Perhaps the fine was sized to cause pain to the organization and not kill it. Everyone makes mistakes and there are consequences but those consequences should not be fatal. Now if it happened a second time the fines should be much larger. A third time should bankrupt the company.
Not necessarily considering it is quite popular in the media to take any shot at the TSA that they can. It is called reporting bias. Notice as neither of the latter two headlines are accurate as the whole airport was not shut down or diverted. They were both biased towards sensationalism to exaggerate what actually happened. Its like saying "Police Shut Down New York Streets" when all that actually happened was one intersection was closed due to an accident.
The ancient one were but the current ones are not. The stupidity would be thinking that modern graphite pencils are made of lead. Wikipedia is not always complete.
It is not reasonable to expect the police to stop all crime. Would lowering the speed limisa by 10mph to save the few lives be a reasonable trade off? In most people's minds, no. The point is that, even though you disagree, most people think that closing a small area for 30 minutes is a reasonable precaution.
How do you know she gave them an overdose? It doesn't say that in the article.
Considering that there was enough drug in 1/4 of the drink to put them to sleep before they wanted to I would say four times as much would be an overdose. I was taking a sleeping medication where two time the normal dose was considered an overdose.
If done excessively it's abuse obviously, but how is it abusive to give your child a timeout in their room, or a spanking that doesn't leave bruises etc?
Time outs only work if the child will comply. You and I agree that the occasional spanking may be justified but today's PC child protection services generally sees and spanking for any reason as abuse.
Anyway the kind of child you're talking about doesn't mesh with your point #1 about an entitled girl with poor judgment
I said entitled not spoiled. When a teen has the idea in their head the "I can have anything I want when I want no matter what my parents say" there is a problem with the child and not the parents.
In this case, the girl apparently respects the 10pm internet curfew enough that she feels she has to incapacitate her parents to get around it.
That is not respect that is dislike. Had she respected the cerfew she would not have tried to get around it.
Not sneak out to a friend's house, not openly walk out with a big "fuck you," not trash the house, not push her parents until they relent or become abusive and she calls the cops on them, but do something very non-confrontational that she thought would be undetectable. To me that's evidence that she was scared of them and of their punishments.
To me that is evidence that she is sneaky and wanted to get away undetected to avoid punishment. Everyone wants to avoid punishment.
But it's not like you get one chance to go to the cops, and if you tried having that conversation first then you missed your chance.
Maybe they had that conversation. Articles rarely have a blow by blow account of the events.
It looks like all that has been approved is a short experimental section. If the paint has not been proven to be able to hold up under real conditions I doubt very much that anyone would approve a full scale implementation on all roads. How do the markings hold up to wear, salt, plows, etc? It appears that this testing is what is approved.
It would also seem that one would get many false positives. From the article the markings glow when the roads are cold. Slippery roads are not necessarily caused by cold alone. It needs to be cold and wet or humid to get slippery conditions. Cold and dry conditions do not cause slippery roads. Another point is that if the temperature is always below the threshold the road will always glow and people will ignore it.
Then you are much more forgiving that most people who would blame security for failing to protect people. Would you say the same thing if a loved one was killed in the explosion? I doubt it very much. Would your statement be different if the media said "People killed by terrorist bomb due to security incompetence"? Please be honest with yourself.
Again it was a 30 minute closure of a small portion of one baggage handling area. Not an extreme measure.
You are still fixated on "toothbrush". It could have been something else as it was unidentified. Nail clipper deal is stupid. Closing a small area for 30 minutes is not over the top. To me that is a measured response. A weird noise in an unattended bag is suspect and needs to be dealt with carefully. Do you touch every snake you see because most of them in your area are non poisonous or are you careful to identify the species before approaching?
I agree that TSA goes too far in some instances; just not this one. I have never seen a TSA agent "recoil in fear". I have seen them implement well thought ot security precautions to ensure the safety of the people they are sworn to protect.
If it had been a bomb that went off and bystanders were killed what would you have said? Security has to deal with worst case scenarios.
By your logic there should be no security at all because there is some scenario that they can not stop. Again, we can not deal with all eventualities which does not mean that we should not deal with the ones we can.
It is only terrorizing when the incidents stop people from doing what they would normally do. If they had shut the airport down that would be bad. If people stopped going to the airport because they shut down a small portion that would be bad. Neither of those things happened. Your solution is to stick your head in the sand until something does happen and then condemn the security services for not being diligent enough. Great plan
I am not cowering in my closet. I go out in public all the time. I am happy that there are people out there watching out for unusual circumstances and taking reasonable precautions. I am in no way terrified. Annoyed maybe but terrified, no.
Tell that to the Thelidimide babies. The drug was deemed safe until it was given to pregnant women then children were born without arms and/or legs. That was one of the main reasons for more stringent testing. Where health and safety is concerned caution is needed. I am not saying to never have Wifi on aircraft. All I am saying is to test first and under saturated conditions.
Ever heard of an arming circuit? It is very simple to use an Ardueno controller board to ignore the inputs from three mercury switches up until a certain time. At that time the buzzing object is turned on and any changes in the switches will cause the bomb to explode. Movement before the timer went off would have no effect. Movement after the timer went off would explode the bomb. It is not about be delicate but programmable. Maybe you should think like a bomb builder before saying it would not work.
So why not just wheel it away and check it quietly? By the time they cordoned the area it could have been outside the building.
Wheel it away and it explodes while it is moving. taking out anybody nearby. You are assuming it was safe to move. You keep thinking "toothbrush" when security is required to think "bomb". Put yourself in a room with an unknown object that could be a bomb. Would you move it?
Also interesting, if it was in baggage claim, it had already made a flight without incident.
It's called a timer set to go off when the aircraft lands. What if the objective was to be able to say "People Killed at the United States Biggest Airport Nowhere is Safe". Aircraft crash regularly. A successful attack on an airport is a new thing.
If you bothered to read the article before posting your rant you would have seen that the airport was not shut down. Here is the relevant part of the article;
A portion of the North Terminal baggage claim area was cordoned off while the bag was investigated, officials said. Airport passengers and MARTA passengers were diverted to the Terminal South entrance.
One baggage handling area is not the whole airport. Flights continued to land and take off.
As for the Amtrak Police chief, it is quite possible that someone might be afraid of losing his cushy job of TSA takes over.
Shutting down the airport cost big bux and needlessly frightened people.
That would be accurate if that had happened. What actually happened was a small portion of the airport in the vicinity of the luggage was shut down for about 30 minutes. Flights still went in and out of the airport while the small portion was closed. Here is the relevant quote from the article;
A portion of the North Terminal baggage claim area was cordoned off while the bag was investigated, officials said. Airport passengers and MARTA passengers were diverted to the Terminal South entrance.
Closing a baggage area and diverting a few passengers for 30 minutes is nowhere near "closing an airport". You might want to read more than the title of the summary. They have been inaccurate and inflammatory as of late.
Point to ponder, since they know it was a toothbrush, they must have had a way to know it was a toothbrush. Why not use it first, then close the airport if they find an actual bomb.
As I said earlier, they did not know it was a toothbrush till they opened the luggage and they didn't want to risk people being around when they did that. When they cordoned off the area, all they were sure of was that there was a buzzing object in some luggage and not that it was a toothbrush.
People have tried to implant bombs in people. What you propose would be going much too far and be completely impossible. Shutting down part of one airport for 30 minutes is no where near as disruptive. It is a matter of scale.
The difference in your scenario (the cat scan) is that there would be no external indication of something different. A buzzing package is "different". The reason for that difference may be iniquitous or it may be dangerous. Here is an instance where police were lured to the location of one bomb when there was another bomb there rigged to kill them. It is not out of the realm of possibility.
Shutting down part of an airport for half an hour is not a big deal and will not "paralyze society". Aircraft are delayed by more than that every day.
You might want to look up the term "cowardice". There is a big difference between caution and cowardice.
There are a couple of ways of looking at this report; 1. Those over reactive security agents just trying to justify their jobs and/or succumbing to fear and threat. The system is broken. 2. Competent security personnel taking precautions to safeguard the people they are sworn to protect. A half hour delay is nothing. The system works.
So according to you since we can't plug every possible holes we should not bother plugging the holes we can. Your scenario is much less likely as it would require several security breaches to accomplish. It does not take an evil genius to come up with the plan I described. I may be evil but I am not a genius and I came up with it. Just because you didn't think of it does not mean someone else can't. I bet there are smarter people in the world than either of us that are not evil geniuses.
Every security measure is paranoia until someone tries it. To further complicate matters the package may have not been armed before the timer went off and armed after. Throwing it around before might not have set off the bomb but moving it after might. You don't know every scenario that could cause a bomb to go off and you have never been a security guard. You have no idea what pressures there are when every decisions could mean life or death. Paranoia is a good thing in security.
Meanwhile, name one buzzing bomb in a suitcase found anywhere ever.
Name one hijacked aircraft that was flown into a skyscraper before 911. There can always be a first. Proactive is always better than reactive in security.
First they could not prove it was a toothbrush until they opened the luggage. But they could not safely open the luggage it until they could prove it was a toothbrush. It is a catch 22. We now know it was a toothbrush byt they did not know it at the time.
Here is an interesting scenario. Lets put a timer on a device that buzzes so it goes of somewhere in the baggage handling area. In that same bag we put a bomb that explodes when the bag is opened. That way we can ensure that at least one person is killed in the blast and possibly more that are curious as to what was buzzing. Similar things like that have happened with bombers. They set a small bomb off and when the first responders arrive they set off a much bigger bomb. The buzzing could have been bait.
They didn't "hike up their skirts and do a mouse dance" They calmly cleared the area and properly dealt with an unknown, at that time, device. What would you have said if it was a bomb and bystanders were killed because they were not removed from the area. I bet there would be many people who would blame security for not taking proper precautions. Security is damned if they do and damned if they don't.
Slashdot Mirror
There are procedures to deal with egg allergies.
Wow it took all of 18 minutes for the tin foil had brigade to chime in.
Perhaps the fine was sized to cause pain to the organization and not kill it. Everyone makes mistakes and there are consequences but those consequences should not be fatal. Now if it happened a second time the fines should be much larger. A third time should bankrupt the company.
You know as well as I do that sensation and not fact sells newspapers. Why do you think The Inquirer, et al do so well.
In roman times lead styluses were used to write on paper.
Not necessarily considering it is quite popular in the media to take any shot at the TSA that they can. It is called reporting bias. Notice as neither of the latter two headlines are accurate as the whole airport was not shut down or diverted. They were both biased towards sensationalism to exaggerate what actually happened. Its like saying "Police Shut Down New York Streets" when all that actually happened was one intersection was closed due to an accident.
The ancient one were but the current ones are not. The stupidity would be thinking that modern graphite pencils are made of lead. Wikipedia is not always complete.
It is sometime difficult when it is a failed attempt at humour or a stupid statement from someone who hasn't kept up with the times.
It is not reasonable to expect the police to stop all crime. Would lowering the speed limisa by 10mph to save the few lives be a reasonable trade off? In most people's minds, no. The point is that, even though you disagree, most people think that closing a small area for 30 minutes is a reasonable precaution.
How do you know she gave them an overdose? It doesn't say that in the article.
Considering that there was enough drug in 1/4 of the drink to put them to sleep before they wanted to I would say four times as much would be an overdose. I was taking a sleeping medication where two time the normal dose was considered an overdose.
If done excessively it's abuse obviously, but how is it abusive to give your child a timeout in their room, or a spanking that doesn't leave bruises etc?
Time outs only work if the child will comply. You and I agree that the occasional spanking may be justified but today's PC child protection services generally sees and spanking for any reason as abuse.
Anyway the kind of child you're talking about doesn't mesh with your point #1 about an entitled girl with poor judgment
I said entitled not spoiled. When a teen has the idea in their head the "I can have anything I want when I want no matter what my parents say" there is a problem with the child and not the parents.
In this case, the girl apparently respects the 10pm internet curfew enough that she feels she has to incapacitate her parents to get around it.
That is not respect that is dislike. Had she respected the cerfew she would not have tried to get around it.
Not sneak out to a friend's house, not openly walk out with a big "fuck you," not trash the house, not push her parents until they relent or become abusive and she calls the cops on them, but do something very non-confrontational that she thought would be undetectable. To me that's evidence that she was scared of them and of their punishments.
To me that is evidence that she is sneaky and wanted to get away undetected to avoid punishment. Everyone wants to avoid punishment.
But it's not like you get one chance to go to the cops, and if you tried having that conversation first then you missed your chance.
Maybe they had that conversation. Articles rarely have a blow by blow account of the events.
It looks like all that has been approved is a short experimental section. If the paint has not been proven to be able to hold up under real conditions I doubt very much that anyone would approve a full scale implementation on all roads. How do the markings hold up to wear, salt, plows, etc? It appears that this testing is what is approved.
It would also seem that one would get many false positives. From the article the markings glow when the roads are cold. Slippery roads are not necessarily caused by cold alone. It needs to be cold and wet or humid to get slippery conditions. Cold and dry conditions do not cause slippery roads. Another point is that if the temperature is always below the threshold the road will always glow and people will ignore it.
Then you are much more forgiving that most people who would blame security for failing to protect people. Would you say the same thing if a loved one was killed in the explosion? I doubt it very much. Would your statement be different if the media said "People killed by terrorist bomb due to security incompetence"? Please be honest with yourself.
Again it was a 30 minute closure of a small portion of one baggage handling area. Not an extreme measure.
When you hear a snake in a bag do you let people stand around while you dump it out on the floor? You were just looking.
You still haven't answered what your comments would have been it it was a bomb and they had not cleared the area. OOPS?
Un-referenced un-provable paranoid accusations; excellent troll.
An anonymous cowards are still less brave than than someone with a minuscule amount of bravery
You are still fixated on "toothbrush". It could have been something else as it was unidentified. Nail clipper deal is stupid. Closing a small area for 30 minutes is not over the top. To me that is a measured response. A weird noise in an unattended bag is suspect and needs to be dealt with carefully. Do you touch every snake you see because most of them in your area are non poisonous or are you careful to identify the species before approaching?
I agree that TSA goes too far in some instances; just not this one. I have never seen a TSA agent "recoil in fear". I have seen them implement well thought ot security precautions to ensure the safety of the people they are sworn to protect.
If it had been a bomb that went off and bystanders were killed what would you have said? Security has to deal with worst case scenarios.
Sorry but Walmart and a few stationary stores already do that.
By your logic there should be no security at all because there is some scenario that they can not stop. Again, we can not deal with all eventualities which does not mean that we should not deal with the ones we can.
It is only terrorizing when the incidents stop people from doing what they would normally do. If they had shut the airport down that would be bad. If people stopped going to the airport because they shut down a small portion that would be bad. Neither of those things happened. Your solution is to stick your head in the sand until something does happen and then condemn the security services for not being diligent enough. Great plan
I am not cowering in my closet. I go out in public all the time. I am happy that there are people out there watching out for unusual circumstances and taking reasonable precautions. I am in no way terrified. Annoyed maybe but terrified, no.
Tell that to the Thelidimide babies. The drug was deemed safe until it was given to pregnant women then children were born without arms and/or legs. That was one of the main reasons for more stringent testing. Where health and safety is concerned caution is needed. I am not saying to never have Wifi on aircraft. All I am saying is to test first and under saturated conditions.
Ever heard of an arming circuit? It is very simple to use an Ardueno controller board to ignore the inputs from three mercury switches up until a certain time. At that time the buzzing object is turned on and any changes in the switches will cause the bomb to explode. Movement before the timer went off would have no effect. Movement after the timer went off would explode the bomb. It is not about be delicate but programmable. Maybe you should think like a bomb builder before saying it would not work.
So why not just wheel it away and check it quietly? By the time they cordoned the area it could have been outside the building.
Wheel it away and it explodes while it is moving. taking out anybody nearby. You are assuming it was safe to move. You keep thinking "toothbrush" when security is required to think "bomb". Put yourself in a room with an unknown object that could be a bomb. Would you move it?
Also interesting, if it was in baggage claim, it had already made a flight without incident.
It's called a timer set to go off when the aircraft lands. What if the objective was to be able to say "People Killed at the United States Biggest Airport Nowhere is Safe". Aircraft crash regularly. A successful attack on an airport is a new thing.
If you bothered to read the article before posting your rant you would have seen that the airport was not shut down. Here is the relevant part of the article;
A portion of the North Terminal baggage claim area was cordoned off while the bag was investigated, officials said. Airport passengers and MARTA passengers were diverted to the Terminal South entrance.
One baggage handling area is not the whole airport. Flights continued to land and take off.
As for the Amtrak Police chief, it is quite possible that someone might be afraid of losing his cushy job of TSA takes over.
Shutting down the airport cost big bux and needlessly frightened people.
That would be accurate if that had happened. What actually happened was a small portion of the airport in the vicinity of the luggage was shut down for about 30 minutes. Flights still went in and out of the airport while the small portion was closed. Here is the relevant quote from the article;
A portion of the North Terminal baggage claim area was cordoned off while the bag was investigated, officials said. Airport passengers and MARTA passengers were diverted to the Terminal South entrance.
Closing a baggage area and diverting a few passengers for 30 minutes is nowhere near "closing an airport". You might want to read more than the title of the summary. They have been inaccurate and inflammatory as of late.
Point to ponder, since they know it was a toothbrush, they must have had a way to know it was a toothbrush. Why not use it first, then close the airport if they find an actual bomb.
As I said earlier, they did not know it was a toothbrush till they opened the luggage and they didn't want to risk people being around when they did that. When they cordoned off the area, all they were sure of was that there was a buzzing object in some luggage and not that it was a toothbrush.
People have tried to implant bombs in people. What you propose would be going much too far and be completely impossible. Shutting down part of one airport for 30 minutes is no where near as disruptive. It is a matter of scale.
The difference in your scenario (the cat scan) is that there would be no external indication of something different. A buzzing package is "different". The reason for that difference may be iniquitous or it may be dangerous. Here is an instance where police were lured to the location of one bomb when there was another bomb there rigged to kill them. It is not out of the realm of possibility.
Shutting down part of an airport for half an hour is not a big deal and will not "paralyze society". Aircraft are delayed by more than that every day.
You might want to look up the term "cowardice". There is a big difference between caution and cowardice.
There are a couple of ways of looking at this report;
1. Those over reactive security agents just trying to justify their jobs and/or succumbing to fear and threat. The system is broken.
2. Competent security personnel taking precautions to safeguard the people they are sworn to protect. A half hour delay is nothing. The system works.
So according to you since we can't plug every possible holes we should not bother plugging the holes we can. Your scenario is much less likely as it would require several security breaches to accomplish. It does not take an evil genius to come up with the plan I described. I may be evil but I am not a genius and I came up with it. Just because you didn't think of it does not mean someone else can't. I bet there are smarter people in the world than either of us that are not evil geniuses.
Every security measure is paranoia until someone tries it. To further complicate matters the package may have not been armed before the timer went off and armed after. Throwing it around before might not have set off the bomb but moving it after might. You don't know every scenario that could cause a bomb to go off and you have never been a security guard. You have no idea what pressures there are when every decisions could mean life or death. Paranoia is a good thing in security.
Meanwhile, name one buzzing bomb in a suitcase found anywhere ever.
Name one hijacked aircraft that was flown into a skyscraper before 911. There can always be a first. Proactive is always better than reactive in security.
First they could not prove it was a toothbrush until they opened the luggage. But they could not safely open the luggage it until they could prove it was a toothbrush. It is a catch 22. We now know it was a toothbrush byt they did not know it at the time.
Here is an interesting scenario. Lets put a timer on a device that buzzes so it goes of somewhere in the baggage handling area. In that same bag we put a bomb that explodes when the bag is opened. That way we can ensure that at least one person is killed in the blast and possibly more that are curious as to what was buzzing. Similar things like that have happened with bombers. They set a small bomb off and when the first responders arrive they set off a much bigger bomb. The buzzing could have been bait.
They didn't "hike up their skirts and do a mouse dance" They calmly cleared the area and properly dealt with an unknown, at that time, device. What would you have said if it was a bomb and bystanders were killed because they were not removed from the area. I bet there would be many people who would blame security for not taking proper precautions. Security is damned if they do and damned if they don't.