Idiots
in [Design]
|
From: mpm on 26 Dec 2009 22:47 On Dec 26, 6:16 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On a sunny day (Sat, 26 Dec 2009 23:05:02 +0000) it happened Adrian C > <em...(a)here.invalid> wrote in <7pnj4mFbq...(a)mid.individual.net>: > > > > > > >John Larkin wrote: > > >> 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. > > >Seen the walk-in explosive detectors they have around the Statue of > >Liberty exhibit? The type that puff your clothes and work out the > >composition of your last spray of beauty product. > > >They don't have those in many airports yet. Maybe they should.... > > >But I have a cheaper alternative. > > >A chamber constructed of a few tons of reinforced concrete and lead is > >placed just after the departure gate. Each passenger walks through it, > >one at a time, and is quickly subjected to various EMC and other stimuli > >that would naturally set off their explosive device if carrying. The > >innocent pass through unscathed, and the miscreants would be immediately > >caught and dealt with. > > >Oh, where is that Patent brief.... > > Well, he mixed the explosives in flight it seems, so the ingredients > may have been hard to trigger, but you could kill innocent people with a pacemaker for example. > > What I find a bit hard to swallow is that they keep him in a hospital... > I would question him, let him suffer, and then shoot him, after all > he tried to kill more then 250 people. > > I do not like all that security stuff. > There is always a risk in life, more people die in traffic each year.. > > I know Schiphol airport pretty well, worked there too. > Had security clearance too. > Strange they did not check anybody at that gate, maybe just a metal detector.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - I once had one of those checkpoint guards do some extra screening on me... He sat me down in a chair, had me raise each foot, and he would waive a wand around my shoes checking for metal. Of course, the chair was right next to a metal filing cabinet, so the wand would sound every time it got between my foot and the file cabinet. (Duh?!) The solution: x-ray my shoes multiple times. I did try to explain to the guard what was going on, but he was a clueless automaton. As I suspect most TSA personnel are. I don't feel particularly safe having them on duty. Poorer, as it relates to taxes, but not safer. Huge waste of taxpayer money. -mpm
From: mpm on 26 Dec 2009 22:48 On Dec 26, 6:40 pm, "Martin Riddle" <martin_...(a)verizon.net> wrote: > "John Larkin" <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in > messagenews:ol3dj5h84quqkdbn6gefuteneg7rhmqi13(a)4ax.com... > > > > > > > > >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. > > > 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. > > > 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. > > > (If they search you three times, they seem to be assuming that the > > first two searches were incompetant.) > > > Idiots. Always fighting the last battle. > > > John > > Great make all this public knowledge, now the terrorists are better > educated. > > And what about Nigeria, and Amsterdam? Everything status quo? > > Cheers- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Martin, The terrorists could educate our security personnel!! Only, they're too fat and lazy to pay attention. (and/or too stupid for the training to take hold).
From: Robert Baer on 26 Dec 2009 22:54 Adrian C wrote: > John Larkin wrote: > >> 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. > > Seen the walk-in explosive detectors they have around the Statue of > Liberty exhibit? The type that puff your clothes and work out the > composition of your last spray of beauty product. > > They don't have those in many airports yet. Maybe they should.... > > > But I have a cheaper alternative. > > A chamber constructed of a few tons of reinforced concrete and lead is > placed just after the departure gate. Each passenger walks through it, > one at a time, and is quickly subjected to various EMC and other stimuli > that would naturally set off their explosive device if carrying. The > innocent pass through unscathed, and the miscreants would be immediately > caught and dealt with. > > Oh, where is that Patent brief.... > ...THAT solution is tooooo simple for government types...
From: Jim Yanik on 26 Dec 2009 23:08 Robert Baer <robertbaer(a)localnet.com> wrote in news:LqadnZrkH7yNR6vWnZ2dnUVZ_vFi4p2d(a)posted.localnet: > Adrian C wrote: >> John Larkin wrote: >> >>> 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. >> >> Seen the walk-in explosive detectors they have around the Statue of >> Liberty exhibit? The type that puff your clothes and work out the >> composition of your last spray of beauty product. >> >> They don't have those in many airports yet. Maybe they should.... >> >> >> But I have a cheaper alternative. >> >> A chamber constructed of a few tons of reinforced concrete and lead >> is placed just after the departure gate. Each passenger walks through >> it, one at a time, and is quickly subjected to various EMC and other >> stimuli that would naturally set off their explosive device if >> carrying. The innocent pass through unscathed, and the miscreants >> would be immediately caught and dealt with. It doesn't have to be that massive. All that's needed is to contain fragments and vent the blast up and out of the building. And a system to wash down the passage before the next passenger uses it... >> >> Oh, where is that Patent brief.... >> > ..THAT solution is tooooo simple for government types... > -- Jim Yanik jyanik at localnet dot com
From: Bill Sloman on 26 Dec 2009 23:15
On Dec 27, 4:36 am, Jim Yanik <jya...(a)abuse.gov> wrote: > krw <k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote innews:8pbdj59081f7l6j23t5la2at2e7gamfig0(a)4ax.com: > > > On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 18:48:10 -0600, Vladimir Vassilevsky > ><nos...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > > >>John Larkin wrote: <snipped incoherent discussion of airport security> > TSA is a fine example of how US Socialist Healthcare is going to work. Jim Yanik takes an example of a thoroughly capitalist airport security failure - the airports don't pay the screening staff enough to make it an attractive job, and have them working long shifts so that it is hard for them to keep their attention on what they are doing - and uses it to predict how the prospective changes in the US health care system are going to work. Since the obvious planned change in the US health care system is to make sure that more people have health insurance, it isn't obvious how this is going to make the hospitals work worse than they do at the moment. More health insurance probably does mean that more people will go to their doctors as soon as they feel sick, rather until waiting until they feel so sick that bankruptcy is the lesser evil, and this may put more pressure on primary health care, but since it is usually easier and quicker to treat people when they first get sick, the hospitals may well end up with less to do. Europe spends about half as much per head on health care as the US, and getting at the patients earlier may be part of the reason, though most authors think that the US wastes more money on roccoco administrative schemes aimed at saving the insurers from losing money on patients that they used to be able to shed when they started needing their insurance (which is a trick that the planned changes are supposed to be going to block). -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen |