The fact that American administration requires something does not mean it will be honored by foreign airlines. As far as I know two airlines ignores this requirements as violation towards passengers. I believe that British Airlines is one of them.
The fact is that pretty soon we will have to board naked and ask pilot for permission to go to the restroom.... just like in preschool where teacher or nurse has to be asked by kids.
Also sick people may not accept the fact that they cannot use blanket in notoriously overcooled aircrafts where freqently airconditioning is abused... just like in many places in the USA.
Sorry, but that's not reasonable long term solution and it does not do anything except inconvenience to passengers. The fact that one creep (actually two if someone remembers that other guy years ago who tried to light fuse in his shoe) did this does not mean that another would not be able to come up with new method to smuggle some sort of detonation charge with fuse on board. Intelligent people can really overcome average rule and though of average person, clerk or administration. Believe me.
I wonder why people have to suffer on flight bound to the USA if TSA and other security agences are so lame to let a passenger with some plastic bottle-like charge on board. I would prefer stricter search than some foolish solutions during flight.
Not understanding. The above seems to say it would be good to have better technology. Both seem to be targeted at standard metal detectors and screening. I assume you reported the knife.
It looked like it was a training exercise. The supervisor came over 5 minutes later after I went through. Today, with fortified cockpit doors and more aware passengers, a knife is not a viable weapon on a plane.
The problem is any time you rely on technology alone to solve the problem you are destined to fail. This is even more significant if you have a single point of screening. There are much easier ways to get contraband into airport/airside that can be done with minimal investment and risk.
Another way to look at it is the ratio of false positives to false negatives. Just how many people pass through checkpoints a year. How many do you think want to bring something mischievous aboard a plane for the purposes of disrupting passenger safety? O'Hare has about 100MAP, and I would guess about 150 magnetometers. Let's say 600,000 passengers pass through each per year. Do you think there are more than 10 people that might try and smuggle PETN through in a year?
Compare this to the effectiveness of bomb-sniffing dogs roaming the terminal or checking passengers as they enter planes. I think the benefit is much better with the dogs as people don't have to know what they are sniffing (drugs, bombs, or food).
Apple makes computers and smartphones. These regulations prevent their use an hour before landing, or in shorter flights from Canada, completely prevent any laptop use.
Conversely, having a GPS enabled iPhone on board completely voids the intent of forcing airlines to stop presenting passengers with GPS/flight location data.
If you are wondering why an article is on AI, think for a moment and save yourself the embarrassment related to posting a ridiculous and unnecessary question.
Wow that was rude. \ It was just a question, and in no way was it ridiculous and unnecessary. You are the one who should be embarrassed
The money spent on excessive airport screening would go much farther in the air.
You're joking, right? The most effective ways of stopping terrorist attacks on planes are, in order:
Try not to piss people off so much that they want to blow you up in the first place
Have good enough relations with the population in general that people will report anyone who's getting radicalised and might be up to something
Other intelligence gathering (eg. watch out for people visiting radical web sites then stocking up on industrial quantities of fertilizer and bleach for their inner city apartment!)
Watch out for people behaving suspiciously at check in and in the departure lounge
Metal detectors and baggage x-rays at the gate
Reinforced cockpit doors and sky marshals
If terrorists get anywhere near 6, you've already failed!
Quote:
Originally Posted by echosonic
A simple law permitting off-duty police officers to carry small arms on planes would solve the entire problem of airline security.
Encourage off-duty policeman to carry their guns on planes?? You're joking even more than the first poster I assume. It's difficult to imagine anything that would make air travel more dangerous than that... except maybe encouraging off-duty soldiers to carry hand grenades onto aircraft! You tell me which sounds more likely, "brave off-duty copy foils hijack in shootout with terrorists at 30,000 ft", or "terrorists walk onto plane with weapons using forged law enforcement credentials".
Encourage off-duty policeman to carry their guns on planes?? You're joking even more than the first poster I assume. It's difficult to imagine anything that would make air travel more dangerous than that... except maybe encouraging off-duty soldiers to carry hand grenades onto aircraft! You tell me which sounds more likely, "brave off-duty copy foils hijack in shootout with terrorists at 30,000 ft", or "terrorists walk onto plane with weapons using forged law enforcement credentials".
And which cops and in which airlines? An USA cop with a gun in Iberia in a flight from Barcelona to Atlanta?
And most have been Caucasian. (At this point you should actually look up the word Caucasian...)
His usage is valid. The term is no longer scientific and often used colloquially to describe ?whites? of European descent. This is a common term in the US. Apparently I?m Caucasian despite never having been to the Caucasus mountains.
His usage is valid. The term is no longer scientific and often used colloquially to describe ?whites? of European descent. This is a common term in the US. Apparently I?m Caucasian despite never having been to the Caucasus mountains.
His usage might be colloquially valid, but I don't think he knows that it is also valid to view most people originating in the Middle East as Caucasian, which is relevant since his intent was obviously to imply that Muslims are of one race, while white Europeans are of a different race and thus don't need to be scrutinized.
His usage might be colloquially valid, but I don't think he knows that it is also valid to view most people originating in the Middle East as Caucasian, which is relevant since his intent was obviously to imply that Muslims are of one race, while white Europeans are of a different race and thus don't need to be scrutinized.
Hmm.. Maybe I’m wrong but I don’t think his use of “Caucasian" and “Islamic" had anything to do with race.
PS: I’d like to see the term race completely abolished. We are all still the same genus and species which makes us the same “race" in my [science] book. If anything we are merely breeds, like dogs, with certain superficial characteristics in our appearance and genetic makeup based on our breeding habits. Our biggest differences are cultural and therefore learned… and therefore can be unlearned if we choose to grow as an indivdual, as a society and as a species.
Hmm.. Maybe I?m wrong but I don?t think his use of ?Caucasian" and ?Islamic" had anything to do with race.
I might be wrong, too. But in my experience people who bring up the 90 year-old Caucasian grandmother example are usually implying that one can tell who "looks Muslim", and thus who is more likely to be a terrorist, based on immutable physical characteristics like skin color, as opposed to a person's name or country of origin or their dress.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
PS: I?d like to see the term race completely abolished. We are all still the same genus and species which makes us the same race in my [science] book. If anything we are merely breeds, like dogs with certain superficial characteristics in our appearance and makeup based on our breeding habits. Our biggest differences are cultural and therefore learned? and therefore can be unlearned if we choose to grow a person as a culture and as a species.
Encourage off-duty policeman to carry their guns on planes?? You're joking even more than the first poster I assume. It's difficult to imagine anything that would make air travel more dangerous than that... except maybe encouraging off-duty soldiers to carry hand grenades onto aircraft! You tell me which sounds more likely, "brave off-duty copy foils hijack in shootout with terrorists at 30,000 ft", or "terrorists walk onto plane with weapons using forged law enforcement credentials".
I'm with you on this one only because of the fear of an innocent person getting shot. Plus, how the hell are you going to tell the air marshall about it, if they are on board, especially if they are supposed to remain unnoticed unless needed. So a terrorist starts his thing on a plane. Off duty Officer Smith pulls his weapon, Air Marshall Jones, not knowing of the presence of off duty Officer Smith, shoots and kills him thus ending off duty Officer Smith's vacation early because he thought off duty Officer Smith was part of the terror plot. Meanwhile, Mr. Terrorist sees this transpire and thinks it's cool because all he has to do now before taking control of the plane is kill Air Marshall Jones while he is preoccupied with killing off duty Officer Smith. Not to mention the stray bullets from off duty Officer Smith's full size service weapon that could hit me or pierce the cockpit wall and kill one of the flight crew.
I might be wrong, too. But in my experience people who bring up the 90 year-old Caucasian grandmother example are usually implying that one can tell who "looks Muslim", and thus who is more likely to be a terrorist, based on immutable physical characteristics like skin color, as opposed to a person's name or country of origin or their dress.
Despite the pejorative connotation of the term ?profiling?, I think his point is valid. The likelihood of a 90yo, male or female, of any religion or cultural background being a terrorist is pretty remote. But there is plenty of evidence to show that certain aged males from specific cultures with specific religions are more likely to be conned into thinking terrorism and suicide is a valid way to express oneself and/or deal with life
That said, as a ?white? US American male between the ages of 25?35yo I fall into the most common profile of being a serial killer so I wouldn?t be offended if I was stopped and questioned before others based on a historical likelihood. I wouldn?t like being inconvenienced but I certainly would understand why I children and old ladies were not bothered.
Despite the pejorative connotation of the term “profiling”, I think his point is valid. The likelihood of a 90yo, male or female, of any religion or cultural background being a terrorist is pretty remote. But there is plenty of evidence to show that certain aged males from specific cultures with specific religions are more likely to be conned into thinking terrorism and suicide is a valid way to express oneself and/or deal with life
I don't object to all kinds of profiling. It is true that certain aged males of certain religions are more likely to be the perpetrators of terrorism. No argument there. But profiling based on age or religion or culture is not the same thing as profiling based on so-called race. Because of his use of the word Caucasian in excusing a hypothetical person from suspicion, I assume he feels that a person's race can be an excluding factor, which is a red-herring that actually be easily exploited. There are many Muslim extremists in Syria who are very fair-skinned and fair-haired who "look Caucasian".
I don't object to all kinds of profiling. It is true that certain aged males of certain religions are more likely to be the perpetrators of terrorism. No argument there. But profiling based on age or religion or culture is not the same thing as profiling based on so-called race. Because of his use of the word Caucasian in excusing a hypothetical person from suspicion, I assume he feels that a person's race can be an excluding factor, which is a red-herring that actually be easily exploited. There are many Muslim extremists in Syria who are very fair-skinned and fair-haired who "look Caucasian".
Based on the inherent complexity of defining these often subjective terms and ease of which they are taken out of context I’ll accept whatever clarification he makes regarding your initial reply.
Based on the inherent complexity of defining these often subjective terms and ease of which they are taken out of context I’ll accept whatever clarification he makes regarding your initial reply.
That's reasonable, and it is entirely possible that I've misunderstood his point or taken something he wrote out of context. I just felt that his mutual exclusion of "Muslim" with "Caucasian appearance" was enough to warrant a response.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
Oh, welcome to the forum.
Thanks. I thought I had posted here before, but in looking at my posting history, I guess not.
Comments
Marginal literacy and yelling are common traits for people who espouse opinions like yours. Why?
I couldn't stop myself from reading his post. It was like a driving past a bad car accident.
I feel dirty.
What a bunch of paranoid fascist crap.
Were you referring to the article, to the situation it was reporting upon, or to your reply? The latter, is my guess.
The fact is that pretty soon we will have to board naked and ask pilot for permission to go to the restroom.... just like in preschool where teacher or nurse has to be asked by kids.
Also sick people may not accept the fact that they cannot use blanket in notoriously overcooled aircrafts where freqently airconditioning is abused... just like in many places in the USA.
Sorry, but that's not reasonable long term solution and it does not do anything except inconvenience to passengers. The fact that one creep (actually two if someone remembers that other guy years ago who tried to light fuse in his shoe) did this does not mean that another would not be able to come up with new method to smuggle some sort of detonation charge with fuse on board. Intelligent people can really overcome average rule and though of average person, clerk or administration. Believe me.
I wonder why people have to suffer on flight bound to the USA if TSA and other security agences are so lame to let a passenger with some plastic bottle-like charge on board. I would prefer stricter search than some foolish solutions during flight.
(And Euro living in the USA)
Not understanding. The above seems to say it would be good to have better technology. Both seem to be targeted at standard metal detectors and screening. I assume you reported the knife.
It looked like it was a training exercise. The supervisor came over 5 minutes later after I went through. Today, with fortified cockpit doors and more aware passengers, a knife is not a viable weapon on a plane.
The problem is any time you rely on technology alone to solve the problem you are destined to fail. This is even more significant if you have a single point of screening. There are much easier ways to get contraband into airport/airside that can be done with minimal investment and risk.
Another way to look at it is the ratio of false positives to false negatives. Just how many people pass through checkpoints a year. How many do you think want to bring something mischievous aboard a plane for the purposes of disrupting passenger safety? O'Hare has about 100MAP, and I would guess about 150 magnetometers. Let's say 600,000 passengers pass through each per year. Do you think there are more than 10 people that might try and smuggle PETN through in a year?
Compare this to the effectiveness of bomb-sniffing dogs roaming the terminal or checking passengers as they enter planes. I think the benefit is much better with the dogs as people don't have to know what they are sniffing (drugs, bombs, or food).
I don't understand the privacy concern over the new scanners? (I read here: http://www.tsa.gov/approach/tech/millimeter_wave.shtm) You don't even have to break your stride to be scanned.
Does this explain why people are concerned? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMMXO_GmWw0
The privacy problem comes at around 58 seconds into the video.
Apple makes computers and smartphones. These regulations prevent their use an hour before landing, or in shorter flights from Canada, completely prevent any laptop use.
Conversely, having a GPS enabled iPhone on board completely voids the intent of forcing airlines to stop presenting passengers with GPS/flight location data.
If you are wondering why an article is on AI, think for a moment and save yourself the embarrassment related to posting a ridiculous and unnecessary question.
Wow that was rude.
The money spent on excessive airport screening would go much farther in the air.
You're joking, right? The most effective ways of stopping terrorist attacks on planes are, in order:
- Try not to piss people off so much that they want to blow you up in the first place
- Have good enough relations with the population in general that people will report anyone who's getting radicalised and might be up to something
- Other intelligence gathering (eg. watch out for people visiting radical web sites then stocking up on industrial quantities of fertilizer and bleach for their inner city apartment!)
- Watch out for people behaving suspiciously at check in and in the departure lounge
- Metal detectors and baggage x-rays at the gate
- Reinforced cockpit doors and sky marshals
If terrorists get anywhere near 6, you've already failed!A simple law permitting off-duty police officers to carry small arms on planes would solve the entire problem of airline security.
Encourage off-duty policeman to carry their guns on planes?? You're joking even more than the first poster I assume. It's difficult to imagine anything that would make air travel more dangerous than that... except maybe encouraging off-duty soldiers to carry hand grenades onto aircraft! You tell me which sounds more likely, "brave off-duty copy foils hijack in shootout with terrorists at 30,000 ft", or "terrorists walk onto plane with weapons using forged law enforcement credentials".
Encourage off-duty policeman to carry their guns on planes?? You're joking even more than the first poster I assume. It's difficult to imagine anything that would make air travel more dangerous than that... except maybe encouraging off-duty soldiers to carry hand grenades onto aircraft! You tell me which sounds more likely, "brave off-duty copy foils hijack in shootout with terrorists at 30,000 ft", or "terrorists walk onto plane with weapons using forged law enforcement credentials".
And which cops and in which airlines? An USA cop with a gun in Iberia in a flight from Barcelona to Atlanta?
A Spanish cop in Delta from Barcelona to Atlanta?
Stop the random stuff; it's ridiculous to search the 90 year old caucasian grandmothers. Every airline terriorist attacker has been Islamic.
And most have been Caucasian. (At this point you should actually look up the word Caucasian...)
And most have been Caucasian. (At this point you should actually look up the word Caucasian...)
His usage is valid. The term is no longer scientific and often used colloquially to describe ?whites? of European descent. This is a common term in the US. Apparently I?m Caucasian despite never having been to the Caucasus mountains.
His usage is valid. The term is no longer scientific and often used colloquially to describe ?whites? of European descent. This is a common term in the US. Apparently I?m Caucasian despite never having been to the Caucasus mountains.
His usage might be colloquially valid, but I don't think he knows that it is also valid to view most people originating in the Middle East as Caucasian, which is relevant since his intent was obviously to imply that Muslims are of one race, while white Europeans are of a different race and thus don't need to be scrutinized.
His usage might be colloquially valid, but I don't think he knows that it is also valid to view most people originating in the Middle East as Caucasian, which is relevant since his intent was obviously to imply that Muslims are of one race, while white Europeans are of a different race and thus don't need to be scrutinized.
Hmm.. Maybe I’m wrong but I don’t think his use of “Caucasian" and “Islamic" had anything to do with race.
PS: I’d like to see the term race completely abolished. We are all still the same genus and species which makes us the same “race" in my [science] book. If anything we are merely breeds, like dogs, with certain superficial characteristics in our appearance and genetic makeup based on our breeding habits. Our biggest differences are cultural and therefore learned… and therefore can be unlearned if we choose to grow as an indivdual, as a society and as a species.
Hmm.. Maybe I?m wrong but I don?t think his use of ?Caucasian" and ?Islamic" had anything to do with race.
I might be wrong, too. But in my experience people who bring up the 90 year-old Caucasian grandmother example are usually implying that one can tell who "looks Muslim", and thus who is more likely to be a terrorist, based on immutable physical characteristics like skin color, as opposed to a person's name or country of origin or their dress.
PS: I?d like to see the term race completely abolished. We are all still the same genus and species which makes us the same race in my [science] book. If anything we are merely breeds, like dogs with certain superficial characteristics in our appearance and makeup based on our breeding habits. Our biggest differences are cultural and therefore learned? and therefore can be unlearned if we choose to grow a person as a culture and as a species.
Agreed.
Encourage off-duty policeman to carry their guns on planes?? You're joking even more than the first poster I assume. It's difficult to imagine anything that would make air travel more dangerous than that... except maybe encouraging off-duty soldiers to carry hand grenades onto aircraft! You tell me which sounds more likely, "brave off-duty copy foils hijack in shootout with terrorists at 30,000 ft", or "terrorists walk onto plane with weapons using forged law enforcement credentials".
I'm with you on this one only because of the fear of an innocent person getting shot. Plus, how the hell are you going to tell the air marshall about it, if they are on board, especially if they are supposed to remain unnoticed unless needed. So a terrorist starts his thing on a plane. Off duty Officer Smith pulls his weapon, Air Marshall Jones, not knowing of the presence of off duty Officer Smith, shoots and kills him thus ending off duty Officer Smith's vacation early because he thought off duty Officer Smith was part of the terror plot. Meanwhile, Mr. Terrorist sees this transpire and thinks it's cool because all he has to do now before taking control of the plane is kill Air Marshall Jones while he is preoccupied with killing off duty Officer Smith. Not to mention the stray bullets from off duty Officer Smith's full size service weapon that could hit me or pierce the cockpit wall and kill one of the flight crew.
I might be wrong, too. But in my experience people who bring up the 90 year-old Caucasian grandmother example are usually implying that one can tell who "looks Muslim", and thus who is more likely to be a terrorist, based on immutable physical characteristics like skin color, as opposed to a person's name or country of origin or their dress.
Despite the pejorative connotation of the term ?profiling?, I think his point is valid. The likelihood of a 90yo, male or female, of any religion or cultural background being a terrorist is pretty remote. But there is plenty of evidence to show that certain aged males from specific cultures with specific religions are more likely to be conned into thinking terrorism and suicide is a valid way to express oneself and/or deal with life
That said, as a ?white? US American male between the ages of 25?35yo I fall into the most common profile of being a serial killer so I wouldn?t be offended if I was stopped and questioned before others based on a historical likelihood. I wouldn?t like being inconvenienced but I certainly would understand why I children and old ladies were not bothered.
Despite the pejorative connotation of the term “profiling”, I think his point is valid. The likelihood of a 90yo, male or female, of any religion or cultural background being a terrorist is pretty remote. But there is plenty of evidence to show that certain aged males from specific cultures with specific religions are more likely to be conned into thinking terrorism and suicide is a valid way to express oneself and/or deal with life
I don't object to all kinds of profiling. It is true that certain aged males of certain religions are more likely to be the perpetrators of terrorism. No argument there. But profiling based on age or religion or culture is not the same thing as profiling based on so-called race. Because of his use of the word Caucasian in excusing a hypothetical person from suspicion, I assume he feels that a person's race can be an excluding factor, which is a red-herring that actually be easily exploited. There are many Muslim extremists in Syria who are very fair-skinned and fair-haired who "look Caucasian".
I don't object to all kinds of profiling. It is true that certain aged males of certain religions are more likely to be the perpetrators of terrorism. No argument there. But profiling based on age or religion or culture is not the same thing as profiling based on so-called race. Because of his use of the word Caucasian in excusing a hypothetical person from suspicion, I assume he feels that a person's race can be an excluding factor, which is a red-herring that actually be easily exploited. There are many Muslim extremists in Syria who are very fair-skinned and fair-haired who "look Caucasian".
Based on the inherent complexity of defining these often subjective terms and ease of which they are taken out of context I’ll accept whatever clarification he makes regarding your initial reply.
Oh, welcome to the forum.
Based on the inherent complexity of defining these often subjective terms and ease of which they are taken out of context I’ll accept whatever clarification he makes regarding your initial reply.
That's reasonable, and it is entirely possible that I've misunderstood his point or taken something he wrote out of context. I just felt that his mutual exclusion of "Muslim" with "Caucasian appearance" was enough to warrant a response.
Oh, welcome to the forum.
Thanks. I thought I had posted here before, but in looking at my posting history, I guess not.
Just curious why this news is in this particular blog?
Why is this not in "AppleOutsider"? This has nothing to do with "General tech discussion, including purchasing advice and industry trends."
Does anyone remember what this site is supposed to be about?