Passing on the shoulder is dangerous but that's a separate issue for the reasons you state.
The reason 'keep right except to pass' is a very good idea even on multi-lane roads is to keep traffic moving in predictable patterns, rather than someone playing 'frogger' as they bounce from lane to lane trying to move forward.
It also greatly speeds traffic flow by having the left lanes for faster traffic and the right lanes for slower/entering/exiting traffic. The Europeans literally shake their heads when they see our left lane exit ramps. It completely disrupts traffic flow, which is dangerous in it's own right.
no, sometimes you don't get a second chance. In which case, it doesn't matter which type of impairment you have.
But many more times, you do have time to correct your error before serious consequences. Who is more likely to be able to do that? I'm going with the texter.
I'm not saying this isn't a problem, I'm just saying that passing a special law for a special activity that is already covered under the more general laws is useless political grandstanding. And the fact that a subset of the population does this without seemingly detrimental effects (officers).
as you say 'Distracted Driving' is the actual 'crime' here. And most states already have laws against it on the books already.
This is just marketing hype by politicians to look good doing absolutely nothing useful.
The big gripe I have is comparing texting while driving to drunk driving. They simply are not remotely the same. After a horn honking at them the texter is going to be alert and aware of what's going on around them.
Perhaps texting while driving is actually worse since the effects can be mitigated in an instant, whereas the drunk is on going and can't solve the issue for hours. So a few moments of inattention from texting cause the same results as a drunk's constant impairment.
And even if it is worse, it's a only a training issue. Police cars today have full laptops they use while driving, not to mention cell phones and blackberries and yet we don't see the police having extraordinary accident rates do we? Why? because they are trained for the situation and the tools. Give people proper training and you'll see accident rates of *all* types go way way down.
An example:
I got pulled over a few years ago in VA for flashing my high beams at a slowpoke in the left lane. The ticket? Improper use of high beams. If flashing them is improper, why the hell is it a ready made 'feature' in every car today? Oh and it was daytime, so no way my beams were brighter than the sunlight.
Was I driving perhaps a tad aggressively? yeah I'll admit to that, but if he hadn't been going 55 in the left lane in a 65 zone with a bunch of backed up traffic waiting on him...
Discussing all this with the officer blew my mind:
Me: Doesn't he have to yield to my visual or audible signal?
Officer: I'm not aware of any such law? (upon looking it up, the VA law is audible signal only hence my ticket)
Me: But he's going to slow in the left lane? I can't pass him on the right, that's a dangerous procedure isn't it?
Officer: You can pass him on the right no problem.
Me: Seriously? When did that change?
Think about it. Apparently much of what I learned in driver's ed is no longer the law. Keep right except to pass - gone! Yield to overtaking traffic - gone! Passing on the right illegal - gone!
What's next? If we don't properly train people, we get the anarchy on the roads we see...
what *I* or the videotaper view as disrupting has little or no bearing on the situation. The Officer can determine whatever he likes at the time.
I've never claimed it's 'right' or 'just', only that it can and does happen. I believe you should be able to video tape, but officers have a tendency to want the evidence of their actions limited to what they control.
perhaps, but if it was 'accidentally' destroyed in the struggle to arrest you, it's a much greyer area me thinks. We're not talking about goody twoshoe cops here.
All I'm saying is there are laws and there is the reality on the street when stuff goes down. They don't match up 1:1.
Ha, reminds me of a run in a friend of mine had. She's a minority and was driving her car (older model japanese...not highend at all) on the beltway and probably speeding a bit. When the cop pulled her over, he started laying the pressure on thick and said he'd like to search her car and trunk. She declined and he insisted.
So she pulled out her business card and handed it too him. 'Legal Attorney for Senator....'
Funny she didn't even get the speeding ticket...
I would LOVED to have seen that cops face when he read her card!
conversations that can be recorded publicly by the human ear-brain combination should also be recorded by pen-and-paper, or tape, or camcorder
this 'should be' concept is interesting.;-)
At which point in the process of the Officer arresting you for disrupting his lawful business does it come into play? before or after he destroys your camera along with any 'proof' of what was said?
I'm not disagreeing with you, but much like a judge in a courtroom, cops in a given situation *are* the law, the judge and the jury. You can question any charges/directions from them later, but defy them and you are breaking the law.
with the exception that whole 'filing a false police claim' problem they would get into.
The police can't 'lie' about something, or rather wouldn't about something like this. Whether or not they have ticket quotas, sure they'll lie like a rug;-) But they've got no vested interest here.
who said the salt has to be only appended or prepended? I've built systems where the salt was mixed into the password much like a deck of cards is shuffled. Good luck figuring that out;-) The pattern of 'shuffle' was constant, so technically just an obfuscation, but a pretty effective one against brute force attacks.
Besides, the point of a salt isn't to make something unknowable, it's to make it hard to brute-force. I don't know that the statement "the salt will always be known" is a valid one. The fact that it's different for each password is what makes it secure.
Now, if the salt is 'known', yes it's not as hard, but you still need to regen the table again to find out what it is.
Salts work best against large scale attacks, not so much against cracking a single password for the reason you describe. But if someone is trying to get a group of passwords, regenerating the tables for each password gets to be a bit time consuming.
To take your argument full circle...you are a throwback, or will be at some point in your life.
What I think you're getting at is natural selection isn't exactly robust among humans these days. And that I'd agree with. The multitude of things we can 'fix' and cure that previously culled many people don't anymore. When your species is dependent on strength and fortitude to survive, this indeed would be a problem.
However, sometime in the last few hundred years coinciding with medical and industrial revolutions, humans stopped needing to be individually 'strong' to survive. We have strength in the group intelligence to fix problems no other creature on this planet is capable of.
I sort of see this as a 'reverse' natural selection. Rather than breed out problems, we've progressed to the point where we'll be able to medically and technically engineer them out of the populations. It's obviously still very much in its infancy, but gene therapy is coming. You'll be diagnosed with genetic disposition to certain cancers and you'll get a shot that will alter your DNA to remove that disposition.
Much like the opinion that space flight is the most amazing thing ever, which I suspect the jury will be out until it provides significant value to everyone, your opinion of 'throwbacks' is simply a point in time where we don't yet, but likely will soon have the ability to solve the 'problems' of increased life expectancy that we've created for ourselves. Most people would probably want those 'problems' rather than the alternatives of dying.
I'm sure the Soviet's could have gotten the crew back safely too, if they'd had a *requirement* for the crew to return safely. Popular lore would have qualified that as a 'feature' to the Soviets;-)
the false negative is the harder thing to rule out, I agree.
My, quite limited, understanding is that if a tornado initially formed in the location of turbines and never leaves the basic area, that's a pretty good indication that it's not a *real* tornado. Combine with reports from the wind farm that 40% didn't just go offline for instance and I think you have a pretty good method to rule out false negatives.
Any indication of a tornado should be checked 'human eyes on' the radar to make sure, but using other circumstantial data it seems like it would be pretty easy to rule out a false negative as well as a false positive.
All of these opinions are of course predicated on the fact that the radar signature is of the actual blades turning or vortexes directly off the blades. If radar picks up the vortexes miles downwind, then obviously this won't work and we have a more serious problem.
yes the blades move in a circle obviously and yes that can be perceived as a tornado. But this 'tornado' would literally never move from the spot the pole is planted on.
Unless the radar is imaging the 'downwind' effects of the turbine, this should be a trivial thing to look at and see clearly for a false positive.
who's rushing? this was proposed in the early 90s remember? except who was it that submarined that effort? oh yeah, the GOP.
Whether or not the holdup comes from Obama, the DEMs or the GOP, by mentioning that it's being held up you completely validate my post. He isn't pushing it along at hyper-speed, it's being held up as you say.
yes technically DEMs are the ones in charge and so they are holding it up, this much is true. But if you want to look beyond the technical, the massive right wing push to use literally anything they can (Death Panels, pull the plug on grandma, etc) well I can understand the DEMs in conservative areas being a bit tentative. I don't agree with it but I can understand it.
And you say it should be following the process, does that mean you're in favor of a Const. amendment to require national healthcare? Or perhaps just a convenient excuse to oppose what *is* a good idea?
I will happily apply blame to both sides but decided not equally.
First, Clinton had DEM control of Congress for only 2 years. Bush had it for 6.
next, what have we gotten for our spending? *generally* speaking the DEMs invest in social programs and *generally* the GOP likes tax cuts for the upper income brackets.
I can tell you which I'd rather spend money on. Now we include Bush spending money on a completely unnecessary war on top of the tax cuts. Sorry, the GOP is more to blame for the national Debt we're dealing with now. I haven't even gone to dealing with the financial regulation systems they dismantled in the last 10 years.
And you'll notice I didn't lump Reagan in as much. His massive spending on the military had a purpose and a real threat to fight against. Bush had a real threat and instead went into Iraq giving the real threat time to recover and regroup.
I was more referring to the the spending Bush started on Iraq. It was a choice and by no means a necessity to be there and spend it and continue to do so. THAT made the spending by Obama significantly harder to swallow. And we'll just leave the trillion in taxcuts for the wealthy to speak for itself, k?
By most accounts, Bush & Obama's actions have lessened over time the severity of the financial crisis. The cost may be significant, but most analysts agree the costs of not doing it would have been much greater.
As for Fannie and Freddie. Are they blameless? not a chance. Were they the cause or even majority players in the crisis? please. The crisis was caused almost entirely by republican mantra's of no regulation and low taxes. Couple that with Bush *heavily* pushing home ownership as the salvation of the country.
If banks had not been allowed to merge with investment firms and we hadn't allowed non-insurance companies to provide insurance (credit default swaps) there wouldn't have been a market for the securitized mortgages. That's what brought the market to it's knees. Some overzealous lenders, following a lack of regulation coupled with the Presidents personal message of "lend baby lend", and well definitely some bad mortgages are going to show up. Now those would be absorbed without much trouble except that they had been factored into these securities that literally nobody understood and then 'borrowed' against by a factor of 20-50. A few bad mortgages quickly become a torrent of bad loans across the industry.
The one area that so far has seemed to escape scrutiny and blame is the Rating Agencies. This was the safety release valve in the system. If these mortgage securities don't get rated AAA, they don't get purchased and borrowed against thus preventing much of the problem.
Given the GOP's ideas on taxes and regulation, whatcha wanna bet we find their fingerprints in the rating agencies as well? That I admit I have know proof of, but given the smoking guns and bullet ridden economic concepts of the GOP, well I'll say it's a safe bet.
push it along at hyper-speed? by most polls it's languishing pretty hard precisely because he *isn't* pushing it.
In my opinion he should be but he's quite clearly not applying the screws to get it done. If he had been, we wouldn't have had the ever so entertaining Death Panel nonsense of the past month.
indeed but the poster was claiming that it was the DEM controlled congress that was the problem. Last I checked, the GOP held the house and senate for 3/4 of Clinton's presidency as well. So for the 75% of the timeframe in which the debt we're talking about was accumulated, the GOP controlled the purse strings.
Some forget that in "the bush years", there was still a democratically controlled congress.
Some may forget, but YOU forget (or is that just ignore) the fact that for the majority of the Bush years the GOP was in charge of both House and Senate.
The last 2 years were DEM controlled sure, just as all the crap from the first 6 years came home to roost. Not exactly the fault of the DEM's that when the economy tanked, we'd ALREADY spent our way to 5 TRILLION in Debt unnecessarily. That made the NECESSARY spending for economic reasons tougher to deal with.
Bush's last budget was 700 Billion deficit. And in reality much, much worse. He just didn't put into the budget the things like military spending for a war that had been going on for 6 years. Obama sadly followed suit to some degree and correctly got called out on the carpet for it. The difference is that Obama didn't *defend* the practice, he admitted 'yeah its a crappy thing but we've gotta do it right now'. Whereas Bush just blindly kept repeating that it wasn't something that deserved to be in the budget in the first place.
So please take your revisionist history and just shove it, k?
minor nit: Pelosi and co are not 'the administration'.
I'm just about as liberal as they come and I'd gladly jettison Pelosi and Reid for some competent leadership, but 'the administration' is Obama and the Whitehouse, not Congress.
and it was one of the first modern FUD policies pretending to improve safety but doing nothing at all.
If someone is skilled enough to wire up a timed bomb in a custom case (boombox), they are more than capable (and I'd wager quite willing) to rig up a battery that's 90% C4 and 10% battery just to pass that check.
Slashdot Mirror
Passing on the shoulder is dangerous but that's a separate issue for the reasons you state.
The reason 'keep right except to pass' is a very good idea even on multi-lane roads is to keep traffic moving in predictable patterns, rather than someone playing 'frogger' as they bounce from lane to lane trying to move forward.
It also greatly speeds traffic flow by having the left lanes for faster traffic and the right lanes for slower/entering/exiting traffic. The Europeans literally shake their heads when they see our left lane exit ramps. It completely disrupts traffic flow, which is dangerous in it's own right.
no, sometimes you don't get a second chance. In which case, it doesn't matter which type of impairment you have.
But many more times, you do have time to correct your error before serious consequences. Who is more likely to be able to do that? I'm going with the texter.
I'm not saying this isn't a problem, I'm just saying that passing a special law for a special activity that is already covered under the more general laws is useless political grandstanding. And the fact that a subset of the population does this without seemingly detrimental effects (officers).
as you say 'Distracted Driving' is the actual 'crime' here. And most states already have laws against it on the books already.
This is just marketing hype by politicians to look good doing absolutely nothing useful.
The big gripe I have is comparing texting while driving to drunk driving. They simply are not remotely the same. After a horn honking at them the texter is going to be alert and aware of what's going on around them.
Perhaps texting while driving is actually worse since the effects can be mitigated in an instant, whereas the drunk is on going and can't solve the issue for hours. So a few moments of inattention from texting cause the same results as a drunk's constant impairment.
And even if it is worse, it's a only a training issue. Police cars today have full laptops they use while driving, not to mention cell phones and blackberries and yet we don't see the police having extraordinary accident rates do we? Why? because they are trained for the situation and the tools. Give people proper training and you'll see accident rates of *all* types go way way down.
An example:
I got pulled over a few years ago in VA for flashing my high beams at a slowpoke in the left lane. The ticket? Improper use of high beams. If flashing them is improper, why the hell is it a ready made 'feature' in every car today? Oh and it was daytime, so no way my beams were brighter than the sunlight.
Was I driving perhaps a tad aggressively? yeah I'll admit to that, but if he hadn't been going 55 in the left lane in a 65 zone with a bunch of backed up traffic waiting on him...
Discussing all this with the officer blew my mind:
Me: Doesn't he have to yield to my visual or audible signal?
Officer: I'm not aware of any such law? (upon looking it up, the VA law is audible signal only hence my ticket)
Me: But he's going to slow in the left lane? I can't pass him on the right, that's a dangerous procedure isn't it?
Officer: You can pass him on the right no problem.
Me: Seriously? When did that change?
Think about it. Apparently much of what I learned in driver's ed is no longer the law. Keep right except to pass - gone! Yield to overtaking traffic - gone! Passing on the right illegal - gone!
What's next? If we don't properly train people, we get the anarchy on the roads we see...
what *I* or the videotaper view as disrupting has little or no bearing on the situation. The Officer can determine whatever he likes at the time.
I've never claimed it's 'right' or 'just', only that it can and does happen. I believe you should be able to video tape, but officers have a tendency to want the evidence of their actions limited to what they control.
perhaps, but if it was 'accidentally' destroyed in the struggle to arrest you, it's a much greyer area me thinks. We're not talking about goody twoshoe cops here.
All I'm saying is there are laws and there is the reality on the street when stuff goes down. They don't match up 1:1.
Ha, reminds me of a run in a friend of mine had. She's a minority and was driving her car (older model japanese...not highend at all) on the beltway and probably speeding a bit. When the cop pulled her over, he started laying the pressure on thick and said he'd like to search her car and trunk. She declined and he insisted.
So she pulled out her business card and handed it too him. 'Legal Attorney for Senator....'
Funny she didn't even get the speeding ticket...
I would LOVED to have seen that cops face when he read her card!
funny enough, with *legal* permission from a judge you can record people subject to an investigation without their knowledge.
unlike the past 8 years, I'm pretty sure Madoff was the target of a 'legally approved' wiretap.
conversations that can be recorded publicly by the human ear-brain combination should also be recorded by pen-and-paper, or tape, or camcorder ;-)
this 'should be' concept is interesting.
At which point in the process of the Officer arresting you for disrupting his lawful business does it come into play? before or after he destroys your camera along with any 'proof' of what was said?
I'm not disagreeing with you, but much like a judge in a courtroom, cops in a given situation *are* the law, the judge and the jury. You can question any charges/directions from them later, but defy them and you are breaking the law.
if it's a fake robbery, somehow I don't think the local police would be posting it on their website as a crime:
http://www.eveshampd.org/press_releases/09-02-09.htm
with the exception that whole 'filing a false police claim' problem they would get into.
;-) But they've got no vested interest here.
The police can't 'lie' about something, or rather wouldn't about something like this. Whether or not they have ticket quotas, sure they'll lie like a rug
who said the salt has to be only appended or prepended? I've built systems where the salt was mixed into the password much like a deck of cards is shuffled. Good luck figuring that out ;-) The pattern of 'shuffle' was constant, so technically just an obfuscation, but a pretty effective one against brute force attacks.
Besides, the point of a salt isn't to make something unknowable, it's to make it hard to brute-force. I don't know that the statement "the salt will always be known" is a valid one. The fact that it's different for each password is what makes it secure.
Now, if the salt is 'known', yes it's not as hard, but you still need to regen the table again to find out what it is.
Salts work best against large scale attacks, not so much against cracking a single password for the reason you describe. But if someone is trying to get a group of passwords, regenerating the tables for each password gets to be a bit time consuming.
To take your argument full circle...you are a throwback, or will be at some point in your life.
What I think you're getting at is natural selection isn't exactly robust among humans these days. And that I'd agree with. The multitude of things we can 'fix' and cure that previously culled many people don't anymore. When your species is dependent on strength and fortitude to survive, this indeed would be a problem.
However, sometime in the last few hundred years coinciding with medical and industrial revolutions, humans stopped needing to be individually 'strong' to survive. We have strength in the group intelligence to fix problems no other creature on this planet is capable of.
I sort of see this as a 'reverse' natural selection. Rather than breed out problems, we've progressed to the point where we'll be able to medically and technically engineer them out of the populations. It's obviously still very much in its infancy, but gene therapy is coming. You'll be diagnosed with genetic disposition to certain cancers and you'll get a shot that will alter your DNA to remove that disposition. Much like the opinion that space flight is the most amazing thing ever, which I suspect the jury will be out until it provides significant value to everyone, your opinion of 'throwbacks' is simply a point in time where we don't yet, but likely will soon have the ability to solve the 'problems' of increased life expectancy that we've created for ourselves. Most people would probably want those 'problems' rather than the alternatives of dying.
I'm sure the Soviet's could have gotten the crew back safely too, if they'd had a *requirement* for the crew to return safely. Popular lore would have qualified that as a 'feature' to the Soviets ;-)
the false negative is the harder thing to rule out, I agree.
My, quite limited, understanding is that if a tornado initially formed in the location of turbines and never leaves the basic area, that's a pretty good indication that it's not a *real* tornado. Combine with reports from the wind farm that 40% didn't just go offline for instance and I think you have a pretty good method to rule out false negatives.
Any indication of a tornado should be checked 'human eyes on' the radar to make sure, but using other circumstantial data it seems like it would be pretty easy to rule out a false negative as well as a false positive.
All of these opinions are of course predicated on the fact that the radar signature is of the actual blades turning or vortexes directly off the blades. If radar picks up the vortexes miles downwind, then obviously this won't work and we have a more serious problem.
in Tornado alley, pretty much every day in spring/summer is a potential storm scenario isn't it?
man, you so totally missed the proper quote:
Fletch: Oh c'mon guys, it's so simple, maybe you need a refresher course. It's all ball bearings these days.
yes the blades move in a circle obviously and yes that can be perceived as a tornado. But this 'tornado' would literally never move from the spot the pole is planted on.
Unless the radar is imaging the 'downwind' effects of the turbine, this should be a trivial thing to look at and see clearly for a false positive.
who's rushing? this was proposed in the early 90s remember? except who was it that submarined that effort? oh yeah, the GOP.
Whether or not the holdup comes from Obama, the DEMs or the GOP, by mentioning that it's being held up you completely validate my post. He isn't pushing it along at hyper-speed, it's being held up as you say.
yes technically DEMs are the ones in charge and so they are holding it up, this much is true. But if you want to look beyond the technical, the massive right wing push to use literally anything they can (Death Panels, pull the plug on grandma, etc) well I can understand the DEMs in conservative areas being a bit tentative. I don't agree with it but I can understand it.
And you say it should be following the process, does that mean you're in favor of a Const. amendment to require national healthcare? Or perhaps just a convenient excuse to oppose what *is* a good idea?
I will happily apply blame to both sides but decided not equally.
First, Clinton had DEM control of Congress for only 2 years. Bush had it for 6.
next, what have we gotten for our spending? *generally* speaking the DEMs invest in social programs and *generally* the GOP likes tax cuts for the upper income brackets.
I can tell you which I'd rather spend money on. Now we include Bush spending money on a completely unnecessary war on top of the tax cuts. Sorry, the GOP is more to blame for the national Debt we're dealing with now. I haven't even gone to dealing with the financial regulation systems they dismantled in the last 10 years.
And you'll notice I didn't lump Reagan in as much. His massive spending on the military had a purpose and a real threat to fight against. Bush had a real threat and instead went into Iraq giving the real threat time to recover and regroup.
I was more referring to the the spending Bush started on Iraq. It was a choice and by no means a necessity to be there and spend it and continue to do so. THAT made the spending by Obama significantly harder to swallow. And we'll just leave the trillion in taxcuts for the wealthy to speak for itself, k?
By most accounts, Bush & Obama's actions have lessened over time the severity of the financial crisis. The cost may be significant, but most analysts agree the costs of not doing it would have been much greater.
As for Fannie and Freddie. Are they blameless? not a chance. Were they the cause or even majority players in the crisis? please. The crisis was caused almost entirely by republican mantra's of no regulation and low taxes. Couple that with Bush *heavily* pushing home ownership as the salvation of the country.
If banks had not been allowed to merge with investment firms and we hadn't allowed non-insurance companies to provide insurance (credit default swaps) there wouldn't have been a market for the securitized mortgages. That's what brought the market to it's knees. Some overzealous lenders, following a lack of regulation coupled with the Presidents personal message of "lend baby lend", and well definitely some bad mortgages are going to show up. Now those would be absorbed without much trouble except that they had been factored into these securities that literally nobody understood and then 'borrowed' against by a factor of 20-50. A few bad mortgages quickly become a torrent of bad loans across the industry.
The one area that so far has seemed to escape scrutiny and blame is the Rating Agencies. This was the safety release valve in the system. If these mortgage securities don't get rated AAA, they don't get purchased and borrowed against thus preventing much of the problem.
Given the GOP's ideas on taxes and regulation, whatcha wanna bet we find their fingerprints in the rating agencies as well? That I admit I have know proof of, but given the smoking guns and bullet ridden economic concepts of the GOP, well I'll say it's a safe bet.
push it along at hyper-speed? by most polls it's languishing pretty hard precisely because he *isn't* pushing it.
In my opinion he should be but he's quite clearly not applying the screws to get it done. If he had been, we wouldn't have had the ever so entertaining Death Panel nonsense of the past month.
indeed but the poster was claiming that it was the DEM controlled congress that was the problem. Last I checked, the GOP held the house and senate for 3/4 of Clinton's presidency as well. So for the 75% of the timeframe in which the debt we're talking about was accumulated, the GOP controlled the purse strings.
oops.
Some forget that in "the bush years", there was still a democratically controlled congress.
Some may forget, but YOU forget (or is that just ignore) the fact that for the majority of the Bush years the GOP was in charge of both House and Senate.
The last 2 years were DEM controlled sure, just as all the crap from the first 6 years came home to roost. Not exactly the fault of the DEM's that when the economy tanked, we'd ALREADY spent our way to 5 TRILLION in Debt unnecessarily. That made the NECESSARY spending for economic reasons tougher to deal with.
Bush's last budget was 700 Billion deficit. And in reality much, much worse. He just didn't put into the budget the things like military spending for a war that had been going on for 6 years. Obama sadly followed suit to some degree and correctly got called out on the carpet for it. The difference is that Obama didn't *defend* the practice, he admitted 'yeah its a crappy thing but we've gotta do it right now'. Whereas Bush just blindly kept repeating that it wasn't something that deserved to be in the budget in the first place.
So please take your revisionist history and just shove it, k?
minor nit:
Pelosi and co are not 'the administration'.
I'm just about as liberal as they come and I'd gladly jettison Pelosi and Reid for some competent leadership, but 'the administration' is Obama and the Whitehouse, not Congress.
and it was one of the first modern FUD policies pretending to improve safety but doing nothing at all.
If someone is skilled enough to wire up a timed bomb in a custom case (boombox), they are more than capable (and I'd wager quite willing) to rig up a battery that's 90% C4 and 10% battery just to pass that check.