this Monday to Friday plane!

  11. Re:Nothing to see here, move along. by mark72005 · · Score: 1

    Yeah. Apple is clearly in the throes of death and Jobs has been a pox on their house.

  12. Well, They're Certainly Shiny Enough. And Edgy. by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 3, Funny

    I'm just not sure how I feel about hipsters whipping these out on subway trains the way they do those other cool-affirming gadgets.

    1. Re:Well, They're Certainly Shiny Enough. And Edgy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm just not sure how I feel about hipsters whipping these out on subway trains the way they do those other cool-affirming gadgets.

      Well, I could whip something else out on the subway train, but they tell me I'm not allowed to do that either.

    2. Re:Well, They're Certainly Shiny Enough. And Edgy. by ozbird · · Score: 1

      Do not "death grip" shuriken with remaining hand.

  13. In related news... by mandark1967 · · Score: 0

    All iPhones, iPads, and iPod Touch boot logos in Japan have been changed to mushroom clouds and the devices brick themselves immediately thereafter.

    When asked, Steve Jobs stated, "Just send them some free cases."

    Now to Tiffany, with the weather.

    --
    Sig Follows: "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." -- Mark Twain
  14. BREAKING NEWS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

    Steve Jobs in as asshole

    1. Re:BREAKING NEWS by mark72005 · · Score: 1

      is that, like, a company title or something?

    2. Re:BREAKING NEWS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get a BRAIN, MORAN!

    3. Re:BREAKING NEWS by pwnies · · Score: 1

      Why is this marked informative? Since when is a single opinion with no supporting evidence that's clearly flamebait written by an AC deemed informative? C'mon /., pick up your game.

  15. yup by shentino · · Score: 1

    This is why airport security is so abusive.

    You are waiting to board, most likely have already purchased your ticket, and are in no position to resist without completely ruining your day.

  16. Re:Oh get over yourself by oldspewey · · Score: 1

    I've met plenty of young self-entitled pricks.

    --
    If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
  17. It was a public airport by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Kansai is a public airport, and the spokesman from Kansai (quoted in the article), said "The airport doesn’t have separate boarding arrangements for private- jet users", so i don't see why Jobs was surprised.

    Since it's a public screening point (where presumably the private jet passengers can mix with the regular commercial passengers after screening), they have to apply the same security restrictions to all passengers. Otherwise anyone who wants to get a bomb on a public plane would just charter a private jet, go through security with his bomb, then hand it off to someone in the public terminal.

    I'm sure that if he really cared about the items, he could have arranged to have them sent to his plane as checked luggage (it's not as if his private jet was going to leave without him), or he could have found someone willing to mail them to him. Heck, he could have found an apple fan-boy in line in the terminal who would have checked them and mailed them to him from the USA for the chance to shake his hand.

    1. Re:It was a public airport by mbone · · Score: 1

      Mod this parent up. If you have to go through regular security, you have to deal with their rules.

      Given that a private plane is not going to leave you, I don't see he couldn't have just put it in checked luggage - or, maybe they viewed _all_ luggage as carry-on, which would be frustrating.

    2. Re:It was a public airport by jbarr · · Score: 1

      I'm sure that if he really cared about the items, he could have arranged to have them sent to his plane as checked luggage

      But then he couldn't play with them on the flight!

      --
      My mom always said, "Jim, you're 1 in a million." Given the current population, there are 7000 of me. God help us all!
    3. Re:It was a public airport by sakasune · · Score: 1

      Heck, he could have found an apple fan-boy in line in the terminal who would have checked them and mailed them to him from the USA for the chance to shake his hand.

      ...or an iPhone 4 that gets a signal ;)

      --
      "You're arguing for a universe with fewer waffles in it," I said. "I'm prepared to call that cowardice."
    4. Re:It was a public airport by dziban303 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Heck, he could have found an apple fan-boy in line in the terminal who would have checked them and mailed them to him from the USA for the chance to suck his dick.

      FTFY.

    5. Re:It was a public airport by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm fairly sure he could've found an Apple fanboy willing to carry them for him "internally".

  18. Re:Nothing to see here, move along. by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    obs does have the right to take weapons onto his private plane.

    Actually, no he doesnt. The rules extend to private planes too.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  19. uhh...what? by blhack · · Score: 5, Informative

    I just want to clarify that this is absolutely *not* how things work in the United States.

    In the US, if you're flying privately, you walk through the lobby of whatever FBO (Which is a company that provides fuel, a pilot lounge, catering, etc.) your plane is parked at, smile at the person behind the desk, get on your plane, and leave.

    Jobs was right to think that he could get on the plane with his stars because, usually, he would be able to.

    --
    NewslilySocial News. No lolcats allowed.
    1. Re:uhh...what? by Kalidor · · Score: 1

      I guess it depends on the airport. Almost all Class A's and B's .. and most C's too. But beyond that, and yes private jets do occasionally land in smaller airports not so much. There are more than a handful of class C's in the US where this is not the case. That said he's prolly only few into a handful of US Class A airports, but anything international, I would have expected the same thing.

      --

      Code softly but carry a big magnet.

    2. Re:uhh...what? by L473ncy · · Score: 1

      I just want to clarify that this is absolutely *not* how things work in the United States.

      In the US, if you're flying privately, you walk through the lobby of whatever FBO (Which is a company that provides fuel, a pilot lounge, catering, etc.) your plane is parked at, smile at the person behind the desk, get on your plane, and leave.

      Jobs was right to think that he could get on the plane with his stars because, usually, he would be able to.

      Even if you do it at a Fixed Base Operator you still get checked out by customs if flying internationally. Muskoka Airport (CYQA) is a port of entry for international flights and private planes that land still get checked out by Customs. Otherwise if you wanted to sneak in drugs into a country you'd be pretty much freely able to do it via FBO's and chartered private jets.

    3. Re:uhh...what? by blhack · · Score: 1

      I've flown out of Sky Harbor international airport, Dallas Ft-Worth international airport and tons of smaller regional aiports privately and never ever had my bags checked or had anybody even say anything to me other than "Do you want a cookie?"

      I once even had the flight crew of a Gulfstream V invite me on board to check it out when they saw me oggling it.

      The point is: at least in the US (which is where Jobs does most of his flying, I would imagine) having any type of airport security *at all* is not normal for private flights.

      --
      NewslilySocial News. No lolcats allowed.
    4. Re:uhh...what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jobs was right to think that he could get on the plane with his stars because, usually, he would be able to.

      Exactly, because everywhere everything should be like it is in the US.

      Now go and watch this: http://www.ted.com/talks/derek_sivers_weird_or_just_different.html

    5. Re:uhh...what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are no Class A airports in the USA. Class A, B, C, D refers to Airspace classification. Class A is all airspace 18,000' MSL and above. Class B is airspace surround the most busiest airports, with Class C next and so on.

    6. Re:uhh...what? by vlm · · Score: 1

      The point is: at least in the US (which is where Jobs does most of his flying, I would imagine) having any type of airport security *at all* is not normal for private flights.

      I'm told by pilot friends that customs will harass private pilots making local flights in coastie-land (as far as they know, the "local flight" is actually from a cross border grow op).

      Not being a coastie, all I have is hearsay. Can a genuine coastie with a pilots license chime in?

      I would imagine that on one hand, a learjet can carry a heck of a lot of product from very far away, yet on the other hand, the owners of most learjets are exactly the type of "first amongst equals" citizen you'd not want to harass.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    7. Re:uhh...what? by tweak13 · · Score: 1

      It'd be pointless for them to do so, as they could just land at an airport that isn't designated as an airport of entry, and thus doesn't have customs.

    8. Re:uhh...what? by tweak13 · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to say here, since there is no such thing as a "class A" airport in the United States. Airport classes are given for the airspace surrounding them, and seeing as class A airspace doesn't touch the ground, it's kinda hard to have an airport there.

      Class B airports are the largest, and even at those airports, private aircraft do not have the passenger screening that commercial flights do. This is because private aircraft board their passengers through private businesses at the airport. I have never, ever, seen an airport that ran private flights through the main airport terminal, unless that airport had no commercial service and thus there was only a single terminal.

    9. Re:uhh...what? by mqduck · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Jobs was right to think that he could get on the plane with his stars because, usually, he would be able to.

      Well, technically, he was *wrong* to think that, because it was incorrect.

      --
      Property is theft.
    10. Re:uhh...what? by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      Yup, the new elite fly private/chartered. You won't see them in First Class anymore. That's just for frequent flyers with miles burning a hole in their pockets.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    11. Re:uhh...what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you can fly a private airplane into any building you want? Loaded with explosives? Is that a security fail or what...

    12. Re:uhh...what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed, because after all, what goes for the United States goes for the rest of the world.

    13. Re:uhh...what? by Stormy+Dragon · · Score: 1

      Even if he was on commercial transport, he'd have been fine in the United States. You can put as many weapons as you like in your checked baggage, you're just not allow to have them in your carry on. You're even allowed to have unloaded guns in your checked baggage (e.g. http://www.aa.com/i18n/travelInformation/baggage/firearms.jsp), although in that case you do have to declare them when you check in the bags.

    14. Re:uhh...what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was gonna say, if its my private jet, I'll damn well carry whatever the fuck I please on board it.

    15. Re:uhh...what? by drsquare · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a massive loophole for drug smuggling, no?

  20. Re:Nothing to see here, move along. by catbutt · · Score: 1

    The fact that Jobs is too stupid to figure that out does not bode well for the future of Apple...

    Yeah I'm dumping my Apple stock....looks like they are in serious trouble. This incident is far more indicative of the future of the company than is his long history of leading the effort to create spectacularly successful products.

  21. Above the Law by Kagato · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Wired had a big write up how Steve doesn't put plates on his car and feels free to park in the Handicap spots at will at his companies. So why would this surprise anyone.

    http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/08/the-mystery-of-steve-jobs-plateless-benz/

    1. Re:Above the Law by noidentity · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Wired had a big write up how Steve doesn't put plates on his car

      That's a myth. The fact is that his reality distortion field interacts with the reflective material in the license plate to make it look like it's not there. Simple mistake, really.

    2. Re:Above the Law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My brother (who lives in LA) was surprised to get a ticket for parking overnight (from 1am to 7am) in one of the many unused disabled bays at his apartment. Then he found out that parking in *any* disabled bay, public or private, is illegal in California.

    3. Re:Above the Law by ktappe · · Score: 3, Informative

      Wired had a big write up how Steve doesn't put plates on his car and feels free to park in the Handicap spots at will at his companies. So why would this surprise anyone.

      http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/08/the-mystery-of-steve-jobs-plateless-benz/

      It would surprise people because it is completely false.

      --
      "We can categorically state we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman, July 2007
    4. Re:Above the Law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your brother is a moron.

    5. Re:Above the Law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh...why not just have a reserved spot for "Steve Jobs"

    6. Re:Above the Law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cite or STFU.

    7. Re:Above the Law by kestasjk · · Score: 1

      1) That doesn't explain why it would or wouldn't surprise people.
      2) Steve Jobs said that he had a great time and that he never said he wouldn't come back, he didn't actually say whether he bought ninja stars which got taken at the airport (which is a realistic, if pretty bland, story).

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    8. Re:Above the Law by Dhalka226 · · Score: 1

      How is this informative? What the fuck, Slashdot?

      He at least gave a link supporting his statements. What do you have? THAT would be informative.

  22. Way to be Timely... by whisper_jeff · · Score: 3, Informative

    Way to be timely Slashdot - AppleInsider has already reported that the story is bunk. http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/09/14/steve_jobs_prevented_from_bringing_throwing_stars_on_private_jet_report.html

    1. Re:Way to be Timely... by thestudio_bob · · Score: 1

      Ssssshhhhhh....

      The first rule of shorting Apple's stock, is that we don't talk about shorting Apple's stock.

      --
      The real Sig captains the Northwestern. This one captains /.
    2. Re:Way to be Timely... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's just samzenpus trying to justify his existence. Remember to tag all samzenpus stories with the impeachsamzenpus tag.

    3. Re:Way to be Timely... by ddxexex · · Score: 1

      Well the thing about that snippet, is that it uses some defensive wording like "But Apple's comment would suggest that the incident involved someone other than the chief executive" and it confirms that someone did try to bring shuriken through security. So it's not completely bunk, just the part about who it was is only possibly Steve and the whole comment about never returning to Japan was probably exaggerated or made up. Ignoring those two major details (the parts that made the story awesome) it is sort of true.

    4. Re:Way to be Timely... by Nukky+Cisbu · · Score: 1, Troll

      Way to be timely Slashdot - AppleInsider has already reported that the story is bunk.

      No. AppleInsider has reported Apple claims the story is bunk. That's very different. Appleinsider makes no claim one way or the other, they're just reporting the company's press release.

      It's good to see the Reality Distortion Field is still working.

    5. Re:Way to be Timely... by mqduck · · Score: 0, Troll

      That's not a debunking, that's an official denial from Apple. Big shock.

      --
      Property is theft.
    6. Re:Way to be Timely... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess we better believe them if they say so.

    7. Re:Way to be Timely... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm with everyone else I don't think a rebuttle from apple is going to make this story bunk. Chances are it was a case of someone exagerating the story a little bit. I could see him getting to the airport not realizing or forgetting that unlike the U.S. there wasn't a seperate terminal, and trying to sneek them in. I could also see him trying to convince the security guard that it was okay(my wife pulls that crap all the time you would be suprised what you can get away with, Jobs has more cred than her too... I think). I don't believe he lost it and said he was never coming back to the country. I think it's a simple story that got blown out of proportion. Really who cares, I'm not an apple fan at all but I actually think it would be cool if Jobs was trying to sneak something through. As someone else said it's more like something Woz would do, and Woz is awesome.

    8. Re:Way to be Timely... by RobinEggs · · Score: 1

      Um, is appleinsider really the best place to get non-biased Apple information?

    9. Re:Way to be Timely... by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      John Moltz pegs it.

      Apple Insider's just throwing smoke.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    10. Re:Way to be Timely... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      please, mod parent up.

    11. Re:Way to be Timely... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      trust whisper jeff to defend the honor of the great apple name!!!!!

      wow - if you were wondering how low the consumerist culture of the west can drag a person down then have a look at these sad apple fanboy pricks - it's quite incredible.

      watch and wonder as this particular little creep demonstrates his devotion to steve jobs by taking his wood into his mouth once again, and going at it like there is no tomorrow.

      on second thoughts you'd probably rather not =(

    12. Re:Way to be Timely... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it is if you're whisper jeff, the foremost apple troll to show up here at slashdot.

  23. Prototype iPhone 5 by Shimbo · · Score: 4, Funny

    Obviously these are prototype case designs for the iPhone 5. Grip it the wrong way and you lose a finger.

    1. Re:Prototype iPhone 5 by Kalidor · · Score: 0

      Huh, I guess you'll know when you are holding it wrong...

      --

      Code softly but carry a big magnet.

    2. Re:Prototype iPhone 5 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you've lost a finger, don't hold it like that.

    3. Re:Prototype iPhone 5 by mqduck · · Score: 1

      Now that's what I call a Grip of Death!

      --
      Property is theft.
    4. Re:Prototype iPhone 5 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but at least it will solve the reception issue.

  24. Douchebags by ickleberry · · Score: 1

    It seems that if you try to take anything other than clothes and the most common of consumer electronics with you they will give you hassle. I was very near having a LED lightbulb taken off me because the ignorant, uneducated fucker running the show had never seen one before. They also routinely take jars of jam because they argue it takes them too long to check if something is real jam as well as send people back because the resealable plastic bag is slightly too big.

    They really could do with trimming down a lot of perfectly normal every day items off the prohibited items list, even sharp items because since 9/11 no hijacker will get very far anyway. Fuck it, most people want to carry guns on board only do so because they want to bring the gun to their destination.

    I don't understand why anyone would still waste money on a private jet if you are going to be restricted and treated like cattle at the airport anyway.

    1. Re:Douchebags by CraftyJack · · Score: 1

      most people want to carry guns on board only do so because they want to bring the gun to their destination.

      I am sure that you, of course, are a safe and responsible gun owner. However, I usually get to sit next to the guy that accidentally pages the flight attendant every time he tries to turn on his reading light. You and I are better off knowing that at no point in our flight will he accidentally shoot a hole in the plane while attempting to recline his seat.

  25. Slashdot trolls itself, film at 11 by BobMcD · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The only possible reason that this particular item would have made it off the Firehose is the flame-inducing material within it. It makes me sad. While I'm no fan of Apple, per se, I feel sorry for the guy. He could have investigate the local laws and policy before challenging them, and will absolutely be returning to Japan at some point, but still this is genuinely trivial.

    Maybe 'Idle' material, but 'Apple'? Trolling, plain and simple.

    1. Re:Slashdot trolls itself, film at 11 by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      Feel sorry for the guy? He tried to bring weapons through an airport and then was shocked when there was an issue.

      Normal people get hassled over much less.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    2. Re:Slashdot trolls itself, film at 11 by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      Except they're likely not weapons at all. Just sharp pieces of metal. Tourist grist, and little else.

      Or are you asserting that Jobs is a trained Ninja and was likewise smuggling a file to sharpen them?

    3. Re:Slashdot trolls itself, film at 11 by lusiphur69 · · Score: 1

      Then there is the even better question - why is there an Apple category listed on the page.

      Yes, I know you can type ibm.slashdot.org, but its not listed in the navigation pane, by default. Why is Apple?

    4. Re:Slashdot trolls itself, film at 11 by Dutchmaan · · Score: 1

      Ok then, why don't u take a large bottle filled with shampoo on you the next time you board.. it's just soap and little else, right?

      Or maybe I'm asserting that you're a trained beautician!?

    5. Re:Slashdot trolls itself, film at 11 by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      So you're not aware of what shuriken are? Or you're asserting that they match somehow the destructive capabilities of a bomb?

    6. Re:Slashdot trolls itself, film at 11 by Dutchmaan · · Score: 1

      Or perhaps you work in a warehouse, and are handy with *box cutters*. What's the destructive difference between a shuriken and a box cutter?

    7. Re:Slashdot trolls itself, film at 11 by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      Quite a lot, really. Again, you don't quite seem to know what these are. When we were kids, we had several, and attempted to get them to stick into things. It was basically impossible, on anything short of a dart board, unless you found some that were very, very sharp and pointy.

      I'd let my 8 year old have a throwing star unsupervised. Not so much a razor blade.

      My point is simply that even your fingers have decidedly more killing power than shuriken.

    8. Re:Slashdot trolls itself, film at 11 by Dutchmaan · · Score: 1

      ..and you didn't seem to grasp my box cutter correlation. The whole reason we have stupidly over the top rules for what you can bring on board a plane is because of 9/11, who in fact used *box cutters* to take control of the plane. Shurikens are actual weapons, regardless of your subjective assessment of their lack of potential as a harmful object.

    9. Re:Slashdot trolls itself, film at 11 by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      No, I got it, but it is largely incorrect.

      A lock on the pilot's door would have solved the box cutter problem. Again, if terrorists were similarly inclined today, they could readily strangle and gouge their way into the exact same situation.

      Our security theater of today is almost exclusively arbitrary. I'm purporting that non-dangerous tourist items being allowed on planes, particularly private planes, is not at all unreasonable, and this is why I empathize with Steve Jobs.

    10. Re:Slashdot trolls itself, film at 11 by Dutchmaan · · Score: 1

      Laws of a country are laws of a country. What would your reaction be to some Japanese CEO throwing a hissy fit because he couldn't get his way here in the US?

    11. Re:Slashdot trolls itself, film at 11 by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      I'd feel sorry for him, too, and wish that someone had better informed him of the laws before he tried to get on his plane as well.

      Why would you assume otherwise?

    12. Re:Slashdot trolls itself, film at 11 by Dutchmaan · · Score: 1

      I'd feel sorry for him, too, and wish that someone had better informed him of the laws before he tried to get on his plane as well.

      Why would you assume otherwise?

      Somehow I feel you're not really being honest with me or yourself on that one, but to each his own I guess.

    13. Re:Slashdot trolls itself, film at 11 by vegiVamp · · Score: 1

      And welcome to Slashdot, newly awakened meatblob.

      --
      What a depressingly stupid machine.
    14. Re:Slashdot trolls itself, film at 11 by KBKarma · · Score: 1

      This is true, and it seems to have been debunked...

      But it's produced some real comedic gems in the comments.

      --
      Rolling a d20 is not grounds for investment.
  26. "Jobsworths" by FyRE666 · · Score: 1

    Seriously though, he's on his own private plane. What the hell was he going to do, throw them at the pilot?! I think some airport security just enjoy the feeling power. A bit like Jobs I guess.

    1. Re:"Jobsworths" by multipartmixed · · Score: 1

      You think that's ridiculous?

      I have a friend who works for an agency that allows him to carry a concealed firearm when traveling on a commercial airliner domestically. A couple of years ago, he had his toenail clippers confiscated....but they let him keep his handgun. It seems he had a permit for the gun..

      WTF?!

      --

      Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
  27. iPad by phoenixwade · · Score: 1

    I bet he could have had the engineers fit half a dozen in a hollowed out iPad, and snuck them on board his jet, since obviosly the reality distortion field only applies to Apple products, not Ninja throwing stars.

    --
    A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
  28. Ninja throwing stars! by CherniyVolk · · Score: 1

    OK, seriously guys. Steve Jobs has gained a few cool points, given his wealth his own private jet is a given. The arrogance to think that somehow circumvents post-9/11 security at an airport, somewhat understandable. But NINJA STARS! FROM JAPAN! Oh, that's pretty cool. Everyone likes the ninja stars!

    1. Re:Ninja throwing stars! by Darkness404 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The idea of "Post-9/11" is bullshit. For one it is his own property he isn't endangering others. Secondly, the world isn't safer due to all this security theater and imperialistic wars. The thing that changed on 9/11 is now if someone tries to hijack a plane people are going to tackle them and pin them to the ground. People now associate hijackings with that they are going to die no matter what they do, and not the idea that they should comply with the hijackers, wind up in Cuba and be on a plane home in a day with a wild story to tell to the media. No, if someone even remotely tries to attack a plane the passengers will prevent that. -THAT- is why we haven't had another 9/11.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    2. Re:Ninja throwing stars! by Kalidor · · Score: 1

      I'm not going to argue that he is or isn't endangering others, cause I don't think he's that stupid. But when did he buy the lease for the Kansai International Airport, so as to make the security corridor between the check-in/security area and the gate where his airplane was directed his property?

      --

      Code softly but carry a big magnet.

    3. Re:Ninja throwing stars! by oodaloop · · Score: 1

      Which is why the terrorists haven't tried hijacking. They've moved on to explosives, and our security has responded by looking for them more stringently. Next they may move to renting private jets and crashing them, and we'll respond with more security. It's co-evolution, or Red Queen, at play. The solution isn't to do nothing. You have to run fast as hell if you want to stay in the same place.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    4. Re:Ninja throwing stars! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For one it is his own property he isn't endangering others.

      Because deadly weapons are only a problem when the are rented, borrowed or leased?

    5. Re:Ninja throwing stars! by SteveWoz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, we never had a 9l11 in 50 years preceding it, despite the fact that it was just as easy. 9/11 was a lucky fluke, a super ambitious prank-style act of terrorism that took a lot of planning but took the top prize ever in such acts. We had no reason to expect it to happen in another 50 years, especially since it relied on surprise. I agree with this post that hightened security has not played a significant role in stopping another 9/11. Nor have any of the costly wars. But some people have to say the opposite in order to hide their own guilt of taking the side which wasted so much money on nothing (gained). These people scream that such actions do buy us security in order to save their own faces.

      --
      OK a new size TV
  29. So how do you get objects in the country? Boat? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

    I wonder how someone would get things into the country. Not Shuriken per se but like if someone bought an antique jeweled dagger. I'm not saying this is what Jobs did but just wondering. It seems there may be lots of paperwork involved and Jobs just thought he could bypass it or didn't know about it.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  30. Re:Nothing to see here, move along. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thank god nobody's livelihood depends on your logic. Or, more precisely, lack thereof.

  31. Except for one point: it wasn't the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

    Except for one point: it wasn't the US. I realise that this may come as a bit of a shock to you and Steve too, but the US doesn't exist everywhere on the earth. A foreign country is defined for a USian as "somewhere that isn't the US" and when traveling to a foreign country, this involves going to countries who are not the USA.

    Therefore what usually happens in the US has NOT ONE THING to do with what happens in, say, Japan.

    One would have expected that Steve would have understood. As a rank-and-file 'merkin, it would be hoped you would know, but it isn't expected.

    1. Re:Except for one point: it wasn't the US by nelsonal · · Score: 3, Funny

      All I have on my maps are the US and outside of that "Here be Dragons".

      --
      Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
    2. Re:Except for one point: it wasn't the US by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · · Score: 1

      Should we be expected to know all the different laws of all countries? It isn't possible to know all the laws in the US.

      He should have been given the opportunity to put the stars in his checked luggage.

      That is, if it had ever happened, which it didn't.

    3. Re:Except for one point: it wasn't the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hei, usian, it's "Hic sunt Leones"

    4. Re:Except for one point: it wasn't the US by thewils · · Score: 1

      Generally, ignorance of the law is no excuse. It's a defence that won't stand up in court.

      There is one notable exception though - if you happen to be president this rule doesn't really matter.

      --
      Once I was a four stone apology. Now I am two separate gorillas.
    5. Re:Except for one point: it wasn't the US by Grapplebeam · · Score: 1

      And COMMIES!

      --
      There is no -1 Disagree.
    6. Re:Except for one point: it wasn't the US by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · · Score: 1

      Why the hell isn't it? It's impossible to know all the laws, even congress doesn't read bills before they vote on them, yet we're still held to all of them without condition?

    7. Re:Except for one point: it wasn't the US by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      And Canadians.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    8. Re:Except for one point: it wasn't the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      godzillllllllllllllllllllllllaaaaaa

    9. Re:Except for one point: it wasn't the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know you are joking but you pretty much sum up most of the US and its attitude to the rest of the world. Me, I only respect Americans I meet *outside* the US because they've at least got off their backsides and seen some non-US culture. I travelled through LA for a while and the ignorance of the people really shocked me. It's not necessarily their fault, it's just your media shows nothing else of the rest of the world. Why should it when America is the best?

    10. Re:Except for one point: it wasn't the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's hard to tell the difference between stupid and troll. Whichever you are, you are an idiot.

    11. Re:Except for one point: it wasn't the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then your map is incorrect, because all Japan has is Dragoons.

      No dragons. They got jumped on.

    12. Re:Except for one point: it wasn't the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FTA ; "'...shruiken,' which is the Japanese word for throwing stars."
      Isn't that like saying "Poutine is the Canadian word for fries with cheese, and gravy and some salt."?
      I think throwing stars are an overly descriptive term used by English speaking persons with now imagination.
      Where I come from the country of origin claims original title rights, and everybody else has a translation of said original subjects term/title.

    13. Re:Except for one point: it wasn't the US by vegiVamp · · Score: 1

      Well, the chinese *are* pretty fond of those.

      --
      What a depressingly stupid machine.
  32. Makes you wonder...... by birukun · · Score: 1

    I wonder what he gets away with when flying within the US?

    --
    Self Defense - A Human Right www.a-human-right.com
  33. If only by WillyWanker · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Now if we could only get him to leave the US this way...

    Seriously, they took your toys away so you'll never return to Japan. Boo hoo, like I'm sure they give a shit. Seriously, will this jackass ever grow up?

    1. Re:If only by sjames · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Honestly, they took away his property while he was trying to board his personal plane for reasons that were plainly the result of deeply faulty logic. I can understand why he wouldn't be happy. Unfortunately, if you want to never meet a stupid government agency's representative goons, there's nowhere to go without giving up all contact with the rest of the world.

    2. Re:If only by WillyWanker · · Score: 0, Troll

      Last time I traveled I had my toothpaste taken away by TSA. So should I then swear to never fly again?

      An adult would have realized the rules are there for public safety, and made other arrangements for transporting the items in question (like, for example, packing them up and shipping them, a service that's available in almost every major airport in the world). But no, he acts like a spoiled child who gets his toys taken away.

      And I don't agree their logic was deeply faulty. Shuriken are weapons and weapons are not permitted on planes, even private ones. I don't see that as being unreasonable.

      Cause it's not like they forced him to give up his nail clippers, which, btw, also happened to me a few years ago.

    3. Re:If only by kevinNCSU · · Score: 2, Informative

      I fail to see the faulty logic even if this story is made up which it appears to be. If he was going to mix with the commercial passengers in the same exact secure area you might as well have no security at airports at all if you're going to let someone into that area with weapons. And while maybe you're a proponent of having no security check at airports that's a different argument entirely, and not faulty logic with the current situation. Whether it's a TSA worker, a janitor, a private jet owner, the pilot of a plane or a regular economy class chum, if they aren't all checked before entering a secure area then the area isn't secure for anyone anymore.

    4. Re:If only by sjames · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes, you should refuse. If enough people refuse to fly until the rules are changed, the airlines will apply their lobbying dollars to getting it done.

      And yes, the logic was deeply faulty. The purpose of the ban is to prevent the plane from being taken over by terrorists. Do you think Jobs would have gotten very far threatening the passenger (himself) with the shuriken (NOT a deadly weapon) if the pilot didn't obey him (the owner of the plane and the pilot's boss for the flight)? DUHHH.

      Meanwhile, just how much fear could you have struck into the hearts of the other passengers by threatening to brush your teeth? Probably not as much as you'd cause by causing a spare laptop battery to "vent with flame". As for the nail clippers, just what did they think you were going to do with those?

      The rules do nothing to make anyone safer on the plane, they just let politicians crow about how they did something and allow more massive quantities of public money to be funneled into sweetheart deals and NOT spent on things that would actually help the public.

    5. Re:If only by vlm · · Score: 2, Insightful

      An adult would have realized the rules are there for public safety

      Only if they are a stupid adult, one dumb enough to fall for "good security is occasionally obnoxious, therefore anything obnoxious must be good security"

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    6. Re:If only by WillyWanker · · Score: 1

      So you think it's ok for people to be allowed to bring weapons onto planes?

    7. Re:If only by sjames · · Score: 1

      The silly part then would be not having a way for him to go direct to his plane without the intermixing or just don't worry about something that isn't actually a deadly weapon in the first place (you could hurt someone a lot worse with a common belt with metal buckle).

      In many airports, once you get past the security checkpoint, there are plenty of opportunities to pick up far more dangerous objects.

    8. Re:If only by vlm · · Score: 1

      So you think it's ok for people to be allowed to bring weapons onto planes?

      First of all its a loaded question. You can't stop or allow people to bring weapons onto planes merely by making a rule. All you can do is punish the tiny subset of people whom get caught, most of whom are not evil, because most people are not evil. So, mostly, its a completely ineffective waste of time and effort.

      Which weapons are you referring to? Cut off Chuck Norris's hands, or let a baby have "too many" ounces of baby formula?

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    9. Re:If only by WillyWanker · · Score: 1

      Actually it's a very simple question. Do you think it's OK for people to bring weapons onto a plane?

    10. Re:If only by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      So you think it's ok for people to be allowed to bring weapons onto planes?

      Yes, honestly, I do.

      1) I own my own airplane. It's not a private jet, like what Steve Jobs was trying to board, but nevertheless, it is an airplane. Since I live in Alaska, and in 15 minutes flying time (even in a sloooow airplane like mine), you can be in the remote wilderness, I carry typically carry a gun and a knife when I fly. There are bears in those woods that think people are yummy, so I almost always bring a shotgun with me when I fly. Even without worrying about bears, if my engine quits (it's a two-stroke, so it's possible...) and I'm not within a few miles of a road, I might be camping for a few days until someone tracks down my ELT. Since I tend to get hungry every few hours, I equip myself for the possibility that I might need to shoot a grouse or a rabbit for food, if I am forced to land "off-airport." So yes, a gun of some kind is a part of the survival gear I regularly carry in an airplane.

      2) Even if we limit our discussion to commercial airplanes (which only tangentially applies to this story, since this was a private jet that was boarding through a commercial gate at an airport) then I still think at least *some* weapons should be allowed. Maybe the aforementioned shotgun is a bit much on a commercial airliner, but I'd certainly like to be able to carry a pocket knife again. I'd even go so far as to say that I wish that the airlines would issue tasers to all adults on the airplane. The big argument is that weapons in the hands of passengers on the airplane would allow "the terrists" to hijack another airplane. As Norman Schwarzkopf once said,bovine scatology (that's B.S., for short). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_93" target="Flight 93">Flight 93 proved that the days of a hijacker taking over an airplane while the passengers sit like sheep are over. IMHO, the *best* defense for airplanes is making sure every able-bodied adult on the airplane is armed and willing to take down anyone who ever tries that crap again. Far better, in my opinion, to just drop the expense -- and pretense -- of security theatre, and instead give the people who have the most to lose -- the passengers on the airplane -- the right and the ability to protect themselves from terrorists and hijackers.

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    11. Re:If only by sjames · · Score: 1

      Yes, absolutely! I say that because nearly anything is a weapon if it is used as one. A pencil is actually deadlier than a box cutter (So is a ball point pen if the user is strong enough). A belt with buckle can cause a fairly nasty injury at beyond arm's reach. You call it a tie, I call it a garrott. 1 ounce of BoTox mixed with DMSO will kill a lot of people.

      A well trained person can kill bare handed.

      Meanwhile, if you have 6 terrorists and 200 people that want them to fail, all armed with such weapons as nail files and sport coats (a good defense against a box cutter), the terrorists will lose.

      Meanwhile, a handgun can be re-purposed for opening coconuts and other peaceful purposes :-)

  34. Maybe he is looking for an excuse to avoid Japan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe he just doesn't like Japanese generally and is looking for an excuse not to go to the country.

  35. Chairs? by oldmac31310 · · Score: 1

    Couldn't he at least have thrown some chairs?

    --
    http://www.acetonestudio.com
  36. Security Theater by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 4, Informative

    Airport security is one of the most ridiculous & arbitrary things I've ever had to deal with. I went to a conference in San Francisco last year, and bought my in-laws a Golden Gate Bridge snow globe. The security goons deemed it a security risk--too much fluid apparently, even though it was pretty small--so they informed me that I could either leave my place in line & mail it, or I could surrender it. I spent about $5 on it, so I wasn't going to spend $10 to mail it, so I told them to keep it. The year before I had brought home a snow globe from Las Vegas without problem. I wasn't paying close enough attention, because they confiscated the rest of presents I had bought as well, including t-shirts & Ghirardelli chocolates. Basically, they stole about $100 from me. I can picture them now laughing as they ate the chocolates while using the t-shirts as napkins...

    --
    Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    1. Re:Security Theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The lesson you should have learned is, don't spend money you don't want the government to have, don't make money you don't want them to have.
      WWJD, it has Caesar's image on the money, it belongs to Caesar

    2. Re:Security Theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You obviously have never flown private in the US. You basically walk in and straight to your plane (unless you want to hang out in the lounge and have a snack and a drink). It basically takes off when you are ready. So you can be early or late (within reason). No security check whatsoever.

    3. Re:Security Theater by ConfusedVorlon · · Score: 1

      I took a jar of pickled pumpkin through the security at Hamburg airport. I only had handbagage and forgot that this would be a problem.

      They spotted it, took it out, asked me about it, decided that it was clearly against the rules, and clearly a glass jar containing pickled pumpkin which posed no threat to anybody.

      They handed it back to me and sent me on through.

      A thoroughly refreshing bit of common sense.

  37. New from Apple inc. by RichardJenkins · · Score: 2, Funny

    iBitch

  38. Re:Nothing to see here, move along. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I own an aircraft. The security rules definitely do not apply to private planes.

  39. Also violates state laws by OrangeTide · · Score: 2, Interesting

    California state law forbids manufacture, sale, possession or import of any shuiken, star, diamond, trefoil or other edged weapon used for throwing. So it's just as well it was confiscated at the airport.

    But seriously, if you take something prohibited past a checkpoint, even though you will be flying on a private jet, you still could pass the contraband to a person who is flying on another aircraft. Steve forgot to pack his souvenirs and is upset they were taken away. I would prefer it if they offered a service (for a fee) that let you mail the confiscated materials to yourself. Fedex should just open up a small shipping office next to the airport security gates.
    I've taken firearms on trips, it's simple, you walk up to the counter and declare that you will be traveling with a firearm. They send you off to another line, verify that it is unloaded, wrapped it up with gobs of tape and dump it with the rest of the luggage. If I can drag some guns along, I'm sure Steve can figure out how to bring some edge weapons along.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    1. Re:Also violates state laws by Shoten · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but so is jaywalking. I don't think anyone really cares if Steve Jobs has throwing stars.

      --

      For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
    2. Re:Also violates state laws by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      there is a difference between a citation($280 in Cupertino last time I was ticketed for jaywalking) and a minor felony (that can be brought down to a misdemeanor on the first offense).

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    3. Re:Also violates state laws by tweak13 · · Score: 1

      In a previous comment, I mention that commercial passengers and private aircraft are served in different areas. What I didn't explicitly say is that these passengers are never allowed to mix and couldn't pass things to one another. At least this is how it has been at every airport in the US I've ever been to.

    4. Re:Also violates state laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've accidentally had my Leatherman multitool in my carry on when flying in Japan. They took it from my, of course... and then returned it to me in an envelope when I got off at my destination. I should note that this was a regional airport and not a mega-hub like Kansai International, but this kind of customer-friendly service is not uncommon in Japan.

    5. Re:Also violates state laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had a jar of peanut butter confiscated a few weeks ago. I didn't pack my own bag (my bad) and didn't realize it was there. They gave me the option of going back and checking the bag. It seemed like a hassle for a jar of peanut butter, so I just let the TSA guy keep it. I'm sure Steve could have checked the stars (although I have no idea what would have happened in US Customs), but he apparently didn't think it was important enough to go through the trouble.

    6. Re:Also violates state laws by happy_place · · Score: 1

      California state law forbids manufacture, sale, possession or import of any shuiken, star, diamond, trefoil or other edged weapon used for throwing. So it's just as well it was confiscated at the airport.

      Especially if they're made of citrus fruit!

      --Ray

      PS> I once attempted to smuggle authentic maple syrup from Connecticut, but luckily the dilligent bag police kept me from smuggling that very dangerous liquid back to my destination. I shudder to think of the national security implications had I been allowed to keep it.

      --
      http://www.beanleafpress.com
    7. Re:Also violates state laws by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      California's weird.

      As for traveling with a firearm, I always bring it in a locking case; either small one for hand guns that goes in a checked bag or a rifle case.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    8. Re:Also violates state laws by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      Can't let one of the unwashed masses come near the kleptocratic elites now, can we?

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    9. Re:Also violates state laws by Shompol · · Score: 1

      Tomahawks also illegal? How about those "throwing axes" sold at Home Depo?

    10. Re:Also violates state laws by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Why are ninja stars illegal if guns are not. Was there an incident where people were using shurikens to kill people or something?

      --
      Qxe4
    11. Re:Also violates state laws by Atrox666 · · Score: 1

      California state law forbids manufacture, sale, possession or import of any shuiken, star, diamond, trefoil or other edged weapon used for throwing.

      So you don't have the right to bear arms? Why does the constitution not apply in California?

    12. Re:Also violates state laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm glad I'm not the only one that packs peanut butter. I took granola, peanut butter, crackers and two bottles of water in my checked in luggage on a work trip to China, in case I was unhappy with the food. (and I'm glad I did, I ended up eating the granola bar and about a third of the crackers)

    13. Re:Also violates state laws by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      Because nobody's founded the National Shuriken Association, and neither the Republicans nor the Democrats believe in founding organizations that protect ALL of our rights, not just the ones they feel are politically expedient.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    14. Re:Also violates state laws by OrangeTide · · Score: 2, Informative

      Rifles, handguns, crossbows, folding knives (not gravity or spring loaded knives), fixed blade knives (of a certain size mounted at the belt in a sheath and visible) are allowed.

      There has always been a lot of interpretation of the Second Amendment. It happens. I can't buy a machine gun, or rocket propelled grenades or nukes. Even though those are all "arms".

      I don't think blowguns are allowed in CA either. but other states even allow hunting with blowguns.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    15. Re:Also violates state laws by Zak3056 · · Score: 1

      I can't buy a machine gun, or rocket propelled grenades or nukes

      While it's effectively impossible to obtain a nuke, the other two are able to be lawfully owned in the US. The machine gun will be quite expensive--the law limits what civilians can own to weapons manufactured and properly registered before 1986, and the law of supply and demand being what it is, what would cost maybe $800 today purchased new can cost twenty times that in rather dubious condition. You will have to undergo a background check that takes about six months. You'll also be required to get the permission of your local chief law enforcement officer, and to pay a $200 tax.

      While you couldn't import an RPG, you're almost certainly legal to make one if you follow the law. These would be classified as a "destructive device" and require you to jump through all of the hoops above... which need to be complete before you can begin construction.

      FWIW, the above is based on Federal law--but California bans neither machine guns nor destructive devices that are properly registered.

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
  40. Buys a sherkin by geekoid · · Score: 1

    why? order one from here.

    He does no Ninja never existed, right? they were made up as a scary stage villain during Tokugawa Ieyasu reign.
    The same period that started to Idolize the samurai.

    And yes, it's stupid to remove a throwing weapon from someone travelling on their own plane.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  41. There is no app for that by Gohtar · · Score: 1

    nope

  42. Correction by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    Since the story is almost certainly false, my last statement (regarding Jobs being too stupid to figure that out) is not appropriate and I would like to retract it.

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    1. Re:Correction by Americano · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry sir, this is Slashdot. Arguing a point that is demonstrably false is sort of what we do here. You can't retract on the basis of a story being untrue, or misleading - think of the precedent that would set.

      I'm going to have to insist that you continue arguing that Steve Jobs is too stupid to figure out the rules until the nay-sayers telling you the story is false shut up and give up. We call that a Pyrrhic victory.

  43. Shuriken Illegal in California by __aajfby9338 · · Score: 2, Informative

    I hope he wasn't planning to fly directly to California with them, because they are restricted here.

    CALIFORNIA CODES
    PENAL CODE
    SECTION 12020-12040

    12020. (a) Any person in this state who does any of the following is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or in the state prison:

    (1) Manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives, lends, or possesses any [...] shuriken [...]

    There are many exceptions to that rule listed in the following sections, but I'd be surprised if any of them apply in this case.

    1. Re:Shuriken Illegal in California by geekoid · · Score: 1

      NO one cares and a shuriken, You ever throw those things? the amount of damage is minimal, and you would need to stand there and watch the things fly at you and not move.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Shuriken Illegal in California by __aajfby9338 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The obvious absurdity of restricting shuriken (or any of the other weapons restricted by PC 12020, for that matter) doesn't make them any less illegal in California.

    3. Re:Shuriken Illegal in California by geekoid · · Score: 1

      true, but my point is that no one cares.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:Shuriken Illegal in California by tophermeyer · · Score: 2, Informative

      This is offtopic, but the purpose of those kinds of thrown edged weapons is not really to kill. They are thrown to distract the target and allow the thrower a few moments to either flee from or close the gap to their target. They are intended as a very lightweight nuisance weapon. Unlikely to be lethal on their own if used as intended.

      But obviously if it is pointy and metal then you can find a way to kill someone with it.

    5. Re:Shuriken Illegal in California by __aajfby9338 · · Score: 1

      You don't care, and I don't care, but an officer arresting you for possession of one cares. People have been and continue to be prosecuted for possession of such items whose possession, importation, etc. are restricted by PC 12020, even when the definitions in PC 12020 are stretched to absurd limits by a prosecutor making an unjust prosecution. I personally know people who have been charged under PC 12020. You are quite simply mistaken about nobody caring.

    6. Re:Shuriken Illegal in California by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 2, Informative

      And yet, that didn't prevent me or four other kids in my college dorm rooms (in California) from getting our hands on a few and testing them on the dorm hall walls. The nice thing about having an over-extensive penal code is that it makes the majority of it unenforceable. The not nice thing is that when you garner enough attention to merit any kind of enforcement, chances are there is a law that you've already broken on the books.

    7. Re:Shuriken Illegal in California by __aajfby9338 · · Score: 1

      Much of PC 12020's restrictions are pretty stupid in my opinion (shuriken? nunchuks? brass knuckles?!). They're also mostly things that are easy to buy or make. I don't consider them unenforceable; I just consider them to be things which may easily escape notice and which a lot of people get away with.

      In the case of one guy I know, he was charged with twelve felonies, including some PC 12020 charges. The thing is, he didn't do anything illegal; the charges were trumped up and politically motivated. All were dropped before trial, as I recall. He's a law-abiding guy with a clean criminal record, but LAPD and the LA county prosecutor chose to persecute him. He was lucky to be represented by a very good lawyer, and to get much of his five-figure legal expenses covered by donations from many folks like me.

      I see nothing at all nice about having an over-extensive penal code. It makes so many things illegal that just about anybody can be found to have committed some crime, thus giving our governments far too many ways to persecute anybody they wish.

    8. Re:Shuriken Illegal in California by geekoid · · Score: 1

      yeah, a cop is going to show up because you brought shurkin into the US on your private plane.
      Never. Happen. If it has, citation needed.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    9. Re:Shuriken Illegal in California by puto · · Score: 1

      I could hold one and easily slit a throat.

      --
      The Revolution Will Not Be Televised
    10. Re:Shuriken Illegal in California by kestasjk · · Score: 1

      I wonder if souvenir throwing stars are sharpened..

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
  44. Re:So how do you get objects in the country? Boat? by kramerd · · Score: 1

    I wonder how someone would get things into the country. Not Shuriken per se but like if someone bought an antique jeweled dagger.

    You have them shipped, provided that the items are otherwise legal. You can even have the items shipped at the airport (major US airports provide shipping services, albeit at airport prices) should you forget that you are carrying shurikens or possibly just a butane lighter.

  45. iHide... by tekrat · · Score: 1

    Apple Product Announcement:

    Coming soon from Apple, the iHide!

    It looks like a popular brand of MP3 player, but it's actually a lead-lined box big enough to transport throwing stars! And next year, we'll be introducing a tablet-sized iHide for larger items you don't want security to know about.

    The iHide from Apple... Because *you* don't need no stinking badges.

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
  46. Pisses me off to no end. by LordSkout · · Score: 1

    Do you have any idea how excited I got at hearing that Jobs wouldn't be returning to this country? Apple fanbois all over the U.S. would cry themselves to death!

    Of course, if this REALLY happened, the headline of "No more Jobs in the U.S." might prove catastrophic! lol

  47. Re:Nothing to see here, move along. by Defenestrar · · Score: 1

    Faint rumors of Jobs's ill health are a pox on Apple's share value. There - fixed that for you.

  48. I saw this and thought: by somaTh · · Score: 1
    --
    Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
  49. He probably planned to use them on.... by Newer+Guy · · Score: 1

    He probably planned to use them on the engineer who designed the new iPhone antenna.

  50. Private Aircraft Bags Are Not Scanned by acoustix · · Score: 2, Informative

    I fly on my companies private planes all of the time, including international flights and my bags have never been scanned.

    --
    "A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
    1. Re:Private Aircraft Bags Are Not Scanned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Must make it easy to smuggle all that horse!

    2. Re:Private Aircraft Bags Are Not Scanned by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      I fly on my companies private planes all of the time, including international flights and my bags have never been scanned.

      And, when you fly on your company's private planes, do you pass through the same airport security as the passengers headed to commercial passenger gates? Because that what Steve Jobs did, because that's how that particular airport is set up. There is no distinction between private and non-private passengers. If your company's aircraft were waiting for you at that same small Japanese airport, your bags would have been scanned, just like all passengers who pass through the same security point. If everyone passed through the same point, but they only scanned bags for people getting on commercial passenger planes, there would be a huge vulnerability - because the people who weren't scanned could just hand the drugs/weapons/cash/etc over to the scanned people as soon as they get through security. You do understand this, right?

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  51. Doesn't the airport offer mail-back service? by microbee · · Score: 1

    At least I saw this sign in US airports.

  52. and if he tried that usa he may be in jail and may by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 1

    and if he tried that usa he may be in jail and maybe even on the no fly list!

  53. Abusing his wealth by Guppy06 · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Next he'll try to buy a human liver.

    1. Re:Abusing his wealth by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      He already did, he's just smart enough to carry it inside his body.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    2. Re:Abusing his wealth by SETIGuy · · Score: 1

      Did he wreck the last one he bought?

  54. Re:So how do you get objects in the country? Boat? by nelsonal · · Score: 2, Informative

    Checked bags generally allow whatever is legal to import/export with only a few restrictions (live ammo, I believe, must be locked separately from the locked container with the weapon). Declaring a firearm is an excellent way to ensure that your bag isn't lost by the airline.

    --
    Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
  55. How dare they! by DrXym · · Score: 1

    How dare Japan employ people who vet what items someone may or may not put on their own plane. If only there were some analogy I could draw a comparison to...

  56. Re:Nothing to see here, move along. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you own an aircraft in the Japanese jurisdiction? No? Then STFU.
    - Anonymous Aviation Industry Security Expert who knows the different between Secured Airside Operations and Private Aircraft Operations.

  57. So sad. by 2obvious4u · · Score: 1

    I remember the last time I flew on an airplane. I was flying back from China and had a huge duffel bag full of tai-chi swords and other arms. We carried them all through the airport. Then again the year was 1998 and people weren't batshit insane.

  58. iNinja Commercial... by Shoten · · Score: 1

    I can imagine two such commercials in my mind.

    One, a black screen, and music playing...but then, one by one, the instruments in the band stop playing, each cessation accompanied by the sound of a blade moving through the air.

    Two..."Hi, I'm a PC...AIEEEE!"

    --

    For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
  59. I read it wrong by crf00 · · Score: 1

    Am I the only one who first read the title wrongly as "Steve Jobs Tries To Sneak Shurikens On An iPhone"?

    1. Re:I read it wrong by PPH · · Score: 2, Funny

      Where can we download the Shuriken app? And how do they recommend holding it to ensure proper operation?

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  60. Um, why? by supercrisp · · Score: 0

    I mean, if this were anyone but Herr Doktor Meester Apfel, wouldn't folks here be getting all libraritarian about it? I mean, so it's a hazard... to himself!

  61. What a big baby. by hellop2 · · Score: 1

    I'm never gonna play at your house again!!!

    --
    How many more years will slashdot have an off-by-one error on your Score in your profile?
  62. Re:Nothing to see here, move along. by zach_the_lizard · · Score: 1

    Perhaps in the US. Not all countries have the same laws. The Japanese drive on the left, after all, and who can trust those pesky left-side-drivers? Yes, Commonwealth nations, I'm looking at you too.

    --
    SSC
  63. Re:and if he tried that usa he may be in jail and by geekoid · · Score: 2, Informative

    no, in the US he wouldn't go through any screening. In fact you can hire private planes and take what you want on them.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  64. Taste of his own medicine by mehrotra.akash · · Score: 1

    So, he gets a taste of his own medicine, whats wrong with that?

    1. Re:Taste of his own medicine by ktappe · · Score: 0, Troll

      So, he gets a taste of his own medicine, whats wrong with that?

      That it didn't happen, that's what.

      --
      "We can categorically state we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman, July 2007
  65. Not the plane - the person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's nothing saying shurikens can't be on a plane.

    There is something saying "you" cannot be the one to take them on, where "you"="any human"

  66. No, private plane passengers DO NOT get scanned by ClioCJS · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I just flew on a private jet, and they didn't scan shit of mine. In fact, they even talked about how people had smoked weed on their jets before. So I call bullshit -- something's wrong in the summary.

    --
    -Clio
    Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
    Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
    1. Re:No, private plane passengers DO NOT get scanned by PPH · · Score: 1

      As others have pointed out, it depends on the airport, not the type of airplane or flight.

      If you board at a major airport that handles commercial flights, expect to be scanned. At a private airport, you can board with a loaded hunting rifle. And shoot wolves. At least you can if you are the ex-governor of Alaska.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  67. Sounds like primer for a new product by Xelios · · Score: 1

    The next iPad will double as a suitcase using Checked Baggage Technology to ensure your precious cultural artifacts make it back into your hands every time! The iPadCase is also virtually unbreakable unless dropped or hit!

    --
    Murphey's fighting Occam, and we're in the stands.
  68. He's already a master of one dark art by phonewebcam · · Score: 1

    The iPhones most popular app - perhaps he was just expanding his skillset a little more.

  69. Re:So how do you get objects in the country? Boat? by CannonballHead · · Score: 1

    Checked baggage, not carry-ons. Same way you transport guns.

  70. Re:So how do you get objects in the country? Boat? by Spectre · · Score: 1

    Pack it as checked baggage, that goes in the luggage/freight compartment, not as a carry-on that goes in the passenger compartment.

    IANAL, nor an airport security person, but I do have a small collection of swords, knives, daggers, etc.

    --
    "Flame away, I wear asbestos underwear"
  71. The problem is the airport, not the airplane by KingFrog · · Score: 1

    The problem isn't so much that he tried to "sneak" them onto his private jet. The problem is that, once through security, he cannot be segregated from the general passenger population at the airport. Those throwing stars could have gone anywhere, to anyone, on any plane. You avoid this problem by flying your private plane from a small airport that does not service the big jets, thus neatly avoiding the security hassles of those airports. Private airstrips and airways are best if you want to carry stuff that isn't normally allowed onto the planes. Me? I'd have shipped the blasted things.

    1. Re:The problem is the airport, not the airplane by meerling · · Score: 1

      Exactly, it wasn't about them being on his private plane, is was about them being in the secured and screened to have no weapons part of the terminal. Swords, shurikens, knitting needles, uzis, etc, they don't care, you can't have them in that area or on their planes. And since you can't get to your plane without going through their area where those things are banned, tough luck.

      ( I saw one place where it was determined that the city/county couldn't ban alcohol from the beach, but they could ban it from the access road and parking lot. If you wanted a kegger, you had to have someone carry it the appx 3 miles to the beach through the dunes.)

    2. Re:The problem is the airport, not the airplane by yumyum · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, the problem is that the story is false. Incredible how much bloviated nonsense has accumulated in this thread for something that never happened.

    3. Re:The problem is the airport, not the airplane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the problem is that the story is false. Incredible how much bloviated nonsense has accumulated in this thread for something that never happened.

      It did happen but the reporter didn't realize it was really Fake Steve Jobs...

  72. RE: Steve is now exempt from airline regs by bl8n8r · · Score: 1

    Or maybe TSA didn't get the memo? At what point did he think bringing a pointed/sharp object on a plane was a good idea anyway? Some Shuriken have a chisel point which certainly could be used as a cutting weapon (and the pointed ones aren't any less painful). I wouldn't want some un-medicated postal worker to carry them on my flight, or some 12 year old that wants to loosen the screws in something, or goof off with them just for laughs. Steve Jobs, or any other celebrity for that matter should be held to the same rules.

    --
    boycott slashdot February 10th - 17th check out: altSlashdot.org
  73. The Irony by Ukab+the+Great · · Score: 1, Troll

    He's better at sneaking plans for Stars out of Xerox than planes with stars out of Japan.

  74. Re:Not the first time he has be hassled by the man by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 0, Troll

    Back in the 80's while he was dealing coke, he never had any problems.

  75. Next up... by ksr · · Score: 2, Funny

    Next up: Steve Jobs arrested on charges of indecency after being found naked in his bedroom.

  76. Plain old human fumbling. . . by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1

    The conspiracy part of me thinks, "This is a marketing tactic run on one of two levels; 1. to affect how people perceive Apple software security and quit complaining so much (less likely), or 2. To affect how people perceive the loss of freedom and get them to quit complaining so much because even the super-wealthy have to put up with it, (more likely)"

    Except honestly, this time, the scales just don't tip. I actually think this time it's just some plain ol' human fumbling around with Jobs being a doofus.

    But the spiritual pattern watcher part of me. . , that part notes that he's scaled his second great mountain and that it should be nearing time for his second great fall. I wonder if it'll stand on its own or simply coincide with the rest of the planetary meltdown. . ?

    How did it happen last time? Fired by his own company, some kind of organ failure and a bit of grasping about in the ghetto of Next or whatever it was? I can't recall exactly. As much as I think Jobs is a manipulative knob, I do cringe on his behalf considering the spectacular heights he has to tumble from.

    After the rest of the world has caught up with ARM based tablet thingies for $50 and under with cooler everything and open-architecture software, Apple's income will seize and with no grand new ideas forthcoming, in desperation and high anxiety, Jobs will somehow be ejected or asked to leave or simply pull Apple down with him into mediocrity. There has to be a component of a once-loving community of power-brokers turning its back on him in a cut-throat manner, but that can take many forms.

    All assuming, of course, there's still a human race in two years time to care.

    Interesting times.

    -FL

    1. Re:Plain old human fumbling. . . by Americano · · Score: 1

      After the rest of the world has caught up with ARM based tablet thingies for $50 and under with cooler everything and open-architecture software, Apple's income will seize and with no grand new ideas forthcoming, in desperation and high anxiety, Jobs will somehow be ejected or asked to leave or simply pull Apple down with him into mediocrity.

      This would be the THIRD great fall, wouldn't it? I mean, when the whole thing happened after that iPod debacle, that'd have to count as his second great fall, I'd say.

      What iPod debacle you say? Why the one where all the clones & knockoffs came along and stole Apple's market share, of course!

  77. And you're still wrong. by ClioCJS · · Score: 1

    I flew out of BWI. Baltimore Washington International. Huge airpot. No scans. Private tarmac. Simply put, you're wrong. Also, it's now been revealed that this entire incident is a hoax. So eat your words doubly :)

    --
    -Clio
    Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
    Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
    1. Re:And you're still wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, you are talking about the United States. In the US, that is generally true.

      Apparently though, some other countries don't have the same policies. This purported event happened in Japan, so I don't have any reason to think it's BS. And in fact, Steve's expectation that his baggage wouldn't be searched would make sense for somebody used to flying private in the US, who would not be expecting a baggage scan when leaving Japan.

      The worst part about flying on a private plane is how awful it feels to have to fly commercial again afterwards.

    2. Re:And you're still wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you're still a smarmy douche. We're all terribly impressed that you flew a private plane, but different airports have different procedures.

    3. Re:And you're still wrong. by ClioCJS · · Score: 1

      The point is that the article summary is wrong, and tries to state that private jets all get scanned. No, they do not. If you would prefer to sit there in your wrongness, being wrong, do so. But by calling someone correcting wrongness a douche, you are simply taking the side of wrong, which is a lame position to take. And explains why you are posting as an Anonymous Coward - you don't want to lose karma by being moderated for, you know, being wrong.

      --
      -Clio
      Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
      Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
    4. Re:And you're still wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not the guy who replied to you initially, I'm just a guy who dislikes people such as yourself. The point is, you flew on a private plane. Whoopty-Fucking-Doo. Since the plural of anecdote is not data, your story is not in any way indicative of the general state of being for travel via private plane. Furthermore, show me a source that refutes the story, one that isn't Apple PR responding with a typical "no comment", or AppleInsider quoting same PR flack. Also, you're still a smarmy douche.

    5. Re:And you're still wrong. by ClioCJS · · Score: 1
      And you're STILL wrong. The article summary says "Even private plane passengers have to have all their baggage scanned". THAT. IS. NOT. TRUE. And I know this firsthand because I flew on a private jet.

      When someone is making a sweeping claim, YES, ONE SET OF ANECDOTAL DATUM (used the singular for you) DISPROVES IT. Private passengers do not have to have all their baggage scanned; mine wasn't and nobody I know who has flown on one has ever had their scanned.

      You're just jealous of my rightness, and the fact that I got to fly on a private jet. Don't even have the balls to post as a non-Anonymous Coward. Talk about being a smarmy little pussy.

      --
      -Clio
      Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
      Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
    6. Re:And you're still wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realise that they're talking about Japan, right?

    7. Re:And you're still wrong. by element-o.p. · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Private tarmac.

      And there's the difference.

      If you are flying out of an FBO, even at a big airport like BWI, then you get to bypass airport security. However, TFS said Jobs was flying out of the public terminal. At Kenai Municipal Airport, in Kenai, Alaska (much smaller than BWI; I've been to both airports), some of the private, chartered flights board through the same gate as the passenger flights. In that case, yes, you would pass through airport security. If you are in a small, private airplane like I was, you go out a different door to a different ramp on the airport (if you go into the terminal at all), and you don't pass through security. So it all depends.

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
  78. Re: Steve is now exempt from airline regs by ktappe · · Score: 2, Informative

    Or maybe TSA didn't get the memo? At what point did he think bringing a pointed/sharp object on a plane was a good idea anyway?

    Apparently at no point--the story is false. Please read the other comments before commenting.

    I wouldn't want some un-medicated postal worker to carry them on my flight.

    But it wouldn't have been your flight; it was HIS PRIVATE FLIGHT. Please also read the article before posting.

    --
    "We can categorically state we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman, July 2007
  79. Why not just comply? by EvilBudMan · · Score: 1

    They are kinda junk anyhow. I wonder if this story is true? A guy that can make a company wildly succeed in this climate but is a prick over pieces of junk. The problem would have been the same here as in Japan. The whole thing doesn't make sense but what the heck not much else does either these days.

  80. Re:So how do you get objects in the country? Boat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder how someone would get things into the country. Not Shuriken per se but like if someone bought an antique jeweled dagger. I'm not saying this is what Jobs did but just wondering. It seems there may be lots of paperwork involved and Jobs just thought he could bypass it or didn't know about it.

    You put it in checked luggage.

  81. Re: Steve is now exempt from airline regs by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    At what point did he think bringing a pointed/sharp object on a plane was a good idea anyway?

          You missed the point where it was explained that it was actually his private airplane, not a commercial jet.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  82. OH it all makes sense now! Steve Jobs is a ninja. by k0dama · · Score: 1

    OH it all makes sense now! Steve Jobs is a ninja. It also explains why he always wears black turtle necks. Not a very good ninja though. A real ninja does not bother with airport security. or: Japan is trying to paint Jobs as a Tsundere. "I-i-i-it's not like I like Japan or a-a-anything! Geez! I'll never come back!! Hmph!"

  83. Japanese Rules by cc_pirate · · Score: 1

    The Japanese are absolute STICKLERS for the rules.... Doesn't matter if the rule doesn't make any sense... if it is the rule, it should be followed.

    That attitude is good and bad...

    --

    "There are laws that enslave men, and laws that set them free. " - Sean Connery as King Arthur

    1. Re:Japanese Rules by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      In this case the rule is absolutely correct. You can't take weapons air side.

  84. I heard that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Steve Jobs is so crazy and awesome that he flips out ALL the time. I heard that he was eating at a diner. And when some dude leaked an iPad Steve Jobs fired the whole town.

  85. LOL this is sad ! by Raffix · · Score: 1

    It's Steve Jobs ... It's a private plane ... It's just some phreaking ninja stars !!! People are going crazy since 9/11 i think !

  86. Chuck Norris can't fly on airplanes... by jameskojiro · · Score: 1

    Because his fists are registered as deadly weapons. Does this bother him? No. Because he just kicks the universe and jumps up and lets the universe move under him until he reaches the place he wants to be.

    --
    Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
  87. What was supposed to happen... by irving47 · · Score: 1

    Security at the airport should have taken his bag over to the side so nobody could see it. Then, after their coffee break, after Steve found them, he could have yelled over to one of them, "How's my bag search coming along?" Eventually, one of them might or might not have answered him.
    Sooner or later, he'd get word that his bag might not be making it onto the plane.
    "But, why?" Steve would ask.
    "Well, there's a security problem, but I can't tell you much more than that."
    Again, Steve would fire off another inquiry. "Hey, am I going to get my bag approved today?"
    "No. It duplicates existing bags we've already processed, you see... There's a secret process to getting these bags approved, you know. Err. No. Wait. You don't know. That's why it's secret."

    Ok, the joke is stale now. Have I killed it fully?

    --
    I had a sucky sig.
  88. Lost in translation by srussia · · Score: 3, Informative

    Apple Inc. Chief Executive Officer Steve Jobs said he’ll never come back to Japan after officials at an airport barred him from taking Ninja throwing stars aboard his private plane, SPA! magazine reported in its latest issue.

    "SPA!" means "The Onion" in Japanese.

    --
    Set your phasers on "funky"!
    1. Re:Lost in translation by grouchomarxist · · Score: 1

      SPA! isn't like the Onion, but it is a tabloid magazine. Anything coming from it should be taken with a huge grain of salt.

  89. Nobody will try to hijack his own airplane? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mr. Jobs doesn't know Mr. Beeblebrox?

  90. Sense , it makes none. by elsJake · · Score: 1

    Stop and think about what you just wrote.
    If the terrorists had money for a jet , they'd have money for a missile or two and they certainly wouldn't give a shit about commercial airports and what kind of plastic fork you can use on board.Furthermore if they _own_ the jet , i don't think they'd go through the hassle of hijacking it.

    Now on the other hand , say some drugged out party boy gets hijacked by his latest friend who just happens to be a terrorist that decides to do another kamikaze dive , we have _military_ supersonic jets on alert at all times. And by we i mean this pathetic third world country in Eastern Europe , i think the US has a bit more of those on hand.
    And what do these nice jets do ? They appear out of nowhere in literally 5 minutes of your transgression and warn you to stay on your designated course (which almost never goes above cities or other such settlements) or exit the airspace (if you just happened to stray over the border). Failure to do so will result in the aircraft getting shot down over uninhabited land before any innocent bystanders get hit. And you're paying for the service already , why get assraped at the airport as well then ?

    This kind of thing almost never happens because it makes no sense to hijack a plane you can't do damage with. At worse you can ask for a really quick ransom in exchange for not killing yourself (good luck on that one, if anybody cares nobody will sing cash your way as fast as you'd burn fuel).

    In other words , cut the crap, there ain't not terrerists on private planes.

    1. Re:Sense , it makes none. by Real1tyCzech · · Score: 1

      "If the terrorists had money for a jet , they'd have money for a missile or two and they certainly wouldn't give a shit about commercial airports and what kind of plastic fork you can use on board.Furthermore if they _own_ the jet , i don't think they'd go through the hassle of hijacking it."

      Terrorists = anyone who wishes to incite terror. Not just Muslim radicals.

      Stupid people with money never quite seem to do what us rational folk would expect them to do... :) (like buy and island and leave everyone else the hell alone.)

      They're just mean like that.

  91. stars and shit by alxkit · · Score: 0

    if he could make iPad - why could he not grind some metal and make a friggin' throwing star? what is he , 12?

  92. Steve needs to change his name to... by HikingStick · · Score: 1

    iWhine.

    --
    I use irony whenever I can, but my shirts are still wrinkled...
  93. HA HA HO HO HEE HEE by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 0

    Undoubtedly this is part of the iNinja project.

    HA HA HOO HEE HEEE HAHAA HA HA HA *snort*

    *knee slap*

    That was really ... iFunny! AAAHAHAH HA HA HA HA!!!!

    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  94. Lethal Weapons by The+Living+Fractal · · Score: 1

    If potentially lethal weapons are not allowed on planes, and there are people who are trained as lethal weapons in the eyes of the law, how comes these people are allowed on planes?

    --
    I do not respond to cowards. Especially anonymous ones.
  95. Re:So how do you get objects in the country? Boat? by cbhacking · · Score: 1

    There's this crazy concept called "checked baggage" where you can put just about anything that isn't actually a high explosive. That includes weapons far more dangerous than throwing stars or jeweled daggers...

    --
    There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
  96. the real reason they took the shurikens away by commodoresloat · · Score: 2, Funny

    he was holding them wrong

  97. Coincidence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it a coincidence that Bing has a picture of a Japanese garden today?

  98. Apple retaliates by bricking all iphones in Japan by fkx · · Score: 0

    Apple retaliates by bricking all iphones in Japan.

    That'll show 'em ..

    and that is how WW4 began ...

  99. You Are Leaving The American Zone by westlake · · Score: 1

    Its not because he's rich, its because its his own fucking plane and quite honestly he should be able to do whatever he wants to with his own property, just like there are rules in buses and taxis that don't apply to your own personal cars.

    The international border is not - never has been - never will be - the same experience as taking the cross-town bus.

    Released American hiker arrives in Oman

  100. Checked luggage? by Nicolas+MONNET · · Score: 1

    That's why the story sounds fishy, on an airliner you'd put that in the checked luggage; but what is checked luggage in a private plane? It doesn't make any sense.

  101. I think... by bagsta · · Score: 1

    ... he wanted to take the Suriken in the plane in order to test the durability of the glass of the new iPhone... with the Ninja way... :)

    --
    Until the skies turn blue...
    Until the air of freedom strikes us...
  102. I love the shuriken... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe he needed it to use on people who crunch popcorn too loud in the theater?

  103. Second Amendment? by mangu · · Score: 1

    California state law forbids manufacture, sale, possession or import of any shuiken, star, diamond, trefoil or other edged weapon used for throwing. So it's just as well it was confiscated at the airport.

    Let's see:

    "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

    I can't find any exception about shuriken there.

  104. Re:So how do you get objects in the country? Boat? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

    Yes there is always checked baggage, but there is also the wisdom in not putting anything valuable in your checked bags.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  105. More crap? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What is the deal with fake articles on slashdot today??!?!?

  106. Doesn't change that it isn't the US, kid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Doesn't change that it isn't the US, kid. You see, if it's normal for him walking out to his plane in the US, then

    a) this isn't the US

    b) he didn't just walk through a small lobby directly to his private jet

    c) he was amongst a lot of people who would not be flying on his private jet

    And wasn't McKinnon extradited for crimes that were US created (not to mention created AFTER the event)? So how is he to know what the law is in the US..?

    But none of that changes that he doesn't have to know the law to know that he's not in the US, therefore what he usually does in the US (shall I quote the OP? "I just want to clarify that this is absolutely *not* how things work in the United States.", he aint in kansas any more, toto) is irrelevant. He could always ASK before bringing a sharp weapon into a public place.

    Try walking around Tokyo Airport with a concealed carry permit for Texas and a magnum under the pits.

    1. Re:Doesn't change that it isn't the US, kid. by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · · Score: 1

      I'm not even talking about the Steve Jobs thing any more, since the whole story was made up.

    2. Re:Doesn't change that it isn't the US, kid. by Ravon+Rodriguez · · Score: 1

      [quote]And wasn't McKinnon extradited for crimes that were US created (not to mention created AFTER the event)? So how is he to know what the law is in the US..?[/quote] I get what you're trying to say, but I'm going to correct you on this specific example; one of the conditions of extradition is that the alleged crime must be a criminal violation in both countries. A person would not be required to know the laws of the U.S., just the laws of the country they reside in. Obviously this is different than physically traveling to a country, but I felt the need to be pedantic.

      --
      Jesus loves me, he loves me a bunch, because he always puts Jiffy in my lunch.
  107. Obligatory XKCD reference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    http://xkcd.com/651/

  108. It's known as Right to Public Vehicular Travel. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You don't need plates on your car, don't need drive license, don't need insurance: when you are not engauging in commerce about the ways.

    This has been in Statutory Law since the time when the roads were liberated by the robber barons and mercenaries that would take your property in exchange for assuring that you will not be robbed or for road "improvements" tha they can't prove they've been ordered to complete or done by charity they exploited from others.

  109. "Get a Shuriken" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are trying to take shurikens on-board the plane. Cancel or allow?

    [Allow] ...

    [malware detector goes off]

  110. Even if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this story was true (which it isn't), FAA rules have to be followed.

  111. Anti-Terrorism is a Religion by rdmiller3 · · Score: 1

    "Deemed to be a hazard" TO WHOM? Like he's going to hijack his own private jet?

    Like a religion, "security" or "anti-terrorist measures" don't have to make sense nor be based on anything anyone can see or prove. It's all based on scary fiction, like Hell.

  112. Depriving me of my property is a federal offense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll send my Sheriff to arrest you and he'll show-up wearing a 8-pointed Ninja star and he'll stuff your COP badge so far up your ass...

    Don't mess with green-shirt Ninjas of the Country, and those goes for all you City-dwellers unlike us Denizens, or we'll shoot your tires as a warning.

  113. RE: Jobs with shiriken; Balmer with chairs . . . by antdude · · Score: 1

    I'd pay to watch that. Also, add Torvalds and Gates? :)

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  114. Japan? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Japan? I thought we paved that?

  115. Slashdot-worthy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I fail to see how this is in any way news worthy of Slashdot. Yes, Apple is apparently in the hands of a child. Not the first time this type of thing occurs. An Apple engineer friend of mine related a pretty funny story about Stevie not liking mushrooms and throwing a fit at the Apple cafeteria after the dish was apparently prepared for his benefit, since he is vegan: "Fungus!!! I cannot eat fungus!!!" and storming out. Oh, well.

  116. Goddamn, Slashdot is behind by bonch · · Score: 1

    It's so annoying how slow Slashdot is about news these days. This story was already debunked. A simple Google search would have found that out before it was published to the front page.

    1. Re:Goddamn, Slashdot is behind by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

      Did you read the story about the giant diamond/sun they found in space on the front page today? That article is 6 years old.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
  117. Neuromancer by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So were Molly and Armitage on the plane too?

  118. What by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

    What could he possibly do with a fucking shuriken? I could see them disallowing explosives... but pointy objects? This is just insane. Virtually *anything* could be used as a weapon, and you certainly can't take over a plane with pointy objects.

    --
    Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
  119. Re: Steve is now exempt from airline regs by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

    "Some Shuriken have a chisel point which certainly could be used as a cutting weapon"

    So can pencils, pens, and virtually every objects in existence, including your hands (used as a weapon). Again, I could see disallowing explosives and such, but this is just idiotic. You can't take over a plane with pointy objects, or they might as well disallowing writing utensils.

    --
    Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
  120. Re:So how do you get objects in the country? Boat? by puto · · Score: 1

    You must not fly out of the country much. I am a dual citizen with the US and Colombia. I fly out of the US for work all over latin america. And i can tell you I will check my bags in the states and when I get to many airports in Latin America, I have to watch security digging through them. Just as I do when I fly back into the states.

    --
    The Revolution Will Not Be Televised
  121. Re:Not the first time he has be hassled by the man by multipartmixed · · Score: 1

    He probably didn't realize that the US explicitly restricts imports on textiles - even from other NAFTA member states.

    I have no idea why.

    --

    Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
  122. d'oh by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

    yeah I noticed that shortly after I hit "post."... I'm guessing KIX might have a security camera or two as well though ;)

  123. Private Planes .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Private plane passengers generally do not go thru the massively public terminals that we are all familiar with. I've flown on private plans all over the USA and never entered or left thru the normal passenger terminal. If you've ever seen Entourage, then you have an idea of how these private flights work. Basically, there is ZERO security and you can drive your car right up to the plane door.

    Even on scheduled private flights (my company had a tiny airline), I've arrived at the parking area just as the plane was supposed to leave. I called the office there and they held the plane. I flashed a company badge as I got onto the flight. I carried pocket knives and worse on that plane all the time - ALL THE TIME.

    I've never flown internationally on a private plane, but I have been to Narita a few times. I believe that when your flight enters or leaves a country, then you are subject to the normal customs checks and passport controls. Those checks are probably less than what "the masses" are put thru. When you routinely fly on private planes, you forget the stupid inconveniences that commercial air travel demands. Rather than waste all our time with this, why don't we just provide everyone on the aircraft with an 8" blade? Seems that would be cheaper and more effective against hijackers than all this bogus security checks.

  124. The Ultimate Battle by Caerdwyn · · Score: 1

    Cue the rumors that Jobs and Ellison are preparing for a throwing star battle to the death....

    Jobs and Ellison are reportedly good friends. What WOULD be pure popcorn-munchin' entertainment would be to see what would happen if both Apple and Oracle wanted something (a company to acquire, a market segment) that only one could have. I would predict one of two outcomes, no intermediate "compromises" (since when do Ellison or Jobs compromise on anything important to them?), and flip a coin for which:

    1. A closed-door deal concluded with a handshake and a "you OWE me, you bastard" or
    2. A sudden, vicious war in the marketplace, the courts, and the financial sector that was as much a personal dominance-fight as a business contention.

    For scenario 2, I'd grant it to Jobs 2 out of 3. Nobody works the marketplace as well as Apple, and they have the huge warchest and stock market position to take on Oracle. Apple also seems to do better in court, though by no means batting 1.000 (note please, no value judgment on the merit of that). Ellison is almost certainly better at company-vs-company boardroom-level politics, but poorer at populist actions, and more likely to just plain piss off a judge. Ultimately, charisma, legal savvy and raw financial power would carry the day for Jobs and Apple, though Oracle could make it a Pyrrhic victory.

    Next up: Captain Picard vs. Captain Kirk! we'll call it Slashdot-fiction...

    --
    Everybody gets what the majority deserves.
  125. Boohoo by twoears · · Score: 1

    "Jobs, clearly angry at losing his throwing weapons, stated he would not be returning to the country." Is that a threat or a promise?

  126. Security Schmecurity by Anynomous+Coward · · Score: 1

    Tell me about it. You can go to your private aircraft while it is still in the hangar to check it out and offload your luggage there. But next you need to do a security raindance by coming out of the hangar again, passing through the metal detector and putting your wallet through a scanner, only to go directly out on the apron and walk back to your aircraft in the hangar. Why ? To make sure you haven't forgotten to put any forbidden stuff that you are going to use to hijack your own aircraft there first ?

    Another anecdote: when my wife, my two children and I returned from the other part of the world we needed to transfer at Heathrow T5 for the last leg to our home country. There my 120ml bottle of saline solution (that I need to keep my eyes moist and had already carried around the world without anyone complaining) was confiscated by a 2ct goon because it exceeded the maximum volume of 100ml by 20ml. Mind you, two carryon bags of my family members had 400ml bottles of sun tan lotion which failed detection.

    Hey 2ct goons, a well-off middle aged man returning home first class with his family after globetrotting is NOT going to use an excess 20ml of saline solution for nefarious goals aboard the aircraft. Though he is now mightily pissed off and will find a way to spite those whose name he wrote on the sole of his shoe.

    --
    I'm not a coward by any name.
  127. Mod Parent Informative by kumanopuusan · · Score: 1

    Gahhh! It seems that Steve and Larry really are close friends. Now I have to question the assumptions I've made about CEOs' personalities based on rumors, anecdotes and my personal feelings for their companies and products.
    Thanks for disturbing my comfortable ignorance, jerk! ;-)

    --
    Use of the words "good", "bad" or "evil" is almost invariably the result of oversimplification.
  128. not always by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    If you have a criminal record or have been committed to a mental institution you cannot legally obtain these items. Those are restrictions that are beyond the literal interpretation in the Second Amendment.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  129. Motive? by kentsin · · Score: 0

    I bet the pilot does not have to got scanned. Why the owner of a plane need to be scanned?

  130. Re: Steve is now exempt from airline regs by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

    At what point did he think bringing a pointed/sharp object on a plane was a good idea anyway?

          You missed the point where it was explained that it was actually his private airplane, not a commercial jet.

    But they would have to allow the objects airside, where he could pass them to a passenger on a commercial service, or be mugged and have them stolen from him, etc.

  131. Ninja Stars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where exactly was he supposed to have gotten the shurikens anyway? Aside from novelty ones that could not be used as a weapon any more than a butter knife could, they're generally not available for purchase in Japan. Sounds like somebody just thought of the first typically Japanese sounding weapon they could come up with and went with that.

  132. I did it.. by Zenix · · Score: 2, Interesting

    In 2003 I brought back shurikens from Japan in my carry on luggage. They showed up on the x-ray, and I just told the guy they were souvenirs and he had no issue with them.

  133. This story is older than my Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We all know they locked Steve Jobs in a cage so he couldn't hurt any other young competitors

  134. No shuriken for you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    :-)

  135. Steve Jobs Hijacks himself... by dogzdik · · Score: 0

    What a piss off....... Honestly that would shit me right off too.

    --

    .

    Voting up, Voting down - If I really gave a fuck about your approval or not, I'd come and ask you.

  136. Next Story up... by pckl300 · · Score: 1

    Steve Jobs sues Japan...

    --
    In the beginning, there was null.
  137. Shurikens are illegal in California by Marful · · Score: 1

    California Penal Code 12020
    (a) Any person in this state who does any of the following is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or in the state prison:
    (1) Manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives, lends, or possesses any cane gun or wallet gun, any undetectable firearm, any firearm which is not immediately recognizable as a firearm, any camouflaging firearm container, any ammunition which contains or consists of any flechette dart, any bullet containing or carrying an explosive agent, any ballistic knife, any multiburst trigger activator, any nunchaku, any short-barreled shotgun, any short-barreled rifle, any metal knuckles, any belt buckle knife, any leaded cane, any zip gun, any shuriken, any unconventional pistol, any lipstick case knife, any cane sword, any shobi-zue, any air gauge knife, any writing pen knife, any metal military practice handgrenade or metal replica handgrenade, or any instrument or weapon of the kind commonly known as a blackjack, slungshot, billy, sandclub, sap, or sandbag.

    1. Re:Shurikens are illegal in California by RMH101 · · Score: 1

      Mod up. Looks like Security did him a favour.

  138. No, it wouldn't by CaptainZapp · · Score: 1

    Do you think that argument would be accepted by the border guards anywhere (except maybe Netherlands ;-)?

    I guess you where kidding, but for everybody else here goes: As opposed to popular believe (especially in the States) controled substances are not legal in the Netherlands. From trusty Wikipedia:

    Cannabis remains a controlled substance in the Netherlands and both possession and production for personal use are still misdemeanors, punishable by fine. Coffee shops are also technically illegal according to the statutes but, as has been said, are flourishing nonetheless. However, a policy of non-enforcement has led to a situation where reliance upon non-enforcement has become common, and because of this the courts have ruled against the government when individual cases were prosecuted.

    So no, you can't bring you stash on a private plane to Holland.

    --
    ich bin der musikant

    mit taschenrechner in der hand

    kraftwerk

  139. Give 'im the ol' latex glove treatment by WinstonWolfIT · · Score: 0

    That'll learn the pompous ass.

  140. 'Tries to sneak' by dugeen · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Observe how the headline places Jobs, who for once is the innocent victim, in the role of the malefactor.

  141. Tech news. by old+dr+omr · · Score: 1

    Why is this story on SlashDot anyway? This is more like celebrity trivia.

  142. Shocking by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    to hear that the rules don't apply to the filthy rich.

  143. osaka is a public airport by daithesong · · Score: 1

    if a hypothetical passenger for a private plane passes through public secured areas on the way to their plane, it's reasonable to put them under the same restrictions as everyone for access to that public area. they might be robbed on the way to their plane. I have no idea what the boarding arrangements for private planes are in Osaka or elsewhere. I'm not that rich.

  144. This always happens... by asylumx · · Score: 1

    You ship Jobs overseas and then you can never get them back!

  145. this needs to be louder than just in my head.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i apologize for the simplicity of the sentiment; what a douche!

    carry on.

  146. Inside the System by Phaid · · Score: 1

    The rule is not that you can't bring a weapon aboard an airplane, it's that you can't take a weapon through security and into the gate area. The reason should be obvious: if different rules applied to passengers on different types of airplanes, then a person flying on e.g. a private jet could bring a weapon through security and hand it to someone who is flying on a commercial airliner. I'm sure some airports keep general aviation isolated from the airlines, but as the article states, "The airport doesn’t have separate boarding arrangements for private-jet users". So whether or not Jobs was really involved in such an incident, all of this outrage is silly.

  147. fake by AnalogBrain · · Score: 2, Informative

    Apple has already issued a statement denying this story as "pure fiction." Amazing how much we want to believe rumors like this, though I did hear that something similar happened with Richard Stallman and a katana.

  148. goddamnit by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

    I picked the wrong day to quit throwing stars.

  149. Re:and if he tried that usa he may be in jail and by SETIGuy · · Score: 1

    You may not get searched, but the pilot would be in violation if he operates under FAR Part 135 (Operating requirements: Commuter and on demand operations and rules governing persons on board such aircraft) and would potentially lose his certificate if you carried a accessible dangerous weapon or explosives aboard. If he can legitimately claim operating under part 91 (i.e. you didn't "hire" him, but are paying part of the cost of the flight) he would be OK. But if he runs an air taxi service, that wouldn't fly. Whether the FAA has the authority to search bags or passengers during a ramp check, I don't know. They probably do. I don't know if attempting to bring a weapon aboard a Part 135 flight is a felony or not.

  150. Re:and if he tried that usa he may be in jail and by SETIGuy · · Score: 1

    Sorry about that. In part 135, the pilot can authorize people to carry weapons. It when someone brings aboard a weapon without the pilot's knowledge or authorization that there is a violation.

  151. Toto, we're not in Kansas anymore by PeterWone · · Score: 1

    I have been in a Qantas flight, departing Australia for some stop-over en route to Europe, and as usual they played a recorded message about Australian smoking laws, and how there wasn't a smoking section because smoking was not permitted anywhere in the plane at any time during the journey. The moment they got out of Australian airspace they turned the non-smoking sign off and announced you could smoke in the smoking section at the rear of the plane. I daresay that Japan being a sovereign power can declare and enforce that the inside of a plane is subject to Japanese law while it's in Japanese territory, and anyone who doesn't like that had best not land in Japan. In respect of getting things onto your small plane without government interference, the trick is to load your luggage at a domestic airport and fly to an international airport for a customs stopover. They generally don't search outbound traffic unless you're suspected of something. You might get the dogs but they're just after drugs, which presumably you don't have.

  152. Denied by Apple, not confirmed by airport by Kyusaku+Natsume · · Score: 1

    This is more gossip trying to become an urban legend more than anything else.

    If Jobs went to Japan around the times of the Obon festivities when everything everywhere is more crowded than normal, he really does like Japan enough that he will be back again, shurikens or not. After all, have too many amazing places that even Jobs with all his money cannot buy.Kyoto

    --
    Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
  153. 1986 Machine gun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    a limit on machine guns made before 1986 is effectively a ban on private ownership for those under 45. Everyone else was too young to purchase a machine gun to get grandfathered in. These days a $1000 automatic firearm built in the 80s is worth around $20k-30k on the open market. If machine gun ownership were free, then we could buy any machine gun. There is no real difference between a 1985 firearm and a 1995 firearm, but the law makes it clear that you much be a police officer to have the latter.