Slashdot Mirror


TSA: Confiscating Aluminum Foil and Watching Out For Solar Powered Bombs

schwit1 writes "If you think confiscating aluminum foil to prevent a solar powered bomb attack on a plane is a waste of time, don't blame the TSA agent. According to a former employee most of the security people agree with you. Instead, we need to hold accountable the people sending down such ridiculous orders. From the article: 'Ridiculous restrictions and the TSA have become nearly synonymous in the post-9/11 airport, and as new, improbable terrorist plots come to light, we will likely continue to be burdened with new, absurd rules. But our best bet is to take the frustration toward the TSA agent confiscating our over-sized liquids, and re-direct it to the people at TSA headquarters who are being paid the big bucks to make the rules — the ones who make the call as to whether our toothpaste is verboten and whether our shoes will need extra screening.'"

289 comments

  1. *Puts on tinfoil hat* by mattventura · · Score: 5, Funny

    Oh wait....

    (Cue tinfoil vs aluminum foil pedants)

    1. Re:*Puts on tinfoil hat* by mrbester · · Score: 3, Insightful

      *Aluminium*

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
    2. Re: *Puts on tinfoil hat* by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 1

      Don't they know you're supposed to grind it to dust with your nail file and burn it to melt the frame?

      What are they teaching you kids in school these days?

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    3. Re: *Puts on tinfoil hat* by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      I've always wondered why they conficate nail files at the security checkpoint. Thanks for clearing that up!

    4. Re:*Puts on tinfoil hat* by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      I wish everyone would just go back to the original name "alumium" and end this tomayto/tomahto rubbish once and for all.

    5. Re:*Puts on tinfoil hat* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      I wish everyone would just go back to the original name "alumium" and end this tomayto/tomahto rubbish once and for all.

      Well, the discoverer got to name it, and he finally settled on aluminium, which is now the international standard name.
      http://www.worldwidewords.org/articles/aluminium.htm

    6. Re:*Puts on tinfoil hat* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, and while we're at it let's all just adopt the Rankine temperature scale so we don't have all this Celsius/Fahrenheit BS. And "smoots" for units of length since feet/meters are dumb.

    7. Re:*Puts on tinfoil hat* by Martin+Blank · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That site appears to have it backwards. Davy settled on "aluminum" by the time he published Elements of Chemical Philosophy in 1812 (the year your link claims was when he settled on an ending of -ium. Wikipedia includes a quote from the book.

      "This substance appears to contain a peculiar metal, but as yet Aluminum has not been obtained in a perfectly free state, though alloys of it with other metalline substances have been procured sufficiently distinct to indicate the probable nature of alumina."

      The quote is visible from a scanned copy at this link

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    8. Re:*Puts on tinfoil hat* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They need a lot, so they can foil all of the terrorists.

    9. Re:*Puts on tinfoil hat* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My car gets 40 rods to the hogshead and that's the way I likes it.

    10. Re: *Puts on tinfoil hat* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chewing gum too. Can't have the foil from that.
      Make note of how many TSA monkeys are chompin their cuds.
      *Neat Trick; next time wrap your penis in foil before boarding. Remember, THEY have to remove it. Just tell them you're keeping it fresh for a blowjob from the flight attendant.

    11. Re:*Puts on tinfoil hat* by flyneye · · Score: 2

      Actually, I have every reason to believe it contains Magnesium as well as traces of Titanium and other adulterants brought about by the recycling process.
      Technically, it should be an Alloy Foil.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    12. Re:*Puts on tinfoil hat* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't that be "Magnesum", "Titanum" and "Adulterum" -- oh, wait.

    13. Re:*Puts on tinfoil hat* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You just don't get it.
      They've been putting tin in aluminium foil for years now. It's a widely believed conspiracy.

    14. Re:*Puts on tinfoil hat* by tompaulco · · Score: 2

      They need a lot, so they can foil all of the terrorists.

      Not really. If they just took the foil off of a stick of gum, they would have enough to wrap every terrorist they have caught in 10 layers of foil, and still have enough to cover a stick of gum.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    15. Re:*Puts on tinfoil hat* by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      You're forgetting about Ferrum (Fe) and Plumbum (Pb). "Aluminum" fits in just fine with these other elements' names.

    16. Re:*Puts on tinfoil hat* by whitroth · · Score: 1

      +1 on the smoots.

      But just remember, 1.8x10^12 furlongs/fortnite isn't just a good idea, it's the Law!

                    mark "units of measurement will always be expressed in the least convenient unit"

    17. Re:*Puts on tinfoil hat* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I have every reason to believe it contains Magnesium as well as traces of Titanium and other adulterants brought about by the recycling process.
      Technically, it should be an Alloy Foil.

      I could actually believe that... one of my 'hobbies' I've been playing with is melting/casting metal, I started with aluminum (because with 2 cats I generate a lot of aluminum cat food cans, and it will melt in the coals of a wood fire (first few times) or a hobby kiln)... I tried to add aluminum foil, and one of those aluminum 'salad/food' containers you get at salad bars, etc... and OMG, never again - the cat food cans smoke a bit (lining in the can) and minor flame (whats left of the label/glue that I couldn't just peel off easily), but then just melt... those foil containers (or just foil)? *Bursts into major fscking flames* in the kiln... and yeah, kinda like you'd expect from magnesium, not aluminum.

    18. Re: *Puts on tinfoil hat* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And for velocity furlongs per fortnight (we did this at MIT and it took the instructor two weeks to figure it out)

    19. Re:*Puts on tinfoil hat* by flyneye · · Score: 1

      +1 outside the box.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    20. Re:*Puts on tinfoil hat* by flyneye · · Score: 1

      For giggles you should google Aluminum alloy percentages.
      6061 probably melts best and is usually the type you will find if it has been welded anywhere on the piece. Kind of soft, lotta zinc.
      7050 and 7075 are the most popular around machine shops,hard stuff, the only dif is 7075 has a bit of zirconium the 7050 doesn't.
      Machine shop turnings would melt nice, again the caveat is; there may be other metals present in sweepings.
      Recycle Al from scrap, ungraded, lowering the price, will be what winds up being foil. Mixed Nuts.
      Makes me wonder how much beryllium winds up in it...

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    21. Re:*Puts on tinfoil hat* by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      and still have enough to cover a large stick of gum.

      FTFY

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  2. Won't somebody please think of the tinfoil hats? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The TSA already has half the world paranoid as to their intentions, and now they've taken away people's ability to put on a trusty tinfoil hat? This is the step too far.

  3. They still have not caught a single terrorist. by khasim · · Score: 5, Informative

    The TSA still has not caught a single terrorist trying to get on a plane.

    It's all security theatre.

    1. Re:They still have not caught a single terrorist. by tlambert · · Score: 5, Funny

      The TSA still has not caught a single terrorist trying to get on a plane.

      It's all security theatre.

      The've all been married?

    2. Re:They still have not caught a single terrorist. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Of course they've caught terrorist!

      You just don't hear about it.... because.... because it's classified.

      It's classified because... if the terrorist planners knew that their plot had failed then they would try again. If you just get rid of the ones doing it, then the plane is safe, the planners assume it's a successful mission, and everyone goes home safe and sound. Do you want the terrorists to make a new plot instead? Why do you hate freedom and democracy?

    3. Re:They still have not caught a single terrorist. by Travis+Mansbridge · · Score: 1

      If I may play Devil's advocate.. isn't aluminum foil one of two ingredients in a simple, household-items explosive? I'm not sure why you would need to carry it on a plane with you, either.

    4. Re:They still have not caught a single terrorist. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      With the other half being a powerful oxidizer. You can make an explosive out of: powerful oxidizer + just about anything.

    5. Re:They still have not caught a single terrorist. by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      Actually they keep it a secret because that way they can catch more terrorists. If the terrorists would know how many of their colleagues have failed, they would stop trying and therefore wouldn't get caught by the TSA!

    6. Re:They still have not caught a single terrorist. by paziek · · Score: 1

      Maybe that's because terrorist would know that he would be caught, so he is sitting on his ass figuring out any other way to get around current security?

    7. Re:They still have not caught a single terrorist. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is all a huge psychology test.... how much sh!!t wil Americans swallow before the 2nd American Revolution breaks out. However, this time, the nation will be enslaved by the regime it spawned. You get what you voted for, sooner or later.

    8. Re:They still have not caught a single terrorist. by dargaud · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If I may play Devil's advocate.. isn't aluminum foil one of two ingredients in a simple, household-items explosive? I'm not sure why you would need to carry it on a plane with you, either.

      - aluminium powder rather than simply foil
      - to wrap your sandwich ? Since nowadays low-cost airlines don't even feed you on board.

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    9. Re:They still have not caught a single terrorist. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good point. We should all be grateful to the TSA for ensuring that terrorists keep trying to blow up planes.

    10. Re:They still have not caught a single terrorist. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      actually they keep it a secret so they can keep getting paid :) Just like the FBI keeps giving retards fake bombs to blow up.

    11. Re:They still have not caught a single terrorist. by LostMonk · · Score: 1

      In 10 years no one tried to break into my house by forcing the door open -- I see no need to lock it now.

    12. Re:They still have not caught a single terrorist. by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 2

      If I may play Devil's advocate.. isn't aluminum foil one of two ingredients in a simple, household-items explosive? I'm not sure why you would need to carry it on a plane with you, either.

      Flour is an explosive ingredient, (create a fine mist of flour then ignite it) while it's not going to take out the side of your ride, it would cause a very decent devision. It was a science project of mine in Junior High school, as I'm sure many have seen.

      I could mention a very easy to transport, freely available and a very destructive combo as I'm sure many here can do the same, and you know were not the only ones who know.

      Something else nobody hasn't brought up (all have been explosive potentials) are the toxic gases, that are so much easier to do.

      One reason I like reading /. is when something questionable is posted everybody downloads it (call it safety in numbers) long ago there was a post to a file that's worth a read "Massive Chemistry and explosives book collection" https://www.google.com/#q=%22M...
      I can't find the org link on /. but I'm searching by the file name. I mention it as it's been out for many years (2008 at least), I can't imagine it being on a watch list.

    13. Re:They still have not caught a single terrorist. by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why doesn't he just suicide-bomb the TSA line? Wouldn't that cause enough terror?

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    14. Re:They still have not caught a single terrorist. by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2, Informative

      You could use it to make thermite too, but the process of preparing from foil it wouldn't be practical on a plane - it needs to be finely powdered.

    15. Re:They still have not caught a single terrorist. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think what you mean to say is,

      In 10 years no one tried to break into my house by forcing the door open -- I see no need to rape my children when they try to enter anymore.

    16. Re:They still have not caught a single terrorist. by Barefoot+Monkey · · Score: 1

      ...wow. You're right. The TSA line is relatively vulnerable, and is a more effective target in the first place. There's no reason why a bomber intending to cause terror would even want to get on the plane itself. Hijackers would certainly want to get on the plane, but they wouldn't be using bombs.

    17. Re:They still have not caught a single terrorist. by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Nah, foil works perfectly fine. I think it was back in grade 7 or 8, they had someone come in and show us how to make our own homemade explosives, and explained carefully how to do it. This would be going back almost ~15ish years before the fear of *insert terrorist* would try to use this to blow anything up. Funny that, I think it was a year or so after that we had the first round of natives trying to blow up sour gas pipes and wellheads using the same method here in Canada.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    18. Re:They still have not caught a single terrorist. by kasperd · · Score: 2

      Why doesn't he just suicide-bomb the TSA line? Wouldn't that cause enough terror?

      In Russia suicide terrorists bomb airports.

      --

      Do you care about the security of your wireless mouse?
    19. Re:They still have not caught a single terrorist. by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Iron powder alone will also explode given the right conditions, fuel/air explosions are quite a problem in both flour and steel mills. A pile of thermite powder will burn intensely but will not explode, in a pile of thermite the aluminium "steals" the oxygen from the iron oxide rather than the air. Thermite requires a high temperature ignition source such as a magnesium "fuse" or an oxy-torch to start the reaction, where as iron or flour mixed with air just needs an ordinary match.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    20. Re:They still have not caught a single terrorist. by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Since 9/11 the fear is less about what terrorist will do to the plane and more about what they will do with the plane.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    21. Re:They still have not caught a single terrorist. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Umm... wouldn't them stopping to blow us up accomplish the alleged goal?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    22. Re:They still have not caught a single terrorist. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HA, good point!

    23. Re:They still have not caught a single terrorist. by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      In Soviet Russia, airports... uh...

      Nevermind.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    24. Re:They still have not caught a single terrorist. by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 0

      Since 9/11 the fear is less about what fear will fear to the fear and more about what fear will fear fear fear fear.

      Feared that fear you.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    25. Re:They still have not caught a single terrorist. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Considering how many people are usually lined up there because that's the chokepoint of the whole ordeal... yeah, that would be a pretty good (and quite soft) target.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    26. Re:They still have not caught a single terrorist. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Fffft. In Russia. That's a moment in the ticker line on CNN.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    27. Re:They still have not caught a single terrorist. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      How inconvenient is using your key compared to the threat of someone breaking in?

      Can you say the same for the TSA?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    28. Re:They still have not caught a single terrorist. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that's the joke.

    29. Re:They still have not caught a single terrorist. by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      The alleged goal, yes. Their actual goal? Who knows what that is or if they even have one.

    30. Re:They still have not caught a single terrorist. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The TSA still has not caught a single terrorist trying to get on a plane.

      It's all security theatre.

      You think? A guy behind me in the "body scanner" made it through with a box cutter in his pocket.

      He handed it to the TSA and asked "Am I allowed to have this?". TSA didn't seem concerned. They took it from him and sent him on his way.

      90% of what the TSA does is a farce.

    31. Re:They still have not caught a single terrorist. by Coditor · · Score: 1

      No, it's more like Security Dark Comedy. If I had a decent script, I'd write a musical comedy based on the TSA.

    32. Re:They still have not caught a single terrorist. by gIobaljustin · · Score: 1

      That's not a very good devil's advocate, since freedom is more important than security. The government should get its thugs out of airports completely.

      --
      Thank you Dave Raggett
    33. Re:They still have not caught a single terrorist. by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      A while back Bruce Schnieir had his "Movie Plot Terrorism" contests. One of the early ones was to come up with a plot that could only be reasonably stopped by banning some innocuous household item. I found out a bit late to make an entry, and he changed the rules the next year to something else.... but my idea for an entry basically involved several people dropping sacks of flour from building roofs to create a sudden flour cloud in a square and then ignite the whole area into one big fireball.

      There.... now ban....um....sacks of flour?

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    34. Re:They still have not caught a single terrorist. by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      How about nails? It'd be pretty easy to use common nails to make caltops (basically two nails bent and welded or twisted together so that a pointy side is always facing up). Then the terrists could throw those onto busy freeways, causing big pile-ups and choking our transit arteries.

      Are they going to ban nails now?

    35. Re:They still have not caught a single terrorist. by timeOday · · Score: 1

      The TSA still has not caught a single terrorist trying to get on a plane.

      Why do you say that? Here's how many guns the TSA caught at a few airports last year:

      (ATL) - 111 Guns Discovered

      (DFW) - 96 Guns Discovered

      (IAH) - 68 Guns Discovered

      (PHX) - 66 Guns Discovered

      (DEN) - 51 Guns Discovered

      Your assumption is that none of those people had terrorist intentions. But why do you assume it? The fact is they took actions that would have empowered them to take over the plane.

    36. Re:They still have not caught a single terrorist. by oodaloop · · Score: 1

      The TSA is as resposible for "catching" terrorists as the deadbolt lock on your door is for catching burglars. TSA is not an investigative agency. They prevent dangerous articles from being carried on planes (among other things), and stop thousands of such items every week. I'm not a fan of TSA, but at least criticize them for applicable things.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    37. Re:They still have not caught a single terrorist. by TheCarp · · Score: 2

      They can't ban nails, but they may need to be individually serial numbered, stored in locked containers, and their final driving place recorded. Of course, this only works if we institute licenses for the purchase and possession of nails.

      Obviously, of course, there are many nails out there in middle class white suburban homes, so when found in such places, we can simply warn people about them. However, we know urban minorities have no excuse to have any at home, so we can nail them to the wall!

      Gotta stay safe you know.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    38. Re:They still have not caught a single terrorist. by Chelloveck · · Score: 2

      I've been saying for a decade now that the very fact that there hasn't been a bombing of a security checkpoint line demonstrates that there certainly isn't a legion of crazed bombers trying to take down the country. Hit one security line and you'll bring American passenger travel to a screaming halt for a few days. Hit two lines and you'll shut it down for weeks. We'll piss ourselves trying to figure out how to check people for bombs before getting to the checkpoint. Don't just hit big, juicy targets like LAX and JFK -- hit a few random podunk airports too, places that no one would bother to bomb. Do that enough times so that the TSA can't effectively concentrate their defenses around the next likely target. The goal of terrorism isn't bodies, it's terror. A lower body count can be more effective if you're showing people that they can't expect to be safe anywhere.

      And until this starts happening, let's just admit that the TSA is a bunch of hokum and get back to some semblance of sanity.

      --
      Chelloveck
      I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
    39. Re:They still have not caught a single terrorist. by gewalker · · Score: 1

      I think that the TSA would advertise far and wide the successful detection and capture of a terrorist, as the "TSA has not captured a single terrorist" statements has been raised repeatedly. So yeah, I think it safe to conclude that the gun-toting people involved were not terrorists.

    40. Re:They still have not caught a single terrorist. by psithurism · · Score: 1

      Thats a good reason to ban aluminum foil, but they were actually just confiscating the boxes so you couldn't slowly saw the pilots to death over the course of a long flight with the dull edge that cuts sheets of foil for you. You could still blow up the plane with what was in the box once they confiscated it.

      As for that particular explosion, I'm not ready to run the search here at work, but I recall the formula being aluminum foil + some liquids, which they already confiscate. I also remember the explosions from any reasonable quantity of the stuff to be so small as to be uninteresting to teenage boys.

    41. Re:They still have not caught a single terrorist. by gizmo2199 · · Score: 1

      This is a useless statistic, as it's LEGAL to carry a gun on a US airplane, with certain restrictions obviously. What kinds of guns are these? Were they loaded?
      It's like saying the TSA discovered 1,000 bags of potato chips.

      --
      This Sig does not Exist.
    42. Re:They still have not caught a single terrorist. by Travis+Mansbridge · · Score: 1

      No, not the powder, and foil seems like a poor choice of sandwich wrap considering all of the airtight alternatives.

    43. Re:They still have not caught a single terrorist. by eliphalet · · Score: 1

      You could use aluminum foil, lye and water to make hydrogen gas. The airline supplies the water on board..

    44. Re:They still have not caught a single terrorist. by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      That was in the baggage claim. No security line there.

    45. Re:They still have not caught a single terrorist. by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      Or at least not a legion of *competent* bombers. I think the evidence supports the thesis that most terrorists are kind of dumb.

    46. Re:They still have not caught a single terrorist. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Problem solved by reinforcing the pilot door and changing the passengers' attitudes. In the cases where people have managed to get explosives on the plane with intent to use them, they've been stopped by passengers. Moreover, a bomb is specifically a threat to the plane, rather than using the plane as a threat.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    47. Re:They still have not caught a single terrorist. by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Terrorists could easily kill more people in a different place rather than a plane. However, the prospect of 100 people cascading out of the sky is more terrifying than 100 people getting killed on the ground. So a "Terrorist" would want to maximize the terror by blowing up a plane, rather than blowing up a security line.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    48. Re:They still have not caught a single terrorist. by Patent+Lover · · Score: 1

      So he wouldn't just blow something else up instead? There are no terrorists. The US has been chasing the bogeyman since 9/11. Sad.

    49. Re:They still have not caught a single terrorist. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is only limited to low-cost airlines? When I have the choice between flying any major American Airline or flying an airline from elsewhere, I'll take the other airline because in my personal experience, US-based airlines just have no service. Last year, I had the choice to fly either AA or COPA from Panama to Florida. even though tickets were EXACTLY the same price (to the cent), AA didn't provide food service, while COPA did.

      Another case in point: I flew Delta from Michigan to Georgia in business class and didn't even get a meal (granted, not a big plane, but it was still a jet and I was in business, the least I should be able to expect for the extra money is a damned meal).

      Another case in point: I was booked on AA to fly from Detroit to Doha via Chicago and Amman but there was a little storm, so AA cancelled all flights citing weather as the reason (United and Delta kept flying so I wasn't taking that as an excuse and had the AA counter get me a comp ticket on KLM via Amsterdam so I could get the hell out of the US). ...In any case, I doubt my situations are unique, and it has taught me one valuable lesson: avoid flying on US-based airlines if at all possible, because their quality of service is rubbish, and if they want my business they'll just have to improve.

    50. Re:They still have not caught a single terrorist. by OurDailyFred · · Score: 1

      I seem to recall a or (the) winning plot was an airliner crash that was solved because one of the investigators noticed a particular type of butterfly - not often seen - was quite plentiful fluttering around one window of the airliner. It turned out the butterfly was attracted to a certain chemical (sodium something sticks in my mind) and that lead them to swab the surfaces which then lead to the eyeglass frames of the passenger in the seat by the window.

      Oh - google is your friend:

      https://www.schneier.com/blog/...

      and

      http://www.slate.com/articles/...

      You're welcome!

      F.

      --
      If your only tool is a hammer, you'll approach every problem as if it were a nail. - Abraham Maslow
    51. Re:They still have not caught a single terrorist. by graphius · · Score: 1

      This is possibly the most insightful comment I have ever seen on slashdot.

  4. And other fun, restricted items! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://youtu.be/luNfghUnvFg

  5. Enough with the security theater! by Firethorn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Personally, I think any TSA employee in charge of TSA procedures needs to go through said procedure/screening every day before work.

    Actually, they need to be fired and replaced by people with proper risk management training, as opposed to risk avoidance.

    Risk Avoidance: Do everything in your power to prevent some risk, no matter the cost
    Risk Management: Assess the risk, consider the liklihood of the risk, the damage it will cost if it happens, then look at mitigations, how likely they are to work, how much they'll cost, etc... And make the cheapest decision. IE if on average the mitigation will prevent more loss than it costs, you impliment it. Otherwise you just accept the risk.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
    1. Re:Enough with the security theater! by flaming+error · · Score: 2

      Well, you're absolutely right. Perhaps things could actually work this way were it not for news media that has no interest in putting things in context and a populace that ooh look, Justin Beeber, pretty, shiny.

    2. Re:Enough with the security theater! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You would need to fire the entire workforce. All the screeners at TSA are programmed in the risk-avoidance mentality. And it's pretty much the mindset of the entire DHS...

    3. Re:Enough with the security theater! by hedgemage · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Its time to privatize the TSA. If it were up to the airlines to contract with security firms, you'd have logical risk management made through the lens of monetary cost. Make the airlines assume the risk for liability if their security is crap, and they will find a good happy medium between the extremes. I'm not normally a small-government guy, but in this area, it simply makes sense.

    4. Re:Enough with the security theater! by Firethorn · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It can't just be the media though, as the media has been lambasting the TSA as too expensive for negligible effect for quite some time now.

      I think what it's going to take is a new president to replace the head of the TSA with somebody else to force change from the top down.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    5. Re:Enough with the security theater! by CaptQuark · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This has been an option since 2003. The TSA was put into place after 9/11 but airports were supposed to be allowed to return to private screening after two years. New legislation passed last year supposedly makes it easier to replace TSA agents with private contractors although few airports have done so.

      Currently sixteen airports use private contractors instead of TSA agents. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03...

      ~~

    6. Re:Enough with the security theater! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Risk Management: Assess the risk, consider the liklihood of the risk, the damage it will cost if it happens, then look at mitigations, how likely they are to work, how much they'll cost, etc... And make the cheapest decision. IE if on average the mitigation will prevent more loss than it costs, you impliment it. Otherwise you just accept the risk.

      Look, if we don't spend $2T in wars to prevent a $1B loss of real estate every few decades due to asshats getting lucky with hijacked 767s, what will the defense contractors and their lobbyists do?

      Please, won't somebody think of the children of the lobbyists for the defense contractors?

    7. Re:Enough with the security theater! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The head of the TSA is not an elected official--if he were, we'd have replaced him by now.

      Why the hell would the TSA care if a week of the 24/7 news cycle were focused on him for a week?

    8. Re:Enough with the security theater! by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 2

      That's not really the same thing. Airports can hire their own screening personnel, but they still "have to follow T.S.A. guidelines and fall under its supervision". All the policy decisions continue to be made by the TSA; the only difference is that they are carried out by private contractors rather than federal employees.

      The GP's proposal was to leave all the security decisions up to the airlines, which would assume full liability in the event of a breach. The TSA wouldn't be involved at any point in the process.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    9. Re:Enough with the security theater! by captainpanic · · Score: 2

      Yes, but while it is a good idea, it could also be political suicide. If a politician is the reason that the security/safety rules became more reasonable, and if an accident happens soon after (no matter how unlikely), that will immediately be blamed on that politician.

      While it is incredibly annoying (and expensive!) to have these TSA screenings, it is better for the political careers of all those in charge to steer away from the topic, or to make the rules even more strict. Better safe than sorry.

      Btw, in reply to the OP: many citizens demand risk avoidance, not risk management. Screw the costs - the costs are paid by someone else (they think).

    10. Re:Enough with the security theater! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is that it's the exact same media that would hang out to dry whichever TSA high-rank official happened to loosen up the security procedures and enforcement and then something bad happened.

      It's all his fault! Shame on him for trying to improve the travel experience of passengers and save millions upon million of dollars! Can't you see that X number of people would be alive today if he hadn't cut back on our Safety! not to mention the hundreds of TSA agents that lost their job! It's all corporate greed and rampant capitalism!

      And the cycle would start again...

    11. Re:Enough with the security theater! by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Hey, is it our fault the Russians didn't wanna play anymore? Go find a new buddy to play your schoolyard bully games with but leave your population alone!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    12. Re:Enough with the security theater! by gIobaljustin · · Score: 1

      The government thugs should just get out of airports completely. Freedom is more important than safety, and government thugs shouldn't be harassing anyone.

      --
      Thank you Dave Raggett
    13. Re:Enough with the security theater! by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      I think what it's going to take is a new president to replace the head of the TSA with somebody else to force change from the top down.

      The problem is that any President or other politician who steps forward to oppose the TSA will be labeled as "soft on terrorism." If another terrorist attack happens, they would then be held responsible and voted out of office. (If they hadn't voted against X, we might have stopped it.) They might even give their future opponents ammo against them without any attack. ("Do you love America? Congressman Smith doesn't! He voted against security measures that keep you and your family safe. Vote Jones in 2016!") If there's one thing politicians love more than anything, it is staying in power. So I doubt more than a handful (who are powerless to actually make the changes needed) will step forward.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    14. Re:Enough with the security theater! by j-turkey · · Score: 1

      Personally, I think any TSA employee in charge of TSA procedures needs to go through said procedure/screening every day before work.

      Actually, they need to be fired and replaced by people with proper risk management training, as opposed to risk avoidance.

      Risk Avoidance: Do everything in your power to prevent some risk, no matter the cost Risk Management: Assess the risk, consider the liklihood of the risk, the damage it will cost if it happens, then look at mitigations, how likely they are to work, how much they'll cost, etc... And make the cheapest decision. IE if on average the mitigation will prevent more loss than it costs, you impliment it. Otherwise you just accept the risk.

      I agree with you in principle, however, this ignores how politics have played into the equation. What made me realize this was when the TSA proposed a change to the rules to allow small knives (up to 2.36") on planes again. At the time, this seemed like an exercise in proper risk management to me. However, there was an uproar among citizens and flight attendants. For (what appears to be) strictly political reasons, these proposed changes were cancelled.

      It seems that the public suffers from a strange dichotomy where many of us are critical of security theater, but we still want security theater. Many want to believe that the government offers a great big security blanket that will never let anything bad happen to us. I'm sure that you and I know that there is no such thing, and the cost of this illusion is extremely high (both financial and to that of liberty).

      --

      -Turkey

    15. Re:Enough with the security theater! by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      That would be even worse. Like now there would only be security theatre, but passengers would have the option to pay extra to speed the process up / get their bomb on board.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    16. Re:Enough with the security theater! by Alioth · · Score: 1

      That's precisely what happened in the UK. Go to somewhere like Liverpool Airport and you can jump the security queue by paying a fee called "fast track".

    17. Re:Enough with the security theater! by rahvin112 · · Score: 2

      Actually, they have to receive permission from the TSA to do so. As soon as it appeared that there was going to be a trend of many airports requesting permission the TSA suspended the ability to ask for permission to "study" the issue. Since that point it's been impossible for any airport to request permission for private screening. Until Congress removes the requirement that the TSA must approve an airport switching to private screening I can guarantee they won't approve anyone switching regardless of the reason.

    18. Re:Enough with the security theater! by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      "Its time to privatize the TSA. "

      Irrelevant, since any private replacement would have to uphold the same policies.Privatizing does have the advantage of larger payments from the Federal government going to fewer recipients (note: not an actual advantage).

    19. Re:Enough with the security theater! by darkonc · · Score: 1
      Consider that Al Qiaida killed about as many people in 2001 as drunk drivers kill Every couple months.

      If this was about keeping us and our kids safe, We'd be paying a couple billion a month to MADD.

      Personally, I think any TSA employee in charge of TSA procedures needs to go through said procedure/screening every day before work.

      Actually, they need to be fired and replaced by people with proper risk management training, as opposed to risk avoidance.

      Risk Avoidance: Do everything in your power to prevent some risk, no matter the cost

      Risk Management: Assess the risk, consider the liklihood of the risk, the damage it will cost if it happens, then look at mitigations, how likely they are to work, how much they'll cost, etc... And make the cheapest decision. IE if on average the mitigation will prevent more loss than it costs, you impliment it. Otherwise you just accept the risk.

      --
      Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
    20. Re:Enough with the security theater! by bugs2squash · · Score: 1

      The vast majority of people only fly rarely, they don't care how inconvenienced travelers are.

      --
      Nullius in verba
    21. Re:Enough with the security theater! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It can't just be the media though, as the media has been lambasting the TSA as too expensive for negligible effect for quite some time now.

      Too expensive and ineffective: These problems just drive those in charge to cut more corners to save cost and increase invasive searches and further restrict what can be taken through the checkpoints. These aren't the sorts of complaints that restore our rights unless the end result is total abolishment of the system.

    22. Re:Enough with the security theater! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I pretty much agree...would like to ponder it a bit.

      The 100% Doctrine, sometimes called The Cheney Doctrine, is a risk avoidance. The idea is, if there is a 1% chance a terrorists might acquire or use a weapon of mass destruction against us the best strategy is to treat it as a 100% possibility. If you are talking about smuggling a nuke into the US, pretty good strategy. Does hijacking a plane, with the potential for several thousand deaths qualify? 10,000? 500? The USA has not had this discussion with the public.

  6. They don't care about real dangerous things by NixieBunny · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Story: I walked into the Detroit airport a couple years ago while wearing the Video Coat. The nice TSA people marked my entire family's boarding passes SSSS. They inspected us thoroughly, including the eight 5 AH Chinese LiPo battery packs used to power the coat. These are the no-protection-board version with the factory connectors that let you plug two batteries together like BIG 9V batteries. They will happily put out 100 amps.

    Had we been 'the type', we could have started four fires in the cabin that day.

    --
    The determined Real Programmer can write Fortran programs in any language.
    1. Re:They don't care about real dangerous things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well I would just use my lighter or matchbook to do that. Most of the time the lighter is detected, but the matchbook isn't.

    2. Re:They don't care about real dangerous things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well I would just use my lighter or matchbook to do that.

      For a moment I thought you said you'd use a macbook to start a fire.

    3. Re:They don't care about real dangerous things by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Well, here's the catch: In theory, every laptop has everything you need to blow shit up with its battery. But you can't outlaw laptops since it would bother the people that matter.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:They don't care about real dangerous things by gIobaljustin · · Score: 1

      In fact, they shouldn't care about *anything*; the TSA needs to be destroyed.

      --
      Thank you Dave Raggett
    5. Re:They don't care about real dangerous things by josephtd · · Score: 1

      The people that matter don't fly commercial.

    6. Re:They don't care about real dangerous things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes they do.
      Why do you think politicians rushed to outlaw cell phone calls on the plane as soon as it became legal to have them on throughout the flight?

    7. Re:They don't care about real dangerous things by josephtd · · Score: 1

      Politicians do as they are told by the group I referenced.

  7. This is why I take the train now by IgnorantMotherFucker · · Score: 5, Informative

    Within the US you can take Amtrak. (No "c" in "Amtrak".)

    Don't believe the prices on the Amtrak website. It's a rather lo-budge operation, so they don't have advance purchase pricing available from the site. The site does work correctly for determining where and when you can go, but then go down to the station for your ticket purchase. If you purchase so much as one day in advance, quite likely you can get a discount.

    For example, last I checked, to fly one-way between San Jose, California and Portland, Oregon is about $250. Last Summer I took the Coast Starlight from Diridon Station in San Jose to Union Station in Portland, one day advance purchase for about $80.00.

    My Aunt just recently paid about $250.00 for a round-trip from Spokane, Washington to Portland. With two-week advance purchase, that's $86.00 on Amtrack.

    The trains don't go everywhere they really need to, so there is some chance you'll make part of your trip on an Amtrak bus. That was the case when I travelled from LA to San Jose. Rather oddly, I took a bus from the HUGE train station in downtown LA to Bakersfield, then the train from there to San Jose. However the busses are quite nice.

    Their only "security" is that they want to see your ID when you purchase a ticket. You don't need to show ID when you board the train. There is no X-Ray, no metal detector.

    The seats are spacious, there are lots of 110 VAC power sockets. Most but not all trains have WiFi, however the train itself gets onine via a 3G connection that's shared by the whole train, so they limit downloads to 10 MB and do not permit streaming video at all.

    Because 3G is a cell phone protocol, you can only get online when the train is within range of a cell tower. Sometimes the trains are way out in the sticks so you cannot get online.

    My only gripe is that the food is scanty and very expensive, although it is quite tasty. Pack some sandwiches.

    --
    Please mail me URLs of software employers.
    1. Re:This is why I take the train now by davester666 · · Score: 1

      don't get used to it. The TSA is busy with their roving gangs on transit buses and subways, doing their best Stasi "stop-frisk-identify yourself citizen" routine to everybody in the area.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    2. Re:This is why I take the train now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I live in the Netherlands, they recently (10 years ago?) stopped selling food on the trains. They used to have trollies like stewardesses have, they also sell alcohol.
      Before that when I was a child, they had restaurant cars, where you could go and eat something, mostly it was snacks like sausage rolls and belgium fries.

      10 years ago I went on a trip in Germany, there they still have restaurant cars but they sell proper food on a real plate with steel knife and fork. You can have a snitchel the size of your head and they have many salads, and beer and wine in glasses.

    3. Re:This is why I take the train now by stoploss · · Score: 3, Informative

      Conversely, taking Amtrak any appreciable distance is going to be painful: painfully long and painfully expensive (unless you don't mind spending days sleeping in your chair).

      $1100+, one way, from the middle of the country (say, Omaha) to an endpoint on a different route (say, Miami). Takes about 3 full days to get there, if you're lucky enough to avoid being hit with a 12+ hour stopover someplace. Yes, that price includes roomettes, but like I said: who wants to spend three solid days (again, one way) confined & sleeping in a coach seat? BTW, this is the advance price.

      It would be faster, cheaper, and more relaxing to drive, even if one had to rent a vehicle. Oh, and you can leave whenever you want and stop wherever you want, too.

      Passenger rail in this country is a half-baked solution in search of a problem. This makes me sad, because I would prefer to use rail in order to avoid the TSA. I just can't take a week of additional travel time to do it.

    4. Re:This is why I take the train now by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 2

      The cross-country trains in Sweden are not bad at all. I usually go in first class, which includes a decent plate lunch (well, it tends to run to köttbullar, potatismos, lingon, which isn't all that exciting, but it's not likely to be messed up, either) and all the free fruit, cakes, and coffee/tea I want. It also includes wifi, which works quite well and is not noticeably throttled or otherwise limited.

      An additional bonus is that the toilets in first tend to remain much cleaner for much longer. (I am not that fussy... but prefer not to have to wade through someone else's pee, thanks.)

      And you go direct from downtown Stockholm to downtown $destination_city. In theory, you can fly from Stockholm to Malmö or Copenhagen in less than an hour. In practise--by the time I get all the way out to Arlanda airport (at least an hour from my part of the city), get through checkin/security/boarding/flying/landing/baggage pickup and get from Kastrup (airport) into the downtown of whichever city I'm going to (they face one another across the Øresund, BTW)... well... it seems I've not saved any time or hassle at all by flying. But I have spent more money than I would have for a train ticket.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    5. Re:This is why I take the train now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Conversely, taking Amtrak any appreciable distance is going to be painful: painfully long and painfully expensive (unless you don't mind spending days sleeping in your chair).

      $1100+, one way, from the middle of the country (say, Omaha) to an endpoint on a different route (say, Miami).

      I think we can all be reasonable and agree that getting out of Omaha is worth the price.

    6. Re:This is why I take the train now by kyrsjo · · Score: 1

      They do sell stuff (incl. alcohol) on long distance trains in Norway. Personally I preffer to take the train if going Oslo-Bergen (and pay the 100 NOK (~12 USD) extra for 1st class - which gets you a better seat, access to free newspapers, coffe etc.) - it takes a bit longer than plane, but once you factor in transport to/from airports, the price and time difference is minuscle. And the scenery when crossing the mountains is just fantastic :)

      For longer journeys, there are a ton of cheap airlines covering most of europe (expedia is your friend), and flying within the EU (except UK! they're worse than US, even just for transit...) is comparable to flying domestic in the US - few queues, polite security personell, and generally little hassle.

    7. Re:This is why I take the train now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One can only hope that it stays that way, it seems the TSA is constantly trying to get into new venues to expand the "need" for their services. From what I understand the head of the Amtrak police is the only one to have really stood up to them, I think he actually told them to "go to hell" when they demanded a few things and there was even a case where TSA personnel were banned from a train station. But we all know how quickly that can change.

    8. Re:This is why I take the train now by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Same is true for most of Europe. Trains here get a big boost lately, though it's less for the TSA bull (there's actually little security theater over here unless you plan to go to the US), it's simply convenience.

      Instead of a seat where you feel sardines in a tin, you get seats like those in first class on a plane, you can actually move around as you feel, you can use your phone, your laptop, your ... anything whenever you please, you get internet connection and a power outlet, you actually get to see a bit of a scenery (in Europe, the trains actually pass towns very close, and many are actually quite interesting to look at). Food tends to be expensive, but then again, take with you whatever you please, nobody really cares what you take on board.

      Now that the train companies cooperate internationally, the connections are actually getting pretty swift, they're now starting to do the customs during travel (i.e. you don't even stop at the borders entering/leaving the EU anymore, the officials get in at the station before and leave at the station after the border), they're doing pretty much anything to speed things up because they're trying to compete with planes, and they're getting pretty close. When you take into account the whole ordeal before getting in and after getting off the plane, the difference between train travel and air travel shrinks dramatically. For distances shorter than 1000 miles it's probably faster to go by train now.

      And in Europe, 1000 miles is actually quite a distance!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    9. Re:This is why I take the train now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, but Amtrak sucks once you get west of the Mississppi. For the Northeast through to Chicago on the south, it's just great. Once you cross into the wide expansion of the plains and down into Texas, it gets too sparse for stops. Yes, you can get to the big cities, but getting to more rural towns, even towns of significant size, say 50,000 to 250,000, are restricted to bus.

      That said, the trains themselves are great, and I really wish they would do more in the west and southwest, especially in Texas. If Texas had any brains, they'd develop a their own commuter rail network! And yes, I have looked into that!

    10. Re:This is why I take the train now by havana9 · · Score: 1

      Another big advantage is that if the train engine fails it's a mild nuisance, especially if the train crew manages to coast to the nearest station, so you can wait in the nearby restaurant while a spare engine arrives. Been there, done that.

    11. Re:This is why I take the train now by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      Last I heard, they tried this at some Amtrak stations and were ejected by Amtrak Police.

    12. Re:This is why I take the train now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless of course, your spare engine is a coal engine, (top speed 50 mph) instead of an Amtrak engine (top speed 70 mph), then you start losing your 'window' and other trains take priority (BNSF owns the rail lines, so they get priority if your train isn't where/when it is supposed to be). Then the train doesn't get to the next crew when regulations say the current crew must stop working and you wait in the sticks for a new crew to be bussed to you the 3 hours from their stop to your location, this compounds a few times and you end up about half a day late and have run out of diapers for your toddler.

      Been there done that.

    13. Re:This is why I take the train now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1000 miles is quite a distance anywhere. It's roughly the distance from St. Louis (south metro suburb) to New York City metro (suburb on Long Island).

      I drove that route for a vacation in 2012, and it cost me about $200 for fuel and $150 for an overnight stay at a town near the border between Ohio and Pennsylvania. Total drive time across two days was around 20 hours, one way. On the return trip, I took some side trips to other things I wanted to see, so it used more fuel (+$300) and required two extra nights in hotels (+$300). $350 one-way for me and my two passengers is a damned good price. Considering that this was a vacation, not a business trip, the time "wasted" driving wasn't really wasted. It took me 8 hours of driving just to unwind from the daily stress I get from work. Cost per person, one-way: 350/3 = $116.67. Cost per person, round-trip (including side-trips): 950/3 = $316.67.

      Flying (at the time) cost about $300, one-way, per person, plus the hassle of dealing with luggage (I drive a large enough vehicle that space was not an issue for the drive), plus the hassle of dealing with the TSA. But you get there in 2.5 hours of flight time (you actually land in NYC 3.5 hours after takeoff due to time zones). A round-trip ticket was around $550. Cost per person, one-way: $300. Cost per person, round-trip: $550.

      Eisenhower's interstate system is a wonderful thing. It enables cheap, accessible, personal transportation. You, the driver, get to set your itinerary and schedule. You bear the fuel costs. You pay taxes for road maintenance. You must pass certification for operating a vehicle on public roads. You must maintain that vehicle to meet safety standards. After all of that, the road is yours to enjoy.

    14. Re:This is why I take the train now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Around here (the suburban area between NYC and Boston) the TSA has made numerous surprise "random" visits to bus and commuter train stations. Full blown metal detectors, personality profilers, pat-downs, and bomb sniffing dogs.

      They have also done random check-points on the Interstate highways around here.

      When I recently visited my friend upstate I took a 320 GB hard disc drive loaded with movies and TV shows I ripped from DVDs and I was afraid that there might be a random TSA check point along the way and I'd get arrested after they search my car and my smartphone. All because of illegally copied movies and music files.

      All this in the name of national security.

      ps: I managed to slip through undetected with my contraband even after my friend copied some of his files back onto my drive.

    15. Re:This is why I take the train now by Alioth · · Score: 1

      I'm embarrassed of the UK (my home country). It takes longer to get into the UK from Spain as a British citizen than it does to get into the United States (which is famous for its slow immigration lines) as a British citizen. While the rest of Europe is opening up, the UK is insisting on "tougher checks" largely because of the whining of trashy newspapers like the Daily Mail who hates everyone not British (and hates a significant subset of British citizens too). They were even talking about getting rid of the Common Travel Area meaning you wouldn't even be able to enter the UK from Ireland or one of the British islands like the Isle of Man or Channel Islands without a passport check.

      Frankly it's embarrassing. The UK should be in the Schengen agreement along with the rest of the EU instead of wasting our time with pointlessly drawn out border checks to make little Englanders feel happy.

    16. Re:This is why I take the train now by JimSadler · · Score: 1

      If we had a major war similar to WWI or WWII we would quickly rue the day we allowed our railroads to shrink and offer such limited service. The ability to transport the large numbers of troops as well as the items required to support a war effort simply is not in place now. Trucks and air could never handle it. And even if we had the trains we may not have ports that are able to handle the bulk and the munitions required to be shipped by sea. Texas lost a town when a munitions ship exploded in WWII. Ports for war supplies need to be large and rather distant from populations. In Florida our larger ports are now surrounded by high population densities in most cases. During the Cuban missile crises Port Everglades in Ft. Lauderdale had numerous military vessels, warehouse loaded with supplies and an oil storage depot including a power plant that supplied the county and an international airport that would have all gone up if only one little bomb was dropped by accident. The loss of a couple of aircraft carriers, submarines and military supply vessels could have been caused by one, primitive saboture who lacked any real training at all.

    17. Re:This is why I take the train now by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      A 23 hour drive is a chore to even find train tickets for in Europe, at least as an English speaker using the internet, so it's hard to make an apples to apples comparison. Though in the 12 hour drive range, the trains look about equivalent in price to US flights. A little more, but close (Paris to Vienna, vs Philly to Detroit).

      My experience with trains in Europe is that they were more frequent, and there was GREAT regional rail, but for long haul trips they were not really that much better or cheaper than the US (as an adult). The hop on hop off ability was nice (Munich to Vienna, with a day in Salzberg was nice), but Vienna to Zurich wasn't appreciably faster or cheaper than say Boston to DC (and it was a direct shot).

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    18. Re:This is why I take the train now by NoKaOi · · Score: 1

      Conversely, taking Amtrak any appreciable distance is going to be painful: painfully long and painfully expensive (unless you don't mind spending days sleeping in your chair).

      Maybe that's true, but for short distances it's actually faster. Between Portland and Seattle, for example, it's faster door-to-door to take the train than to get to the airport early, wait in the check-in line (their new computer terminals really don't make it any faster), go through security, board, etc etc. The train is more pleasant and comfortable, and best of all you don't have to deal with the TSA's stupid rules.

      Oh, new conspiracy thought: Is it possible that the existence of the TSA's ridiculous rules is a result of lobbying by Amtrak, to make it less pleasant to fly than to take the train?

    19. Re:This is why I take the train now by antdude · · Score: 1

      What we really need are working stable (tele/trans)porters. :P

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    20. Re:This is why I take the train now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My Aunt just recently paid about $250.00 for a round-trip from Spokane, Washington to Portland. With two-week advance purchase, that's $86.00 on Amtrack.

      Are you aware that the Amtrak service in question departs Spokane at 2:45 in the morning?

      The site does work correctly for determining where and when you can go

      Sometimes. Spokane -> Phoenix (any of the stations) is too complicated for it: it involves a minimum of four transfers, and the website won't give you a route that has more than three. Portland -> Phoenix works, but the itinerary involves a transfer in Bakersfield with a nine-minute window -- and with Amtrak's reputation for on-time performance, I doubt it'll actually work.

    21. Re:This is why I take the train now by kyrsjo · · Score: 1

      The strangest part is that they make a huge que (actually two - 1st passport check (slooooow), then a new security check (reasonably quick) ) for people who are not even going TO the UK, but continuing onwards to other places (like USA).

      I've never been inside the UK, but I did go to Ireland once (which is also non-Schengen). After handing back our passports, the passport check guy told us (in a very irish accent) to "don't burn down our churches, we remember what happened last time you where here!", and looked at us very seriously for a few secounds before holding up a finger on each side of his head, making "viking horns". It took us a while before we understood it was a joke - it was so far off what we expected!

    22. Re:This is why I take the train now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trains were good enough for Zefram Cochrane, what makes you so special?

  8. NEARLY synonymous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's like saying beta was nearly unpopular.

    It's positively Soviet. And since the stuff you can still buy after the security checkpoint...

  9. In response to terrorists... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    we became scared of aluminum foil, exploding shoes, flaming underwear, nail clippers, shampoo, cryptography and untapped phone systems. Really, can we claim they didn't win?

    To uphold our anti-terrorist ideals, we ran a "shock and awe" bombing campaign to bring fear to a country full of people (who until then had been pretty good at keeping al qaeda out).

    Seriously, even if something like 9/11 happened every year, it wouldn't put that big of dent in our country: Thats 2,977 deaths added to the normal yearly 2,468,435, or 0.12% more deaths. Thats only 7.7% the amount of suicides we have a year. Even the low estimates for flu deaths are are more! We can stand up for our ideals and take a bit of risk. We arn't suppose to be fear controlled cowards. We are a big strong country, what the hell are we so scared of? I don't get it.

    Do we really need to spy on everyone all the time? Even the horrible outcome the NSA likes to threaten could (but likely wouldn't) happen (that they wouldn't prevent anyway) isn't really that bad. This shit needs to end. Secret courts, secret domestic spying programs, and a president with a Nobel prize for closing our indefinite holding torture base thats still open, and now irrational fear of shiny things blowing up in the sun. This is enough. Give us back our liberty please; I think we've loaned it out long enough. Don't make us foreclose on the government to get it back....

    1. Re:In response to terrorists... by kasperd · · Score: 1

      I more or less agree with everything you just said. This blog by Bruce Schneier gives another nice perspective on it.

      --

      Do you care about the security of your wireless mouse?
    2. Re:In response to terrorists... by ledow · · Score: 1

      Worse for me.

      Because of the US's stupid attitude towards terrorism, their allies (like my country) followed suit FOR NO OTHER REASON than to keep the US happy.

      We've had worse terrorism, going on for longer, from much more dangerous and determined people. And we had none of this junk until the US decided to dictate what "wars" we should or should not get involved in.

      I have the same ludicrous restrictions despite the fact that no such incident ever occurred on UK soil (and despite the fact that we had the Lockerbie bombing and all manner of IRA attacks DECADES earlier and never had to introduce shit like this for our security before).

      The US has screwed my country's freedom. And then they wonder why other countries (like ones where they storm in, bomb the crap out of innocents, take out some terrorists - well, we assume those people they kidnapped to Guantanamo and never gave a fair trial and who are still there over 10 years later were terrorists - and then leave others to pick up the mess for years at an almost unbelievable expense) don't like them enough that their people attack them.

  10. America should just admit it lost. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously; when the paranoia/control over the population is so strong that aluminium foil is confiscated so that the jagged cardboard can't be used in a terrorist act - and when your people roll over and take this reaming - the terrorists won.

    As a suggestion, maybe instead of being the arseholes of the planet if you just stayed in your own borders and looked after your own?

    1. Re:America should just admit it lost. by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 1

      ie: America should just admit it lost.

      Haven't lost but were hurt, just didn't wish to acknowledge it

      After the trade towers, you heard "it's not going to change us one bit", yet at the same time people started flying flags from their houses.
      Well it changed their routine.

      Then there were the Freedom Fries, cause the French saw through the BS Bush was pushing. The U.S. people condemned them for knowing the truth.

      Please no political response; what I posted is the truth, you can't ignore that.

    2. Re:America should just admit it lost. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the US people condemned the french cause they didn't know better at the time and were looking for someone to hate so our leaders served up the french on a freedom fries platter. Those nasty french living it up with their snotty waiters, 1 month paid holidays (vacations) and not sending military forces into countries blindly. We'll show them! Why I even stared at a french bulldog meanly to do my part as an American at the time. (I know better now)

    3. Re:America should just admit it lost. by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      ie: America should just admit it lost.

      I agree with you 100%. But keep in mind, (especially male) Americans are raised to believe that they are always the "best" and will always be the "winner", no matter what. There is no such thing as "losing" a fight. It's impossible for most males to admit they are "wrong". They can only go as far as to say they were not given all of the information necessary to make the correct decision, and even then that is a bit of a stretch because they must know everything at all times. Which is one of the stupidest things I started to believe when I was being raised as an American.

      A better idea would have been to not react violently, but to make a public statement that we appreciate the work the terrorists have done to point out the weaknesses in our system (that have been corrected as of the time of [that] statement).

      It would lure out the testosterone-angry ones and make them easy to find and catch. The others wouldn't know how to proceed because they haven't heard such a statement before. But what do I know? I'm just an idiot that thinks instead of operating with my balls' chemicals.

      Wait, if we didn't attack back, the terrorists would have cut off oil supply to the world, right? Because the rest of the world would just accept that instead of destroying them on a 10,000,000 to 1 basis, right? Psh. I've said enough.

    4. Re:America should just admit it lost. by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Then there were the Freedom Fries

      Got a clue for you - noone called (or calls) them "freedom fries". "French fries", maybe, "fries" more often.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    5. Re:America should just admit it lost. by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      not sending military forces into countries blindly.

      Yah, then there was Libya. French sent forces in, then a couple days later had to come, hat in hand, to the USA - "uh, we don't have enough bombs to get this done...could we borrow some of your bombs, please?"

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    6. Re:America should just admit it lost. by celtic_hackr · · Score: 1

      Well no one, but some hrdcore Bush fanatics.

  11. Epic Facepalm Time by Scarletdown · · Score: 1

    All I have to say (for now at least) is that these fuckers have earned the Epic Facepalm.

    --
    This space unintentionally left blank.
  12. April Fools by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh wait, it's another 10 days.

  13. Its a conspiracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    More proof that the government is secretly controlled by the Aluminati.

  14. Why not both? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll blame and be pissed off at both of them thanks. They're the morons that are unquestionably obeying stupid orders, and they're the morons who are responsible for their career path and I refuse to let them get off of the hook because they're just "following orders". Have we not yet learned that is among the most invalid excuses? Have we not yet repeated the old quote about those that do not learn from history? Apparently not.

  15. It's crap like this .... by thephydes · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That makes me wonder why I would ever want to visit the USA. I'm sure there are lots of beautiful places to go to and enjoy, but why would I want a semi-educated thug feeling me up and confiscating shit because I might be a bomber. Come to think of it I'm probably on the "fuck this guy over" list because of this and similar comments on other forums. Fuck you NSA, you've cost your country a potential tourist spending several thousand dollars travelling, eating, drinking, visiting places .........

    1. Re:It's crap like this .... by michelcolman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Sadly though, most european airports are exactly the same. I'm a pilot, and I've actually seen them take a bottle of after shave from a captain, not even apologising for their idiocy, as if it was the most normal and logical thing in the world. Never mind the giant crash axe behind the first officer's seat, we must not allow them to bring nail clippers on board! Back when I was flying private jets, they wanted to pass my passengers' cat through the X-ray machine. They might try to hijack their own private plane with a weapon hidden in the plastic cat container! We had to take the cat out, fortunately it didn't run away or they would no doubt have closed the airport. Idiots.

    2. Re:It's crap like this .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And on top of that, you have to pay a fee to visit! (to promote tourism of course)

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

    3. Re:It's crap like this .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I read that and facepalmed so hard.

      Seriously, the fact that people put up with this shit is going to be the downfall of Western Civilization. What rights do you actually have when the man in a uniform demands you give them up, and you either accept or are dragged off with the blessing of the meek idiots around you?

    4. Re:It's crap like this .... by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 1

      That makes me wonder why I would ever want to visit the USA. I'm sure there are lots of beautiful places to go to and enjoy,

      It's a nice place to visit or even live, an area of diverse peoples (the melting pot), and some very unique sites to gander at.

      The sad fact is if your not European, you have to run the gauntlet making it here.

      At the same time if Canada wasn't so cold I'd have a dual residence, spending most of my time in Canada. I live just a few hundred miles south of Canada as it is.

    5. Re:It's crap like this .... by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We're talking about the TSA, not the NSA. Do try to keep up.

      Somehow, with your hostile attitude, I think you made the decision quite a long time ago to never visit America. And yet you feel the need to get up and talk shit in front of everyone, acting like this is the last straw that cost America a shit-ton of money. Here's a clue: we Americans hate the federal government, too. If you set your prejudices aside you might just find friendly, like-minded people. But I have found in my life that closed-minded bigots will not do this, and instead spend time bitching and moaning to others like themselves. Like the people who modded you +5 Insightful.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    6. Re:It's crap like this .... by drinkypoo · · Score: 0

      If you set your prejudices aside you might just find friendly, like-minded people.

      ...sexually abusing you when you get on the airplane. Whoops! How fucking friendly are they? The Nazis were just following orders, too. Godwin in one. Fuck the TSA and fuck you too.

      I live in the USA, I was born here, I tell everyone not to visit here as long as we're up to this gestapo shit.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:It's crap like this .... by martas · · Score: 2

      We're talking about the TSA, not the NSA. Do try to keep up.

      The TSA is (typically) not the one putting people on no-fly lists or "requires additional probing" lists, that's the intelligence agencies. Keep up yourself.

      Here's a clue: we Americans hate the federal government, too. If you set your prejudices aside you might just find friendly, like-minded people.

      A lot of good it does him when he ends up with all his possessions confiscated, sitting in some detention area for days praying that they'll let him go back home soon. If you weren't so hyper-sensitive (the reasons for which I can only speculate on), you may have noticed OP wasn't saying anything about Americans, only your government.

    8. Re:It's crap like this .... by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

      Come to think of it I'm probably on the "fuck this guy over" list because of this and similar comments on other forums.

      Don't sweat it - if there were such a list I'd be the first name on it. They don't seem to pay any attention to me at the airport.

    9. Re:It's crap like this .... by ThatsDrDangerToYou · · Score: 1

      Sadly though, most european airports are exactly the same. I'm a pilot, and I've actually seen them take a bottle of after shave from a captain, not even apologising for their idiocy, as if it was the most normal and logical thing in the world. Never mind the giant crash axe behind the first officer's seat, we must not allow them to bring nail clippers on board! Back when I was flying private jets, they wanted to pass my passengers' cat through the X-ray machine. They might try to hijack their own private plane with a weapon hidden in the plastic cat container! We had to take the cat out, fortunately it didn't run away or they would no doubt have closed the airport. Idiots.

      Don't be fooled. You must know by now that cats want to kill us all. All it is going to take is a cadre of alpha cats to develop the human shrinking machine to reduce us into mouse-sized playthings. Then we are doomed. So that cat could be carrying forbidden shrinkage components, or maybe even catnip.

      Saying anything serious on this topic is just too depressing. So, cat jokes.

    10. Re:It's crap like this .... by Meyaht · · Score: 1

      I like how you say he might meet friendly people here, while being a dick about it and telling him to shut up. Very welcoming.

      --
      I believe in karma, which is why, when I do something bad to people, I assume they deserve it.
    11. Re:It's crap like this .... by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Bigots don't deserve sympathy. They need to know that they are only welcome among their own kind.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  16. Lousy argumentation by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Whether you agree or disagree with the need for the TSA, the above is a lousy childish argument.

    The spinkler system at my office has not put out a single fire. My smoke detector has not once detected smoke. My life insurance has not once payed out. The airbag in your car has not once inflated and safed your life. My helmet has not once protected my head from a crash.

    The TSA could counter khasim logic very simply: Since the TSA has been in existence no terrorist action on US targets has been succesful.

    Both statements are true. And totally irrelevant.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:Lousy argumentation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Your sprinklers, smoke detectors, and airbags don't cost billions per year and have been proven to work in other cases in the past.

    2. Re:Lousy argumentation by jhol13 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      WTF?

      All the "TSA's" of the world have cought exactly zero terrorists.
      Can you make same claim about sprinklers, smoke detectors, insurances, airbags? Even USA wide? Even in your city? Your block?

    3. Re: Lousy argumentation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, but many people's airbags have. The TSA it's everywhere and they haven't.

      You don't need an organisation like the TSA to carry out the job the TSA does. Post 911 the primary issue was competence in carrying out process and procedure already in place.

      It's useful for other purposes though.

    4. Re:Lousy argumentation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since the TSA has been in existence no terrorist action on US targets has been succesful.

      "not succesful" means that there must have been attempted actions. How many of those attempts do you know of ?

      ... And no, I do not really call that "underpants bomber" an example of a real terrorist (more a kind of a whacko), in pretty-much the same way I do not call the few disturbance-creating passengers (some of them which had to be physically subdued) terrorists either.

      If currently a group of terrorists really want to make a kill (no pun intended) they could much easier subvert some cargo-handling personell and add a nice bomb into the cargohold.

      .. Maybe the following would be more apropriate:

      Since the TSA has been in existence no terrorist action on US targets have been discovered.

      But if you fall for that one I have a number of anti-grizzly gemstones to sell to you. They work wonders in countries like Italy, belgium, Spain, the Emirates, Mexico and a number of other countries. Noone there carrying one of these have been attacked by such a grizzly. :-)

    5. Re:Lousy argumentation by ray-auch · · Score: 1

      The TSA could counter khasim logic very simply: Since the TSA has been in existence no terrorist action on US targets has been succesful.

      Boston marathon bombs were not terrorists then?

    6. Re:Lousy argumentation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "paid". "paid out". ...if you've ever been paid in your life. I'd think it's a four-letter word you should know.

    7. Re:Lousy argumentation by DarkOx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No your counter argument is incorrect. All of those things are there to protect you from a statistical existent risk. Perhaps your smoke detector has never detected smoke but there are many houses and some have caught fire. The same for air bags we know lots people of car accidents every day and those airbags deployed saving lives. Thing is there lots of flights every day to the TSA is never caught a terrorist. I really only been a handful of incense in the last decade all them gotten past the TSA. Which demonstrates the TSA is both ineffective as a detective control and unneeded as the statistical risk is vanishingly small.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    8. Re:Lousy argumentation by reboot246 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Your smoke alarm, sprinkler system, seat belts, airbags, helmets, life insurance, condoms, life preserver, safety vest, and Depends have not violated anyone's Fourth Amendment rights.

      I bet your Depends have kept your bed dry.

      THIS is the question you need to ponder, "Has the U.S. government violated our rights in the name of (perceived) safety?"

    9. Re:Lousy argumentation by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      How much do your sprinkler, your fire detectors, your insurance, your helmets or your airbags inconvenience you, how much do they cost every month, how much of an invasion in your privacy are they?

      Do I really have to point out the difference between the TSA and your examples? These things not only proved that they worked (something the TSA still has to do), their cost/benefit ratio is also much more favorable. That smoke detector is sitting there quietly and doesn't bother you in the least way, so NOT using it would be quite dumb. Even if the chance that it can detect a fire and warn you was minimal (and actually it's petty high), it doesn't really bother you so why not use it? The airbag is even invisible and "not there" until you need it.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    10. Re:Lousy argumentation by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Sorry, the problem with your examples is that they merely represent the TSA agents at a single airport (if that). The correct comparison, to use just one of your examples, is to sprinkler systems in every office in the country. In that case one finds that many of them have put out fires. On the other hand, the TSA agents throughout the country have NOT caught a single terrorist.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    11. Re:Lousy argumentation by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 2

      Whether you agree or disagree with the need for the TSA, the above is a lousy childish argument.

      The spinkler system at my office has not put out a single fire. My smoke detector has not once detected smoke.

      And that's where your analogy just crashed and burned. Has there been a fire at your office?

      There's been a shoe bomber. There's been Smokey the Terrorist who set his underwear on fire (yeah, not from here, but we're spreading our stupidity around the globe).

      See, we've had the fires, it's just that our "smoke detector" - the one that costs us billions of dollars while violating our rights, that smoke detector - has demonstrably failed. While they were patting down old ladies and little kids in wheel chairs Richard Reid walked right through.

      So, no, not only does it violate our rights, clog up airports, create a far larger security problem (ever see video of the Russian airport security line being bombed?) it has failed to catch at least one terrorist of which we are aware. And other airports using these same stupid policies around the world have likewise failed to catch actual terrorists.

      This isn't the least bit surprising to anybody paying attention. Old white ladies don't bomb airplanes, and it's highly unlikely (to the point that it can be safely ignored) that an old Muslim lady would do the same. And, yeah, I know, "white" is a race and "Muslim" is a religion. There are a total of about 5 old white Muslim ladies on the planet. And they wouldn't bomb a plane, either.

      So the simple fact is that the TSA has yet to catch a single terrorist, and they've actually failed to detect an actual terrorist. It's not because their policies work - quite the contrary it's because bombing a plane is difficult on a number of levels and very very few people care to do it. Combine that with people in the air who will "take care of business" (which started on 9/11/2001) and the chance of someone pulling off a successful terrorist attack on a plane is essentially nil. That's what happened to the shoe bomber. And the last hijacking that I'm aware of ended when the plane landed and the police stormed it and saved the "hijacker" from the rest of the passengers who were beating him to death.

      Hell, look at what happened over Shanksville, PA, on 9/11. The poor fool who had the job of "guarding the passengers" was tortured with scalding water and beaten - likely to death. He's lucky I wasn't on the plane.

    12. Re:Lousy argumentation by gtall · · Score: 1

      Your argument presumes terrorists have been trying to get onto planes. Now you could argue they aren't trying so there's no need to protect. Do ya feel lucky, punk?

    13. Re:Lousy argumentation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So some whacko who isn't successful is just a whacko ( shoe bomber?) and one that is successful even with simple box cutters for instance.. is a terrorist?

    14. Re:Lousy argumentation by stenvar · · Score: 2

      Whether you agree or disagree with the need for the TSA, the above is a lousy childish argument.

      You're putting up a straw man. He said that they "have not caught a single terrorist". You can catch terrorists without having a terrorist attack.

      Both statements are true. And totally irrelevant.

      They are quite relevant: the fact that the TSA hasn't even caught a significant number of potential terrorists suggests that the threat is, in fact, low.

    15. Re:Lousy argumentation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "All the "TSA's" of the world have cought exactly zero terrorists."

      [Citation Needed] - because this claim is complete bullshit.

      Seriously. There are many "TSA's of the world" that have caught terrorists. Israel is probably the most noteworthy. They catch terrorists every single day, and yet they do it without forcing people through x ray body scanners, without groping people, and without absurd requests like no aluminum foil.

    16. Re:Lousy argumentation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't see how the TSA would be responsible for catching/not catching the Boston marathon bombers. It was a marathon...on the ground, not a flight.

    17. Re:Lousy argumentation by Jason+Levine · · Score: 2

      While your sprinkler system might not have put out a fire, other ones have. While your smoke detector hasn't detected smoke, others have. Same for life insurance, airbags, and helmets. Just because yours haven't been "put to the test" doesn't mean others haven't.

      The equivalent with the TSA would be if the TSA at my local airport has never caught a terrorist but TSA agents in Laguardia, LAX, or some other airport did. However, no TSA agent has *EVER* caught a terrorist. You could place "special rocks that ward off terrorists" at airports and be just as effective as the TSA confiscating toothpaste and aluminum foil. Better yet, roll airport security back to pre-911 levels. You'll still catch "guy trying to bring loaded gun on board" (at least as often as they catch those guys now) but will leave "traveler just trying to bring a sandwich to eat on the flight" alone.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    18. Re:Lousy argumentation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even more importantly, smoke alarms, sprinkler systems, seat belts etc. have saved countless lives over the past years. That is, if you look across the entire US - which is what we're looking at regarding TSA.

    19. Re:Lousy argumentation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So... You're not aware of how the TSA's territory has expanded to include all sorts of travel, *and* events on the ground?

    20. Re:Lousy argumentation by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      The spinkler system at my office has not put out a single fire. My smoke detector has not once detected smoke. My life insurance has not once payed out. The airbag in your car has not once inflated and safed your life. My helmet has not once protected my head from a crash.

      Buy your own SmallFurryCreature's Terrorist-Repelling Rock today! Approved by the TSA!

    21. Re:Lousy argumentation by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 2

      The devices you mention have a 1:100 chance of needing to operate in a 25-year timeframe for a single instance, roughly. They each add less than 1% to the cost of doing business.

      The TSA installation for a single checkpoint process on average 30,000 passengers per year, and has an annual operating cost of (roughly) $600,000, or say $40/round-trip ticket. That is closer to 10% average airfare. It's probability of detecting a "terrorist" (let's go ahead and take a liberal interpretation of the term to include anyone intending to do harm with a weapon on a plane that cannot be detected by a simple metal detector) is about 1:400,000,000,000. (The pre 9/11 checkpoints would have had an annual operating cost closer to $150,000 in fairness.). There is also significant economic cost due to the silly restrictions they create, but not sure how to capture that.

      So, you have a substantial cost for no significant improvement in security delivered. Sounds like security theater to me.

    22. Re:Lousy argumentation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bet that if your sprinkler system were intruding in your life or otherwise being a hassle in your daily activities, you'd seriously consider dismantling it.
      You see, for everything in life there's a positive/negative balance. Your sprinkler system has a positive balance because the positives outweight the negatives. The risk of fire is low, but if it happens has a high cost. The costs to build and maintain the sprinkler system are comparatively low and once built it mostly stays out of view.

      Security at the airport seems to have has a similar balance: the likelyhood of an attack is low, but the costs if it happens are high.
      What breaks the balance though is the costs of the whole setup, both in direct costs (material, manpower) as well as indirect (wasted time, less people traveling, quality of life).
      In fact, the costs of the security system are so high that they may do more damage to the economy than the terrorist acts themselves.

    23. Re:Lousy argumentation by GrumpySteen · · Score: 2

      The TSA could counter khasim logic very simply: Since the TSA has been in existence no terrorist action on US targets has been succesful.

      The problem is that the above statement is a bare faced lie.

      The TSA's method of preventing terrorism is to stop terrorists before they board a plane with a weapon. The terrorist's goal is to get weapons past the TSA checks and onto the plane.

      The Richard Reid successfully carried bombs onto a plane in his shoes. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab successfully carried a bomb onto an airplane in his underwear. The TSA failed to stop them.

      The fact that they were stopped by passengers afterwards does not change the fact that the TSA failed to stop terrorists.

      And let's not forget the all the times that loaded guns, fake bombs that are supposed to be found and other contraband have been missed by the TSA.

      Anyone who is arguing that the TSA is a success is either seriously deluded or lying.

    24. Re: Lousy argumentation by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 1, Funny

      They're not terrorists if they're attacking Israel.

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    25. Re: Lousy argumentation by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 1

      They were attempting to use fear to make people do... what?

      No, they weren't terrorists. Not every murderer is a terrorist. Only the ones who have demands.

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    26. Re:Lousy argumentation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your smoke alarm, sprinkler system, seat belts, airbags, helmets, life insurance, condoms, life preserver, safety vest, and Depends have not violated anyone's Fourth Amendment rights.

      Those items have also have been objectively tested and found to be effective at what they do.

    27. Re:Lousy argumentation by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 1

      The airbag is even invisible and "not there" until you need it.

      Airbags are heavy. Close to 10lbs each. I used to drive a 1989 Honda CRX HF, subcompact, no airbags, curb weight around 1800 lbs, fuel efficiency around 45mpg. Today, you can get the Honda CRZ, a subcompact hybrid that gets... around 35mpg. Even going full hybrid couldn't make up for the added weight of all the mandatory safety features you find in today's cars.

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    28. Re:Lousy argumentation by oodaloop · · Score: 1

      The TSA is not responsible for "catching" terrorists. They are not an investigative agency.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    29. Re:Lousy argumentation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The spinkler system at my office has not put out a single fire. My smoke detector has not once detected smoke. My life insurance has not once payed out. The airbag in your car has not once inflated and safed your life. My helmet has not once protected my head from a crash.

      Your sprinkler system has not put out a single fire. Your smoke detector has not once detected smoke. Your life insurance has not once payed out. The airbag in your car has not once inflated and saved your life. Your helmet has not once protected your head from a crash.

      But sprinkler system have put out fires. Smoke detectors do detect smoke and have saved lives. Life insurance does pay out. Airbags do inflate and save lives. Helmet do protect heads in crashes and save lives.

      We don't even know if the TSA can detect terrorists. What we do know is that it's expensive and abusive to airline travelers.

    30. Re:Lousy argumentation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh please. You're comparing anecdotal information of a single instance to the TSA that does millions of screening. If you apply risk management, then you'll see that the sprinklers in your office are a complete and utter waste of money. It's not because they haven't stopped a fire for you yet. It's because the risk of fire in a modern office building is nearly zero, and the chance the sprinklers can contain the fire is nearly zero. Two small numbers multiplied make an even smaller number. That is why what you say is true, but false.

      Another way to look at it is that even though this complete fiasco was designed and put into place by Bush, Obama has not changed it. Obviously, when you disagree with Obama, you need to take a second look at your wrong beliefs. Other than not undoing enough of the Bush horrors, I can't think of a single thing he's done wrong.

    31. Re:Lousy argumentation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      criminals/murderers, to be sure, but the label "terrorist" is rather abused politically.

    32. Re:Lousy argumentation by jfengel · · Score: 1

      There's a difference, though: fires and airbags don't think. They're not scared off by fire alarms. Fire alarms don't prevent electrical shorts and dropped cigarettes, nor are you more conscious of avoiding shorting out electrical equipment and watching your cigarettes because there's a fire alarm.

      The "security theater" has two audiences, and the passengers are only the secondary one. The primary one is potential terrorists, who run the risk of getting caught. Not the guarantee, but the risk, and a pretty serious one: a terrorist captured alive is potentially a font of information. And potentially, under torture. (A dangerous risk for the US to take, and now even if it swears up and down that there's no more torture, people will believe it.)

      It's impossible to measure the number of potential terrorists who gave up. Maybe it's zero; maybe it's many more. If there's any answer to it, it could only come from monitoring their communications, and that's not something they're going to talk about.

      It comes down to trust, and obviously, the government has strained your trust well past the breaking point. I have no answer to that, beyond noting in passing that a lot of what you've read on this site has been badly exaggerated, though even sorting through that leaves plenty of real reasons to be distrustful. I can't conceive of any way for the government to get your trust back, though eliminating the foolish "no nail clippers or water bottles" rules would be at least a start.

    33. Re:Lousy argumentation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The TSA could counter khasim logic very simply: Since the TSA has been in existence no terrorist action on US targets has been succesful.

      Boston marathon bombs were not terrorists then?

      Since the creation of the Federal Reserve System, no 8-foot bug eyed lizards from the depths of the ocean have invaded the USA, therefore the Fed has been very successful in protecting us from 8-foot bug eyed lizards from the ocean.

      Or, alternatively, maybe correlation != causation.

    34. Re:Lousy argumentation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Richard Reid successfully carried bombs onto a plane in his shoes. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab successfully carried a bomb onto an airplane in his underwear. The TSA failed to stop them.

      Reid was flying from Paris to Miami.

      Abdulmutallab from Amsterdam to Detroit, Michigan.

      Nether passed through a TSA checkpoint.

      Get your facts straight.

    35. Re:Lousy argumentation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not that lousy an argument. There have been two attempted bombings, but TSA didn't detect the explosives carried through security in either case. The TSA had no role in the failure of the plots; they were foiled by attentive passengers. The TSA has a 100% failure rate in real-world circumstances. Even in contrived tests, the TSA reports that in 23 separate tests of airport security 19 agents posing as passengers were able to slip a firearm or simulated bomb through TSA screening.

      We have a little over 1 billion passenger screenings per year in the US alone. In the 12 years since 9/11, there have been 2 incidents of individuals attempting an attack on an aircraft using a device that could be detected through security screening, making the odds of this kind of attempted attack about 1 in 6 billion in any given year. Based on current performance evaluations, we expect only about a 5% chance that we would identify someone through security screening - about 1 terrorist every 120 years, at the current rate.

      So the argument is: we know that the screening process itself is poor, but it must work because there hasn't been an incident. The counter is: despite a TSA-estimated 95% of prohibited items making it through security, there have been only 2 incidents and the TSA didn't stop either; so, the reason that there must be that nobody's trying very hard. The pragmatist makes the argument that the truth is likely somewhere in between, but notes that the efficacy of airport security prior to inception of the TSA and efficacy after are equal, but the annual cost of the TSA is $7 billion dollars more than before, and they spent tens of billions of dollars on hardware that is no more effective than the magnetometer and baggage x-ray that was in place before. The pessimist would say that somebody's taking advantage of the public and the government to make loads of money.

      While YOUR insurance has never paid out, a million or so policies WILL pay out during the year. While your sprinkler system has never gone off, about 475,000 occupied structures will burn down this year and fire suppression equipment has a >95% rate of correctly engaging in the event of a fire (yet about 3,200 will die in a fire each year).

    36. Re:Lousy argumentation by NoKaOi · · Score: 1

      The spinkler system at my office has not put out a single fire. My smoke detector has not once detected smoke. My life insurance has not once payed out. The airbag in your car has not once inflated and safed your life. My helmet has not once protected my head from a crash.

      Your analogy is fundamentally broken enough to be irrelevant. Your analogy would hold true if you were talking about why TSA was at my airport if it was known that terrorists were continually trying to attack other airports, and proven that the TSA's measures have helped prevent terrorists attacks at other airports and so might help prevent one at my airport. Sprinklers, smoke detectors, life insurance, airbags, and helmets have been proven helpful in real cases, which is why we continue to use them. These idiotic rules the TSA has have not.

    37. Re:Lousy argumentation by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      And no doubt you can cite a terrorist who would have blown up an airplane if he hadn't been afraid of running out of shampoo.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    38. Re:Lousy argumentation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There have been two attempted bombings, but TSA didn't detect the explosives carried through security in either case.

      Richard Reid (the shoe bomber) was flying from Paris to Miami.

      Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab (the underwear bomber) was flying from Amsterdam to Detroit.

      Nether passed through a TSA checkpoint.

      Get your facts straight.

    39. Re:Lousy argumentation by Patent+Lover · · Score: 1

      Nor do they feel up children's crotches.

    40. Re:Lousy argumentation by jhol13 · · Score: 1

      [Citation Needed] - because this claim is complete bullshit.

      Show one news article where some airport security has caught a terrorist. You calling it "bullshit" won't make it so.

      Seriously. There are many "TSA's of the world" that have caught terrorists. Israel is probably the most noteworthy. They catch terrorists every single day, and yet they do it without forcing people through x ray body scanners, without groping people, and without absurd requests like no aluminum foil.

      First, it is a matter of definition whether Palestinians are terrorist or freedom fighters, after all Israel does occupy, illegally, Palestinian land.
      Second, airport security ("TSA") has not caught any. Or name one.

    41. Re:Lousy argumentation by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Like 12" saw blades. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

  17. Outrageous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think the whole plane should be confiscated-
    The thing is made from a aluminium/magnesium alloy! Very dangerous if ignited!
    Huge containers of Jet A1- way past the 100ml limit- embedded right in the wings!!!
    The cabin is filled with a pressurised gaseous oxidiser- up to 21% PURE oxygen!!!

    1. Re:Outrageous by distilate · · Score: 1

      Not to mention the numerous on board oxygen generators that could be misused.

  18. This is obvious misdirection by Chrisq · · Score: 1

    The "solar powered bomb" thing is just misdirection and a reason to confiscate aluminium foil. What they don't want to do is explicitly state how you can use aluminium foil as a component in an explosive device because it might give some of the terrorists an idea they wouldn't have had on their own.

    1. Re:This is obvious misdirection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Foil and drain cleaner? Come on, kids have been doing that for decades.

    2. Re:This is obvious misdirection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First you grind it into an extremely fine powder without anyone on the plane noticing. Then you mix it with one of several powerful oxidising agents which they don't let you take on planes.

  19. Follow the money by sydbarrett74 · · Score: 1

    The people who profit from making all these inane rules are ultimately the manufacturers of the screening equipment, the people training security staff, et cetera. In other words, the military-industrial-security complex. It is with them (and the politicians who sell us out to them) that we must start redressing our grievances. We must also stop sensationalising every one-in-a-million occurrence (terrorism, being struck twice by lightning) and start mitigating the effects of problems that will likely impact us all (e.g., climate change).

    --
    'He who has to break a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.' -- Gandalf to Saruman
    1. Re:Follow the money by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 1

      Michael Chertoff is his name, and he should be brought to justice. Secretary of Homeland Security from 2005 to 2009, then founder of the consulting firm Chertoff Group from 2009 onwards. Chertoff Group represents manufacturers of the scanners. No conflict of interest there, no, not at all. Full body scanners showed up in our airports in 2007. Revolving door, anyone?

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
  20. I don't understand by Vinegar+Joe · · Score: 1

    Everyone knows solar powered bombs are green and good for the environment.

    --
    "The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
    1. Re:I don't understand by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      Everyone knows solar powered bombs are green and good for the environment.

      Now you've given them the idea for post-meal bean-based explosive fart weapons. Stop feeding them ideas!

    2. Re:I don't understand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't need to be explosive.

  21. Need better screening to stop drugs by dbIII · · Score: 1

    We need better screening to stop drugs making it through to TSA management.

  22. Stolen but not forgotten by AndyCanfield · · Score: 1

    Last month I flew from Bangkok to Hong Kong. The security people stole my fingernail scizzors. I am still looking for a replacement. They also took a bottle of Vasaline Lotion purchased in 7/11. Warnings talk about "less than 100 ml" and "more than 100 ml" but nobody knows what happens if the bottle is exactly 100 ml.

    I give up - no more flying. There is an overland route from Bangkok through Laos and China to Hong Kong. Actually there is an overland route from Bangkok to damned near anywhere in the world.

    Security people are bred for facist chromosomes.

  23. Oh for Pete's sake! by Chas · · Score: 1

    Can someone just fly a bomb into every TSA HQ and end this idiocy already?

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
    1. Re:Oh for Pete's sake! by Required+Snark · · Score: 2
      My crystal ball is working and I can predict your future:

      You will be talking to a Federal Law Enforcement agent very soon

      --
      Why is Snark Required?
    2. Re:Oh for Pete's sake! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You want to really screw things up - don't blow up a plane, take a 1L bottle of "soda" that contains a liquid explosive with a rf timed detonator cap in the pop-top through security. They'll see you and place your "dangerous explosive liquid" into the 30 gallon trashcan that holds all the over-3oz toiletries, right next to several hundred people they've queued up in a tight box, ripe for the picking. You wander through, continue to your destination (after replacing your shoes). and let the crowd meet their maker.

      Can you imaging the shitstorm if the TSA points that we created to "protect" you turned into the target?

  24. Punishment, Consequence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Part of the problem is the higher-ups are terrified of something happening on their watch so they keep handing down increasingly silly and draconian measures, just so if something *does* happen they can say that they tried their best and look at all the measures they put in? If the 'terrorists' got past all that there wasn't more they could realistically do right?

    Compare this to if a sane person was in charge and wasn't doing all this stuff - If an incident happened, all you lot would be baying for their blood: Why wasn't security tightened? Think of the poor children! Sack him! Imprisonment! Execution!

    In fact, isn't this what happened? And now when those security restrictions are in place, everyone is complaining?

    This is one of the biggest problems with our relationship with our higher ups.

    As soon as a good one makes a mistake, they get thrown off a cliff and a total noob will take their place until they make a mistake.

    By mistake, I mean something the wolves can jump on them for, no matter how minor.
    Tighten restrictions on freedom? That's fine. Cut benefits to save money even tho' it'll ruin some peoples lives? That's fine. Waste shitloads of our money? As long as it has lots of hoops and paperwork, that's fine too.
    Give people a bit more freedom and make their lives easier, only for one of those people to abuse it and cause an incident? Off with his head!

    There is just no incentive to the people in charge to let up; It's all ass covering. They are as scared of the wolves as we are of them.

  25. Re:Won't somebody please think of the tinfoil hats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tinfoil hats? Within two years no one is allowed to wear or carry anything anymore when flying.
    You get a laxative 3 hours before take-off (you might have swallowd a bomb you know) and can only board when naked. The only hand luggage allowed are inmaginative handluggage.
    Its for your own safety so SHUT UP and do as you are told! Obey the TSA!
    Saying these measures are over the top makes you a suspect!

  26. High explosive in body cavities. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is an obvious and easy way to beat airport security, is not and can not be realistically checked for, and has been used in at least one instance in Saudi Arabia by a suicide bomber. (And frequently used by drug couriers).

    A motivated individual of either sex can hide >1kg of high explosive in this way

    Makes the TSA entirely irrelevant.

  27. Re:Won't somebody please think of the tinfoil hats by joaommp · · Score: 1

    TSA needs the aluminum for their own tinfoil hats. Either that or their reselling it. Around here it's the copper their after.

  28. Homeopathic Bomb Threat? by gramty · · Score: 1

    I do wonder if they are taking the threat of homeopathic bombs seriously.

    I mean once they have a tiny bit of explosive there is practically no limit to how much they could dilute it on the plane!

    1. Re:Homeopathic Bomb Threat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I do wonder if they are taking the threat of homeopathic bombs seriously.

      I mean once they have a tiny bit of explosive there is practically no limit to how much they could dilute it on the plane!

      Why do you think bottled water is forbidden?

    2. Re:Homeopathic Bomb Threat? by idontgno · · Score: 1

      You're allowed 3 oz bottles.

      One 3 oz bottle of TNT homeopathically potentized to 30C dilution has the explosive power of 100,000,000 yottatons of TNT. (Without containing a single molecule of TNT, of course, so it'll slip RIGHT THROUGH explosives detection!)

      For a matter of scale, that's the explosive power of 10,000 solar masses of TNT. Y'all shut up about your puny "megatons".

      No, I'm not completely making it up. OTOH, someone who actually believes in homeopathy would probably vague object "it doesn't work that way" (without being able to meaningfully explain how it actually works). So how wrong could my half-assery be?

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
  29. Left overs from lunch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    shit has already been snuck in with a bird of paradise left over wrap up and the stupid tsa guy let it through as is.

  30. wrong tree by Tom · · Score: 1

    Nothing the TSA does has anything to do with security.

    We know that, the story was old years ago. The real question I don't see asked often enough and answered even less is: What does it have to do with? Why do they do this bullshit, and why does it get more transparent? Why have we reached the part where even regular people begin to understand the TSA is full of it?

    Is it just stupidity? Really? While you shouldn't always look for malice, there's also a point where stupidity ceases to be the most likely explanation.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    1. Re:wrong tree by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      Nothing the TSA does has anything to do with security.

      We know that, the story was old years ago. The real question I don't see asked often enough and answered even less is: What does it have to do with? Why do they do this bullshit, and why does it get more transparent? Why have we reached the part where even regular people begin to understand the TSA is full of it?

      Is it just stupidity? Really? While you shouldn't always look for malice, there's also a point where stupidity ceases to be the most likely explanation.

      They're creating jobs, right? So it's a good thing..... right??

      *face-palm*

  31. Don't blame the TSA agents?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While I agree that the real villans of the piece are the people making these rules, the TSA agents are far from blameless. They're not forced to work those jobs (and no, I'd lose my unemployment benefit if I refused this work is not an argument). I hope the general public continue to give these people a really hard time.

    Would you work as a TSA agent? If you lacked skills sufficient to be employed productively and could only make a reasonable living by accepting tax-payer money to harass people at airports then you likely would, but you'd deserve every bit of hatred society bore you.

  32. They have already won. by X10 · · Score: 1

    The simple fact that a discussion like this comes up proves that the terrorists have already won, big time. The hundreds of billions of dollars that the world spends on "preventing" terrorist attacks is much more than the terrorists could have hoped for. They damage the economy, not by destroying buildings or killing people, but by making us spend an obscene amount of money in useless "anti-terrorist" measures.

    We should stop all this. We should just hop on a plane and fly. Fuck the terrorists.

    --
    no, I don't have a sig
    1. Re:They have already won. by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      The simple fact that a discussion like this comes up proves that the terrorists have already won, big time. The hundreds of billions of dollars that the world spends on "preventing" terrorist attacks is much more than the terrorists could have hoped for. They damage the economy, not by destroying buildings or killing people, but by making us spend an obscene amount of money in useless "anti-terrorist" measures.

      We should stop all this. We should just hop on a plane and fly. Fuck the terrorists.

      You're right; and because the biggest terrorist attack in this country involved planes, all future attacks have to involve planes, right? TSA has a stupid fear quelling operation that makes them look really dumb, not one that protects. And you're right with your first statement. They FEEL they have won, which only strengthens their feelings of superiority.

    2. Re:They have already won. by gtall · · Score: 1

      I see, so the terrorists successfully using planes, and not protecting aviation, would lead them to what, precisely? Declare victory and go back to bothering the locals? Hold news conferences showing their superiority and stating there's no need to use planes again? What exactly do you propose to do when a hole is found in security? State unequivocally that this was an isolated incident and the American people can feel confident that their government is not worried?

    3. Re:They have already won. by gIobaljustin · · Score: 1

      I would suggest coming to the realization that freedom is more important than safety (fake or real) and accepting the risks that come with having freedom.

      --
      Thank you Dave Raggett
    4. Re:They have already won. by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      I see, so the terrorists successfully using planes, and not protecting aviation, would lead them to what, precisely? Declare victory and go back to bothering the locals? Hold news conferences showing their superiority and stating there's no need to use planes again? What exactly do you propose to do when a hole is found in security? State unequivocally that this was an isolated incident and the American people can feel confident that their government is not worried?

      What are you sounding defensive for? I agreed with you.

      My addition was that planes were used; protection went in place after planes were used. It's in place. Use it. Quit expanding on it. Use your intelligence, money, and time to find out what else the bastards can use and set up watch-and-stop points. Be creative (like they would). Protect those assets.

      Example: I'm a known wealthy Fortune-100 business owner. My home is broken into by a very smart group of robbers who had inside information (they've been to my home directly or indirectly before). They broke in through the basement service access door and found a way in to my house through the HVAC system. When this happens, I don't holler to the public that I have an emergency because people found a way to get into my house and steal money (and detail it); I stay quiet. I also don't focus only on the security of the method they used to break in. I take care of the weaknesses that allowed them to get access and I'm DONE WITH THAT. That's it. No more focusing on that. I move my focus to OTHER methods people can use to get access and start to take care of those. For instance, I take care of there not being glass-break sensors on my alarm system and also place motion sensors in the areas I'm most concerned about in the home (plus the pathways use to get TO those areas). I also take care of the lack of lighting on the rear of my house. I talk to my neighbors and inform them I was broken in to (but tell them it was no big deal), and ask them to watch over the parts of my house they can now see with these new lights. I'll throw in a free mowing of their lawn or an annual monetary gift for their good neighbor status. IF people somehow find out that there was access to my home using the methods and pathways that were exploited, I don't focus my attention on that pathway and keep on adding new features to it as well as stupid ones that make me look completely paranoid. The actual problem has been dealt with; I don't need to look like Mr. Power by focusing on all of the security additions on this one little maintenance door and announcing a new thing I fear can be used to break the security. I simply state that the problem has been taken care of and maybe even thank the ones who broke in for pointing the weakness out. If anyone wants to come after me to prove they can "do better than those guys" or "use the same method that worked for them", they will get caught.

      And yes, the government stating that things are under control is how it's done. Otherwise, there would be civil unrest and riots constantly. What you do is tell people that there was a hole found in a system, the issue has been addressed, please go back to your normal lives and don't live in fear.

      Your text looks like you don't have an idea and you feel helpless. If you stop butting heads with people and try to work toward a solution, you'd be surprised how much more can be accomplished in a shorter time frame. If you want to keep arguing to make me feel helpless or ignorant, keep replying. It will get you nowhere because I have control of my emotions and knowledge. We all should.

      - Kev

  33. Duty free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you managed to get the rest of the bomb through security and were just in need of some foil, just buy a toblerone after going through security.

  34. Next target: tinfoil by satuon · · Score: 1

    What would the conspiracy theorists interpret it when they start confiscating tin foil?

    1. Re:Next target: tinfoil by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      What would the conspiracy theorists interpret it when they start confiscating tin foil?

      My first thought is, "...an idea they didn't think of."

  35. great news by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

    "If you think confiscating aluminum foil to prevent a solar powered bomb attack

    I think the important news here is that terrorists are also concerned about the environment and are switching to green energy sources.

    1. Re:great news by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      "If you think confiscating aluminum foil to prevent a solar powered bomb attack

      I think the important news here is that terrorists are also concerned about the environment and are switching to green energy sources.

      Better watch what you say... Before long, it will be illegal to till fields of corn.

  36. They should confiscate bananas as well.. by toonces33 · · Score: 1

    Since according to Monty Python, someone might attack you with a banana.

    1. Re:They should confiscate bananas as well.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They do confiscate bananas at US Customs/Agriculture when you are coming into the country. I pointed out that no one actually grows bananas as a commercial crop in the US and they did not care. They took my European-acquired banana that was probably grown in the Caribbean. I was forced to buy a banana at JFK- that way it was safe since it was acquired inside the security area, and not from some foreign fruit vendor of unknown character.

      However, I leave the US with bananas in my carry on bag all the time. I have not had good luck with tomatoes though- those got confiscated by TSA. Attacks by tomato must be more ferocious than banana attacks. I am considering cucumbers for my next trip. Ooops, now the NSA may notify the TSA to be on the lookout for cucumber-carrying travelers.

  37. You are allowed to carry lighters onto a plane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So I'm not sure what the fuck you're talking about.

  38. Good to know! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why? Because I now know my neighborhood is completely terrorist free since everyone around here uses their foil for meth.

  39. Photographers often bring lead foil by sandbagger · · Score: 1

    To ever-so-slightly reduce exposure of their camera sensors to Fantastic Four-creating cosmic rays.

    --
    ---- The above post was generated by the Turing Institute. Maybe.
  40. Think... by poofmeisterp · · Score: 2

    Let me make a quick edit here...

    "...and as new, improbable terrorist plots come to light, we will likely continue to be burdened with new, absurd rules."

    ...and as new, improbable terrorist plots come to light, they won't be on airlines...

    Unless you have a disconnected, completely stupid terrorist, they will not use the same mechanism after it has been substantially controlled. They'll just move on to the next thing.

    1. Re:Think... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Car bombs probably remain as the easiest method of terrorism. You get the ability to have a huge ass bomb, you can drive it anywhere you want, and there's quite literally 0 security against it. No one is going to pull you over on the grounds of 'You vehicle looks like it's a big bomb' Unless, of course, your car actually looks like a big bomb.

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

      This is why I am surprised that the terrorists threatening Socchi haven't struck at Moscow (the one other target I can think of that would grab as meany headlines) or something yet.

      All that security had to come from somewhere, right?

    3. Re:Think... by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      This is why I am surprised that the terrorists threatening Socchi haven't struck at Moscow (the one other target I can think of that would grab as meany headlines) or something yet.

      All that security had to come from somewhere, right?

      Good point. And their lack of activity shows they don't have the power to overcome the controls in place; they only have the power to scare people.

      There are agencies who cover the scare tactics and information that comes in; the people don't have to. Our recovery worked and we are focusing on alternative attack methods. That's awesome!

      We aren't worrying about someone hijacking a plane to attack the games. That threat has been taken care of.

    4. Re:Think... by neminem · · Score: 1

      This makes me oddly want to drive around in a car shaped like a bomb-omb.

    5. Re:Think... by psithurism · · Score: 1

      they won't be on airlines...Unless you have a disconnected, completely stupid terrorist

      We had the shoe bomber, the underwear bomber, the UK liquid bombers, all after everything got locked down after 9/11.

      They are obsessed with airplanes. If they had any sort of body count quota and intelligence, they would clearly try other targets.Even just arriving at the airport, you'd think they would realize, "Hey if I drive a car through this line I can kill more people than with this stupid little bomb in my underwear," but they don't!

      It's almost as if their end goal is to make air travel inconvenient.

    6. Re:Think... by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      they won't be on airlines...Unless you have a disconnected, completely stupid terrorist

      We had the shoe bomber, the underwear bomber, the UK liquid bombers, all after everything got locked down after 9/11.

      They are obsessed with airplanes. If they had any sort of body count quota and intelligence, they would clearly try other targets.Even just arriving at the airport, you'd think they would realize, "Hey if I drive a car through this line I can kill more people than with this stupid little bomb in my underwear," but they don't!

      It's almost as if their end goal is to make air travel inconvenient.

      Inconvenience must be the reason. I don't think they knew the allocation of resources would be as unbalanced as it is. Heck, if they did, there are so many other things they could have targeted at the same time as the airlines to start the next police state situation.

  41. what a rube by AndyKron · · Score: 1

    "re-direct it to the people at TSA headquarters" HAHAHAHAHA Like you have any say in the matter.

  42. Like it or not, TSA agents are the face of TSA by srichard25 · · Score: 1

    And how exactly should we "re-direct" our frustration to the "people at TSA headquarters who are being paid the big bucks to make the rules"? Should we all go down there and invite them to lunch? The TSA agents ARE the face of the TSA. They are the only part of the TSA agency that most people will ever come into contact with. If the TSA agents don't like being the face of an organization with absurd rules, then they should ALL quit. Maybe that would cause some kind of change to those absurd rules.

  43. TSA HQ priority is... by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

    What else would you expect from the TSA? Their #1 job is to justify their existence and the only way they can is by finding more "restricted items". When passengers start complying with the current set of rules, the amount of restricted items goes down. To counter this downward trend, it is TSA HQ's job to issue more directives that are designed to increase the number of confiscations and therefore increase the justification for the TSA.

    Who else would keep these "dangerous" items off the plane?

    --
    These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
  44. I only take the train if I have time to kill by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

    Seriously, the train takes FOREVER in the mid-atlantic/northeast corridor. In fact, it takes longer to take the train than it does to drive. And it costs the same as gas if you're going solo, much more if you have 2 or more people travelling together.

    Ex: fly to NY, INCLUDING arriving 1.5h before departure to allow for parking/TSA/etc. takes about 3.5 hrs from my town in S/W Virginia to NYC (6 if you have a connecting flight). The drive is 7 hours. The "direct" train is just shy of 9 hours if I count parking and arriving just 20 minutes before departure. And it's 30 miles closer to NYC than the airport. WTF? And the cheapest ticket, when they're available, is $65. Now, that's pretty good considering it would cost me $50 in gas. Definitely worth the $15 extra, probably worth the $80 for two of us. Except that there are exactly 2 trains that run on a typical day and only one on the weekend. You get there when you get there, which usually means at least one extra day of travel and one extra night in a hotel.

    It has it's place, but with freight having first priority on US rails, I don't ever expect the train to become a preferred mode of transportation.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    1. Re:I only take the train if I have time to kill by cellocgw · · Score: 1

      Ex: fly to NY, INCLUDING arriving 1.5h before departure to allow for parking/TSA/etc. takes about 3.5 hrs from my town in S/W Virginia to NYC (6 if you have a connecting flight). The drive is 7 hours. The "direct" train is just shy of 9 hours if I count parking and arriving just 20 minutes before departure.

      Just what train are you taking? I go from Rt128(MA) to DC in 6.5 hours on Amtrak. Not to mention that, for either DC or NYC, you get off the train and are right there, not a 45 minute cab ride from the airport if the traffic is light.

      --
      https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
    2. Re:I only take the train if I have time to kill by hey! · · Score: 1

      Speaking of SW Virginia, I recently traveled on business from Boston to Blacksburg VA. There's no good way to get to Blacksburg; I'd have had to take a four hour flight (not counting check in time) to Roanoke then drive. Instead I took a 12 hour train trip to Lynchburg and drove. On the face of it, it sounds insane to take a 12 hour train ride instead of 4 hour plane ride, but the key is that I turned what would have been a travel day anyway into a highly productive work day. I put a solid eight hours of billable time in and relaxed for the rest of the trip. As a bonus I arrived at my hotel relaxed and refreshed.

      On my return trip I wrote up my results, drafted an invoice and wrote a proposal for further work and popped them in the mail when I got home.

      Look Ma, no downtime! No rush or hurrying, either.

      Of course you can work on a plane, but its cramped, distracting and boring. A train is roomy, and comfortable enough that you can achieve a flow state and get some serious work done. If I'd taken the plane I could have arrived at the hotel at around 4PM and and worked until midnight, but it's satisfying arrive at your hotel on a business trip completely prepared for the next day. Plus a train is a nicer place to work than a hotel table. When you're doing brain work its more pleasant to look out the window at the scenery going by than to stare out at the hotel parking lot.

      You've got to have the capacity to unplug, though. Some people don't seem to have the ability to go an hour without social media. But if you are comfortable working in isolation, without distraction or external simulation, then a day on the train is like a mini vacation. I suspect it would be hell for some people, but for me I'll always take the train if it's a choice between blowing a day on train travel and blowing a day on air travel.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  45. Re:Won't somebody please think of the tinfoil hats by rwise2112 · · Score: 1

    The TSA already has half the world paranoid as to their intentions, and now they've taken away people's ability to put on a trusty tinfoil hat? This is the step too far.

    Don't worry, they'll just give you more on the plane anyway. Last time I flew the meal was served covered with foil and I got a soda in an aluminum can.

    --

    "For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert"
  46. Not always the TSA's fault... by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 1

    It's not just the TSA management though - It's also the people.

    A year or so ago, TSA management announced that some sharps would be allowed back on planes. Makes sense - With post 9/11 policies in place it's not like you're going to take down a plane with a pen knife. The outcry from the flying public, flight attendants & the media forced the TSA to back pedal back to banning them.

    ...so if you want non-stupid policies we the people have to loudly applaud when their are tiny steps in that direction, not flee in panic.

  47. Thermite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mercury salts might be a little bit hard to get onto a plane as well.

  48. Disagree in part by TheCarp · · Score: 1

    Most front-line TSA agents despise the absurd rules they are ordered to enforce just as much as the public whose items are confiscated due to the rules. Ask almost any TSA employee what his or her least favorite part about the job is, and the answer will usually include a long list of managers, federal security directors, and other higher-ups.

    Yes most people hate their jobs. The difference is, most people's jobs actually have some kind of point other than providing something for politicians to cover their asses with. Most people's jobs are not, 100% counterproductive.

    Sorry, but I have no sympathy. You sign up to be part of the CYA jobs program, you get what you signed up for. You are the one who decides other people's travel plans and good day are worth less to you than your paycheck. You are the one who decides these stupid abusive orders are ok to follow.

    The front line TSA agent bears 100% responsibility for his own actions, increasing the number of people involved should not decrease liability, it should compound it. Responsibility is not an either or. Its not either the front line is responsible or the higher ups are, they are ALL fully responsible for their own actions and for the actions they ask others to do.

    Guilt is not some pie that gets sliced up and passed around. Each individual gets their own full one.

    --
    "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
  49. Sigh. by ledow · · Score: 1

    If your job is stupid, then YOU need to tell your boss.

    We already are. And we're hassling you because it's so stupid. The next step in the chain is for you to hassle your boss.

    I've yet to hear, say, the TSA go on strike over the ridiculous things they are being asked to do, and getting complaints from the public over.

    You can't just say "We think it's stupid too, but we haven't told anyone." It's up to you to feedback to the appropriate management what a huge waste of time this is, and how much negative feeling it's generating.

    "Sorry, mate, not my fault, just doing my job"... the phrase that will end the world.

  50. RTFA (I know... sorry) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was the deadly serrated blade on the box that had them panicked.

    1. Re:RTFA (I know... sorry) by eliphalet · · Score: 1

      When I read the headline, I thought that TSA was thinking of someone using the foil to make a parabolic mirror to burn something.

  51. a hummer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At least use plausible conversions 0.002 MPG is pretty bad.

    1. Re:a hummer? by khallow · · Score: 1

      Maybe he drives a supertanker on the highway. At least the gas tank would be appropriately sized.

    2. Re:a hummer? by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 1

      No, it is perfectly plausable in a world filled with three eyed fish and where kids never age.

      --
      Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    3. Re:a hummer? by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 1

      Well, maybe a canyonero

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

      --
      Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
  52. A bigger worry: Shooting down planes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have very little concern about an on-board bomb.

    I'm more concerned that someone one the ground with a martyr complex will figure out how to shoot a plane or helicopter out of the sky then do it.

  53. Video of toothpaste bomb by MikeMo · · Score: 1
    1. Re:Video of toothpaste bomb by Patent+Lover · · Score: 1

      That bomb would not take down an airliner. It didn't even take out the roof on that wreck. It would do some damage but not take down the plane. At any rate, why does the TSA concentrate on a toothpaste tube. Any container could be used. If this type of bomb was a real threat it would have been used long ago.

    2. Re:Video of toothpaste bomb by MikeMo · · Score: 1

      It blew the door off. Any small hole in the cabin at 500+MPH is considered sufficient.

      Are you really saying that because something has never happened we don't need to worry about it?? Really??? Do you buy insurance?

  54. Re:Policy by hoboroadie · · Score: 1

    If I have to deal with Mindless idiocy, I always calmly inform the mindless idiot that their job is mindless and idiotic and that they deserve no respect from me or anyone who is not also a mindless idiot. Fuck them, and fuck their job. Idiots.

    --
    They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
  55. Ok, let's just fly naked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is the end result of all this foolishness, isn't it? Get over it. Take you clothes off, and get on the plane.

  56. Devious plans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Al Qaeda could destroy the traveling experience Americana simply by constantly brain storming new plots and discussing them in the open internet. The US authorities then do the job for them. Brainstorming gets a new, more evil meaning. *evil laugh*

  57. Solar powered? by PPH · · Score: 1

    That must have been done on behalf of the ant lobby. Aluminum foil and magnifying glasses.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  58. Meh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One can always find routes that are [cheaper/more expensive] than the alternative. Proves nothing either way.

    In the end, though, you are right. Train travel sucks a lot in the US. While some people see this as a reason to get rid of it all together, I prefer to see it as a reason to improve it. Planes (and cars) use fossil fuels, of which there is a finite supply. While we can argue the exact date the last barrel of oil will be sucked out of the ground, it's plain to see it will happen eventually. And a long time before that, prices for oil will be sky-high, precluding its use as a fuel.

    Alternate energy, such as solar, wind, and nuclear provides some hope. But these produce Electricity. Until a cheap, reliable 'super-capacitor' is invented, we cannot use electricity to power planes and long-distance cars. But we can power trains with electricity.

    USing existing Rights-of-way, it would be possible to build a few high-speed, coast-to-coast routes. One along the northern border, one along the botton of the USA. One up/down each coast. It would be expensive, yes- hundreds of billions of dollars. But, to put that in perspective, that's about what we spend on the military in the Middle East each month.

  59. Opt out, male assist! by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 1

    Oh whatever, it's worth it. I'll gladly give up my aluminum foil in exchange for continued gropings by minimum wage employees.

    Flying is in many ways one of the most surreal parts of my life. My tax dollars go towards paying this poor son of a bitch to feel me up for no good reason. I used to feel bad, but eventually that gave way to feeling dazed instead. I mean, I've become somewhat accustomed to being in this strange position where I can demand that a total stranger feels me up. How demeaning that must be! Even a greeter at Walmart retains more dignity than that.

    Oftentimes, they ask why I'm opting out. My response is invariably "because I can", but I'm thinking about switching that up to either "because I like the feeling of superiority that comes with forcing strangers to do demeaning things" or "think of it as a jobs program for you guys". Maybe if we make their lives miserable enough, they'll finally quit and go work somewhere respectable like White Castle.

    --
    Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
  60. Bullshit! by celtic_hackr · · Score: 1

    It takes 9 hours to go from Omaha to Miami on Amtrack , and you can get a one way ticket for $275.

    Yes, you can opt for the 23 train that takes two partial days (not three full days - although there might be a possible package for that too), and yes you can buy a cabin ticket for almost $1100.

    http://tickets.amtrak.com/itd/...

    No it's not faster to drive, and I've driven such distances. Cheaper? Perhaps. If you have more than one person, definitely. Again, I've done this, I prefer to drive, and often get a rental with full coverage, in case I decide to pull any Jackass stunts ( with full coverage, I can take the car to a demolition derby before returning and not have any worries). It's definitely not more relaxing, especially if you're trying to beat a train going 90.

    Note: if going from Omaha to Miami you'll probably go first to Chicago, and may get put on the City Of New Orleans (made famous by the song), and go to , you guessed, it New Orleans, then to Jacksonville, and then to Orlando, and then to Miami, there might be 3 to 5 train changes there. Then there are other, slower routes, with more changes.

    It may be more rewarding to drive.

    Also, it should be noted that some train stations have TSA agents and you'll still have to deal twith them sometimes by train. If you go that route. Trains can be fun though, no need to turn off your electronics, and you'll likely have excellent signal strengths wherever possible, plus a lot more room to get up and walk around and socialize.

  61. True Story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I recently took a flight from coast to coast and had a few "restricted" items I was taking with me.

    When I left I checked my bag so I wouldn't have to worry about the TSA nonsense, and had no issues. On the way back, I didn't want to waste time waiting on baggage claim so I took my luggage as carry-on, completely forgetting what I had taken with me.

    Going through TSA security, my bag was taking some time going through the XRay machine, and I was standing around with my socks before they pulled me out of line to go through my bag. I realized that I was bringing things through and was in a minor panic about it.

    The TSA asked if I knew why I was pulled over and bag inspected, and I started saying, "Well...it probably is..." and he interrupted me with "It's the bottle of water isn't it."

    I had totally forgotten that I had put it in there from buying it earlier while changing gates. He asked if I wanted to drink or throw it, I shrugged and he threw it.

    The reason I was in a panic earlier? I had drugs and a knife in the bag. TSA detected and removed the water, and apparently didn't care about the 5" knife.

  62. I used to believe that the TSA ... by rnturn · · Score: 1

    ... decision-makers had an IQ that was right around room temperature.

    As it turns out I wasn't specific enough. I meant Celsius and not Fahrenheit.

    --
    CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
  63. Sounds like fearmongering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pretty pathetic.

  64. As someone who did counter-terrorism ops by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    I can honestly say that 99.9 percent of what the TSA is doing is a complete and utter waste of time and would not stop a trained terrorist with any experience.

    But it sure burns up lots of money that gets certain firms lots of money.

    Just get real and realize the problem is Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Pakistan, and to a lesser extent Afghanistan and stop buying oil from there or trading with them.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re:As someone who did counter-terrorism ops by bussdriver · · Score: 1

      But Saudi Arabia owns our ass. big time. They can do anything they want and we can't stop them. OPEC holds the dollar's value and they can kill it tomorrow if they wish to do so. Short term maybe we can survive the economic collapse to prop the dollar back up again but it's a huge short term risk. Thank Nixon.

    2. Re:As someone who did counter-terrorism ops by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      No they don't. That was then. This is now. The US is an oil exporting country.

      Even the banks they own, if we jailed some CEOs, would fall into line.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    3. Re:As someone who did counter-terrorism ops by bussdriver · · Score: 1

      Aside from this: http://swampland.time.com/2014...

      The US is not OPEC and doesn't touch the combined output of OPEC; it true that we are currently producing more than ever now that policies (during Obama) have begun to kick in (FYI, not an Obama fan; but he deserves credit.)

      The world pays for their Oil in US Dollars... that is what makes people want US Dollars. After gold was dropped, OIL largely took over because it's something of REAL value (as opposed to gold) and to get it, you needed US Dollars. So the US Dollar became much more valuable than it was when it was backed by piles of useless gold at Fort Knox. If the world didn't need US Dollars to buy oil there would be a surplus of US Dollars on the world market. A really huge surplus and since the money is not backed by anything real other than it's relative worth... that would be really BAD.

  65. MacBooks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    as I type this the butts of my hands are resting on a nice chunk of aluminum I regular take on planes...

  66. Oh that's just cold by wiredlogic · · Score: 1

    FTA:

    My six years at the TSA played out like a circus of absurd security regulations, presided over by a coterie of managers who, for the most part, made the Keystone Cops look competent.

    Oh man that's just cold Harrington. Such an insult to the Keystone Cops.

    --
    I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
  67. Jim Norton said it best: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why couldn't they have tried to smuggle a bomb in a crying baby?

  68. trained terrorist with any experience? by rduke15 · · Score: 1

    The trouble is that with the methods en vogue among this young generation of terrorists (blowing themselves up), they can hardly accumulatae any experience. That is, if they survived training...

  69. You were saying? by stoploss · · Score: 1

    It takes 9 hours to go from Omaha to Miami on Amtrack , and you can get a one way ticket for $275.

    No, no it doesn't. You are just counting the first leg of the trip: Omaha to Chicago. *That* takes 9+ hours. It takes literally days worth of ass in the train seat to get to Miami from Omaha, because they shunt you from Omaha to Chicago to DC and then down to Miami. Don't neglect the major stopovers you can get hit with when transferring trains.

    If you don't believe me, as yourself how an Amtrak train can travel the 1,400 mile Great Circle distance between those two cities in 9 hours. That would be equivalent to a magical Amtrak travelling between the cities, as the crow flies, at ~150 mph.

    Dude: it takes *days* to take the train on that Amtrak route. You can leave Omaha tomorrow, at 5 AM, and arrive in Miami 2.5 days later... at 6 PM on 24 February. It's not going to get much better than that.

    But hey, if you have a line on Great Circle bullet train routes in the US, by all means let me know. Would save me time over driving.

  70. My thoughts exactly by Reziac · · Score: 1

    From TFA:

    âoeWhat the hell are these idiots up in D.C. talking about?â he asked. âoeWhy would anyone need a solar powered bomb indoors, on a plane?â

    --
    ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  71. Not the real reason by graphius · · Score: 1

    The real reason the TSA doesn't want you to carry tinfoil has nothing to do with solar powered bombs. They don't want you to block out their mind control rays... /end black humour mode