While this is true, the attacker does not need physical access for this. All they need is access to an innocent user who can be convinced to plug something in.

The FBI and secret service demonstrated this type of attack back in the early 2000s. They dropped usb drives near banks night drop boxes and front doors that pinged a server with the local ip and machine name and wrote a file locally when plugged in with the autorun on. Something like 70% or so pinged. People where plugging them in to try to figure out who's they were to return them.

Its pretty easy to convince someone to plug something in.

Oddly enough, it's only when the guns are solely in the hands of the mass murderers that kill counts ever breach the 5 count. Anytime other guns are present the kill count is almost always kept under 4

Here's my helpful tip to you: write accurate statements and don't try to pretend there are multiple meanings for the phrase "cabin pressure stabilizes" or "closest airport". And then when you get caught in multiple mistakes in one posting, don't try killing the messenger, use it as a reminder to preview what you write before you submit.

I have never once had my carry-on weighed. And once I carried on about 40 pounds specifically so I could meet the 50 pound checked limit.

You want a TSA officer in the security checkpoint line having enough discretion to try to differentiate between someone who actually forgot he had a weapon and someone who is trying to sneak one past because he wants to use it on board? How many attempts should someone get to sneak a gun through the line so he can finally succeed when it isn't detected? If all that happens when he's caught is the gun is politely handed back to him and he's told to go to check it, what stops him from trying again, and again?

What is the point of this argument? Are you saying that it's ok to allow people to carry guns onto a plane because those who forget to check their weapons aren't much of a threat? Are you saying that TSA agents who paw through your carry-on should be making judgement calls to differentiate between those who were just too stupid or forgetful to check a gun and those who are saying they forgot to check it when caught? I don't know why it matters if some people could be forgetful or stupid in this matter. What difference should it make in the process?

All you need is ammunition. Buy a cheap box of 22 or shotgun shells.

I don't know why you think that is implied. I think you infer it incorrectly.

No, he'll have to descend until it reaches a partial pressure of oxygen that will not kill anyone. You can have a "stabilized" cabin pressure of "very low" at 35,000 feet, but once the short-term oxy generators run out people will be passing out and some may die.

And if the holes are in the pilot and co-pilot, and they're behind a locked door, you'll eventually descend until ground level.

Really? The aircraft is still flying, the cabin pressure has "stabilized", and there may be casualties, so he'll choose to land at the 5000 foot asphalt strip that's 2 miles away instead of going 30 or even 300 miles to a larger airport with on-site emergency facilities? "Closest" is not always "right" just because there is an emergency.

She was probably going to make an Iranian. I know, they all look alike, but there is a difference.

This already exists in sorts. Many pallets are shrink wrapped and have corners added that increase the rigidity of them. These corners are anything from wood slats, cardboard slats to other materials as needed/determined by the shipper to ensure the products arrive safely. Some are banded using metal or nylon straps and use tops that lock the products into place using their casing material as sort of walls.

Most material is placed on the pallets in interlocking patterns that allow the weight of the level on top secure the layer below. This stabilizes the layers and sort of creates the same wall type thing. Add some shrink wrapping and it will take a lot of abuse before falling.

Actually, there is.

Police can speed and break all sorts of traffic laws in chasing criminals as well as rushing to a scene. They can and have broken into buildings and houses in pursuit of suspects/criminals fleeing. There is actually a long list of things- some of which even cause people to lose their life that the police seem to be absolved from which if you or I had done would be instant jail time.

You may be correct that there is no law or principle allowing that. But the reality is that the prosecutor and the police share common interests and prosecution is not likely even in extreme obvious cases.

When the outcome it the same, what is the difference?

Seriously? What is the difference between having a steller lawyer defend you who doesn't have the time to do it correctly and an imbecile who passed the bar because his uncle was giving the examination if the outcomes are the same? Now I'm not saying all people with poorly executed defenses are innocent or anything. I'm just wanting to know what the differences are when neither the "far better than decent" defenders cannot spend enough time to prove their worth and those defenders who don't care or are incapable of doing a good job.

Please, by all means, tell us how the "Just us" system is supposed to work and how reality differs?

and yes, I said "Just us" because at this point in time, I do not think Justice is even close.

The taxes are for finding solutions.

No they are not. It's to subsidize the pet flavor of alternative energy of the month. That and off-shoring manufacturing is how it has been used everywhere it has been implemented.

No one is sitting around and finding solutions for nothing. You find a solution because you figure it is cheaper than paying the tax.

Yes, you create artificial hardships until the people bitch loud enough for someone to do something about it. Great concept there, except for the concept in and of itself. Like I said previously, if the governments who are worried about it would actually do the research themselves and then make the tech available as it is discovered and/or implemented by regulation when it is feasible, it can all be fixed without creating hardships on the populace. Except this isn't about a fix, it's a political solution about power and control over people.

The rest of your post is simply idiotic unscientific phantasy, or science fiction.

No more so than the entirety of your post. Or are you admitting that science will not find the answer to alternative energy and it is just wishful thinking for those of us who think some honest research would go a long way?

We as well could have cold fusion and hot fusion tomorrow. That is as likely as finding an economic industrial scale process to remove CO2 from the atmosphere.

You could get AIDs or Ebola tomorrow and die for all we know. You not getting it is just as much fantasy as you getting it. No one can predict the future. The best we can do is assess the likelihood and take steps to either avoid it or encourage it. You sound like you want nothing to do with a future where we do not need to oppressively tax people, restrict their behaviors while causing hardships in the process. Perhaps you are in it for other reasons?

Growth is not restricted.CO2 production is.

Yes, and no reliable and efficient form of energy exists on the scales in use that does not produce Co2 (exempt Nuclear but that too has it's booger man). So yes, while you are technically right just as the idiots who say a square peg fits into a round hole when everyone paying attention knows its not supposed to.

LThat s a no brainer ... no idea why you believe it is super easy to remove CO2 (at some point in the future, when it is probably to late) from the atmosphere but it is not possible to have an economy that uses less energy. Hint: Europe already is showcasing it. It is possible, and it is rather simple.

Actually, no Europe is not. They are exporting their Co2 production to China and India where imports from them have increased over 10 fold and Europe is facing de-industrialization issues not only with those two countries but with former soviet countries who have no restrictions. The only thing Europe is showcasing is how to export Co2 production and tank their economies.