Ability to avoid puddles is not technical knowledge. Also, a smart person, if any, behind the scenes would have waterproofed things.

A smart person, if any, behind the scenes would have made it automatic. There wasn't any.

Aside : I do realize that dogs would have prevented most such incidents that you keep repeating but it didn't earn TSA agents free iPhones so it was dismissed.

What else are they doing?

Hope you also learn that value of a security measure should be compared with the inconvenience it causes. Not allowing discharged batteries is just too large in false positives, and given the difficulty in getting back one's disallowed stuff, it is surely a grab.

Right - shoes and liquids surely had their batteries discharged.

Not a falsifiable statement. Doesn't even mean anything. If you have an argument why dogs are or are not feasible - put it on the table.
Presumably, all this was feasible that is why it was done.

One thing is clear - they don't have to make their rules and procedures convenient enough for most passengers. Battery down while travelling is very very very common. Nor do TSA have to care about security - any scheme with so many false positives quickly loses urgency in people involved in implementing the scheme. Like early Windows Vista UAC - user just clicks whatever is needed to get past the stupid dialog. TSA is even better - whatever is needed to get past them is to surrender passengers' valuables to TSA agents.

Harder but not necessary. You persist in mistakenly assuming the martyr must be the same person as the one who builds the contraption. Or even be aware of the plan and not just a useful idiot.

1. You expressed doubts about dogs being able to detect some explosives. You don't show how discharged battery can detect any explosives. Clearly dogs are superior as explosive detector.

2. You forgot the original argument of your own - show the alternatives of empty battery scheme. If X-ray were effective, empty battery scheme wouldn't be required. So clearly the cases being discussed are where X-rays are not effective e.g. explosive inside battery like built component.

3. My point is that we are only discussing dogs as an alternative for empty battery scheme. If dogs can be deceived in a situation where empty battery scheme is not applicable, dogs are superior still by at least being applicable, needing effort to deceive.

So ? Address the arguments I made rather than telling stores about specific incidents.

People managers can get all kinds of people to work for them, and keep them informed about the operations in varying degrees.

1. Empty battery can't detect ANY explosive.

2. Xray machines are NOT applicable in the situations being discussed.

3. I bet the drugs having no battery gave them up.

And dogs are not limited to electronics.

1. Dogs. When in doubt, ask a dog. If you can fool a dog, you can light up the screen.

2. This, grabbing devices with discharged batteries, is not even an alternative. It at least needs to come with TSA shipping grabbed stuff on its own dime and at the "customer"'s convenience. For stuff its officials cannot prove are problematic but are not allowed "just in case".

No. Operatives smart and poised enough to carry out the attack. AND smart enough to convince others to be willing to kill themselves in the process. Diagram does not get smaller at all.

Smart people managers will ALWAYS be able to find smart technical people, as it is not the technical people who risk their lives but other dumb people found by the smart people.

1. Not really first successful.
2. Not smartphone :
2a. Apple didn't market it as a smartphone
2b. A widely used criterion to be called smartphone is an ability to run third party software, which should be native at least in appearance. iPhone 2007 did not satisfy this criterion.

Actually anaesthesia is the solution for all these problems. And it is designed from the ground up to protect from pain - TSA is nothing but pain, so it is not an "abuse" of anaesthesia either.

Syntax is same as that of your posts, only much less ridden with errors.

You are misquoting yourself. I am replacing all instances of "People should do A if C is true" with "People should do C if A is true" to quote you correctly.

Quote (2) from your post proves why quote (1) from your own post is false. The simple statement about A and C does away with irrelevant considerations like what a doctor's job is.

It is every bit the job of the writer of the statement "People should do C if A is true" to define A precisely, or be subject to misinterpretation. If A is vague, the recommendation cannot be denied if some interpretation of A is true for some one.

1. What you think about A is irrelevant, when you write "People should do C if A is true". Telling for the fourth time, the reader evaluates if A is true

If you don't want to recommend people to do C, you can simply write "People should NOT do C". In which case you could have truthfully claimed to not having recommended that people do C..

So the analogy has failed when stretched thus far. When applied here, the doctor (you) do have the responsibility to define emergency (A) properly. If you can't wrap your head around that, stick to A and C.

No, saying that recommendation is for people belonging to a certain group along with every one else is complicated and deceptive. Because there is a simple and clear way to say that the recommendation is for "all people" or "everyone".

I didn't ask you to clarify. "People should do C if A is true." is clearly recommending to people other than reader too.

Quote 2 from your earlier post is for everyone. The part in bold should remove all doubt.

You seem to not know the meaning of "opinion". When it is a person X's opinion that "A is true", A is true for that person. So for X, his own opinion about A being true is the exact same fact as that of A being true.

To prove this further - imagine a person who thinks his own opinion is false!!!

1. You had yourself simplified your own statement to "People should do C if A is true". Why are you needing to complicate it further ? Was that aforementioned simplication a mistake on your part? In that case please come clean so that a fresh argument based on your newly simplified statement can be made.

2. In this case, doctor cannot truthfully claim to not having advised the "patient" to report for a checkup. Doctor is guilty of not defining emergency with mathematical precision.

1. You have not proven with mathematical precision that the reader is incorrect.

2. Even if you had, you are incorrect in claiming "People should do C if A is true" does not mean "People should do C" for some people.

1. If "people" refers to a group (to which the reader belongs) AND also to the complement of that set (everyone else), only a person intending to deceive would word it in so complicated a manner. An honest person would simply call it "people", or "everyone".

2. Now, for everyone, the recommendation is "People should do C", which is now clarified to "Everyone should do C" whenever the reader is of an opinion "A is true". You are claiming otherwise.

1. Completely irrelevant example. This statement is addressed to the reader, and making claims about only the reader. The statement in question "People should do C if A is true" is making claims about NON-READERS, which is the source of error in this case.

2. Since the statement "You can't teach an old dog new tricks" is not talking about "everyone other than the reader", obviously neither an ability nor an inability of "everyone other than the reader" in teaching any tricks to any canines is under question.

Something is seriously wrong with this post of yours -

My points 1, 2 and 3 were prefixed with "It makes the alternative unviable by". So "it" in the points 1, 2 and 3 meant alternative products.

Now read my post again. If a cartel wants to increase prices of alternative of its product, it needs to raise input prices of the sellers of the alternatives of its product.

I don't read this post of yours in more detail, because it suffers from an enormous misreading of my post.