Idiots
in [Design]
|
From: Jim Thompson on 29 Dec 2009 10:51 On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 18:07:17 -0800, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 22:36:27 +0000, Martin Brown ><|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >>John Larkin wrote: >>> >>> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/27/us/27security.html >>> >>> So a guy tried to detonate a bomb during the last hour of a flight. >>> The TSA morons thus conclude that all terrorists detonate their bombs >>> in the last hour, so make it illegal to get out of your seat during >>> those 60 minutes. They are clearly assuming that the bombers are >>> dumber than they are; I have my doubts. >> >>This guy appeared to have been quite bright and from a good family if >>his educational record and background checks are to be believed. >> >>But he obviously didn't tick the boxes on the US Visa application marked >>"do you intend to overthrow the government of the USA or assassinate the >>President?". It is a standing joke in the ROW that only an American >>would be dumb enough to tick those boxes. It is rumoured that Oscar >>Wilde wrote in earlier days "Sole purpose of visit" in answer to this >>question. AFAIK no US president has been killed by a foreigner to date. >> >>http://www.cvni.net/radio/e2k/e2k025/e2k25news.html >>(under Visa Waiver Program) >> >>It is an insane question since there are two possible outcomes to an >>attempted coup. Either the coup succeeds and the question is irrelevant >>or it fails and the perp gets another 5 years for not answering a Visa >>question added to his 200 year or death sentence to run concurrently. >> >>So clearly despite him being on a UK no-fly terrorist watch list the US >>authorities were quite happy to let him fly to the USA. >> >>> The real issue is why they let a Nigerian, festooned with explosives, >>> on a terrorist watch list, onto the plane in the first place. I >>> suppose searching people who look like they might be terrorists would >>> be "profiling" or "invasion or privacy" or something. >> >>What I find more amazing is that he went through Amsterdam Schiphol - >>there are full bodyscan booths on most UK flights and I assume on US >>ones too so it is amazing he got through. Having said that they are >>nowhere near as sharp as London Heathrow. US carriers have insane levels >>of personal details they demand ages in advance so there are serious >>questions to be asked about why the dozy bastards did not notice him. >> >>But I could not get a credit card through at Schiphol, so body moulded >>PETN seems highly unlikely to get through iff he went through the right >>scanners. And someone on a terrorist watch list should be getting *very* >>well checked. There is a clear systematic failing somewhere that needs >>sorting out for all our sakes. >>> >>> They did give my 90-year old father a full, very rude pull-aside >>> screening because he had a one-way ticket out of Louisiana after >>> Katrina. I once got super-harassed and triple searched because my >>> ticket had a "payment basis" of "A", and nobody knew what "A" meant. I >>> think it meant American Express. >> >>One way tickets are always suspicious. You said you wanted profiling. > >Terrorists buy one-way tickets? > >And what's suspicious about a 90 year old guy leaving New Orleans >after a hurricane? > >And why are the security people always so rude? To show how tough they >are? > >John To make it clear that they are Democrats? ...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | Help save the environment! Please dispose of socialism responsibly!
From: John Larkin on 29 Dec 2009 13:29 On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 13:45:49 +0200, Paul Keinanen <keinanen(a)sci.fi> wrote: >On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 18:08:34 GMT, Jan Panteltje ><pNaonStpealmtje(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>On a sunny day (Mon, 28 Dec 2009 08:29:12 -0500) it happened PeterD >><peter2(a)hipson.net> wrote in <2kchj5ptl0si10folbr9k0stm04bo9him2(a)4ax.com>: > >>>They do just fine... Don't confuse movies with real life. Many planes >>>have been 'shot full of holes' and none have crashed from >>>decompression... >> >>Actually, come to think of it, there have been several fatal crashes due to decompression. >>One big one was IIRC a DC10 that had the cargo door pop out, the pressure difference broke the floor, >>ripped the control cables routed in that floor, and it crashed. >>There also was not so long ago a small private jet, it depressurised, the crew got unconscious, >>it kept flying on auto pilot until it ran out of fuel and crashed. >>Then a year or 2 ago a Greek plane decompressed and crashed with all passengers aboard. >>I am sure there are zillion more cases. > >The early de Havilland Comet jet airliners crashed due to compression >fatigue, the Turkish Airlines DC10 crashed outside Paris due to >control cable damage. The 747 crash in Japan was due to badly repaired >pressure bulkhead (after a tail dragging incident). > >Other than these events, are there other events, in which the plane >has been lost due to decompression or structure failure ? > http://pdf.aiaa.org/preview/CDReadyMSDM2005_970/PV2005_2252.pdf John
From: PeterD on 29 Dec 2009 20:29 On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 22:45:34 GMT, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On a sunny day (Mon, 28 Dec 2009 22:30:29 +0000) it happened Dirk Bruere at >NeoPax <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote in <7psps4F37nU1(a)mid.individual.net>: > >>Jan Panteltje wrote: >>> On a sunny day (Mon, 28 Dec 2009 16:07:39 -0500) it happened PeterD >>> <peter2(a)hipson.net> wrote in <m97ij5d0fm7fh4j8tj74mbave2lapks226(a)4ax.com>: >>>> But if we go back to the original point, that a bullet hole will cause >>>> a plane to explode because it is pressurized, >>> >>> I do not think tha tever was the original point. >>> Not even in Goldfinger. >> >>Myth Busters tried it. >>A bullet hole will not cause structural failure in an airliner. >>Nor will anyone get sucked out through a small window. > >Goldfinger was big and fat, so it was a big window, >else he would not have fit through it. >:-) Didn't it seem to 'compress' him as he was sucked out? I remember thinking that there was some very strange geometry in play in that scene. <g>
From: Jamie on 29 Dec 2009 21:03 Tim Williams wrote: > "Dirk Bruere at NeoPax" <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:7psuqcFs56U2(a)mid.individual.net... > >>I have heard of some fat woman getting her innards sucked out while >>flushing the loo at 30,000 ft. at the same time as making an airtight fit. > > > Also Mythbusters. Hint: toilet seat has a gap. > > Tim > If you're a fat pig, that gap can be filled! :)
From: JosephKK on 29 Dec 2009 23:05
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 14:43:56 -0700, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)My-Web-Site.com/Snicker> wrote: >On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 22:56:56 +0200, Anssi Saari <as(a)sci.fi> wrote: > >>Vladimir Vassilevsky <nospam(a)nowhere.com> writes: >> >>> If he was a terrorist, that plane won't land. He is just another >>> amateur madman. >> >>Yes, at least the NY Times said the guy was in the bathroom for 20 >>minutes, presumably tinkering with his bomb, then went back to his >>seat to set it off. Can't imagine why, makes more sense to set it off >>in the bathroom. Well, maybe he forgot to bring something to the >>bathroom? >> >>> However, it is a good question why amateurs started causing so much >>> trouble. >> >>Maybe it's just copycatting? Like the failed attempt at a follow-up in >>London Underground with bombs that didn't work? > >What's scary is the possibility that several passengers, over several >flights of the same plane, manage to carry on and stash components to >build a bomb in the john :-( > >Why was he in the john for 20 minutes? > >There has to be some way to dispose of these Islamists that prevents >them from entering their "heaven" and getting all those virgins (*) >... What was it that the Israelis did once to make a point? Something like sew them up in pig skin and drown them? It had to completely exclude any kind of "honorable" death. Maybe it was to let their own body functions kill them. > >Boil them to death in pork fat ?:-) > >(*) What good is a virgin... I want a "cougar" ;-) > > ...Jim Thompson |