Terrorists have smuggled (small) bombs onto post-9/11 aircraft. The TSA hasn't caught a single would-be bomber.

So, schnitzel then?

Would they try to stop him?

So are about 12,000 US commercial airline pilots.

Federal Flight Deck Officer program.

Why do you think it's okay to confiscate people's property?

Even if a particular item isn't allowed on carry-on, why is it just assumed to be acceptable to permanently steal it from the passengers unless their was a suspicious of malice and it was evidence in the criminal case against them?

This is particularly true of the cannon and chainsaw. Unless the cannon had gunpowder and the chainsaw fuel, both are useless as weapons. (At best really clumsy bludgeons.) Even if you decide to not allow them in carry-on, because... {handwave} reasons... why is it necessary to permanently steal it from the passenger to use as a trophy, rather than put it in the baggage hold or allow the owners to make arrangements to reclaim their property later? (Hell, it's an airport, there's going to be a freight company like FedEx nearby. Given the number of items being taken from passengers, returning them seems a pretty simple thing to standardise.)

But look it another way, this is the cream of the crop, gathered from nationwide, the trophies the TSA puts on show to justify their existence and try to deflect criticism. And yet most of the items seem to many of us to be hysterical overreactions, that few of the items should have actually been confiscated from the passengers, and even fewer permanently.

So if that's the best of the best, how bad is the rest of the haul?

However, all non-successful attempts were stopped by passengers on the aircraft, not TSA.

TSA cannot point to a single example of a terrorist being stopped by them. Not one.

(And you know they would be shouting it from the rooftops, given that they brag about stealing items from non-terrorists as if their agents had done something good.)

Every window on a large passenger aircraft are multi-layered laminated glass and plastic, not just the cockpit windows. They don't explode out when punctured.

As I said, people have shot up planes before. This is not a new thing.

I get what you mean, but an airflow of 10-12psi through metal holes generally doesn't "erode" like that. The metal would have to be extremely weak and brittle already, say pre-fatigued to the verge of failure, in which case the aircraft was already a death-trap.

The multi-layered laminated windows on aircraft don't "shoot out".

[People have shot up planes before, you know. Both in actual acts of terrorism and in testing.]

Neither do aircraft.

The pressurisation pumps are more than capable of keeping up with the amount of air leaking through a thumb-sized hole.

Click the link, it isn't a "paper" it's a newspaper, and the Tribune article isn't paywalled. (Or at least isn't immediately.)

The article is written as if the yellow-timing issue was something the newspaper had previously caught the city on, while the study is a new thing they've done. Ie, the city reverted the timing to normal before the Tribune commissioned the study. But I'm reading between the lines, it isn't clear, and the "study" isn't published (in the normal sense), so there's no way to know for sure.

Nice attempt to move the goalposts.

However, none of that was related to ShanghaiBill's query, which was whether the change in the yellow-timing coincided with the study. Something that neither the summary nor the Tribune article make clear (although the way the article is written suggests to me the reversion pre-dates the study.) Nor did anything you linked to.

You failed to read ShanghaiBill's comment properly, then went on a rant about him failing to read the summary. Just accept that you were wrong, apologise to ShanghaiBill, and move on. Being wrong doesn't make you a bad person. Trying to twist out of it to save face does.

People have been trying to make driving safer.

Driving is now safer.

Laws to make driving safer were therefore hysterical and stupid.

The key part of ShanghaiBill's query was "in the intersections studied".

In the Tribune article, as in the summary, the comment about the change in the yellow-timing was a completely separate part of the article from that discussing the findings of their commissioned study. From the article I get the impression that the Tribune investigation which led to the reversal of the city's policy pre-dated the newspaper commissioning the study and therefore wasn't a confounding factor, however there's nothing in the summary that makes that clear. (And even in the article, I'm only interpreting the language, it isn't specifically stated.)

Surprisingly, much of the casting works really well.

(Exceptions are that Bones seems miscast and Grant just sucks as Sulu. Grant isn't just hammy overacting, but doing an exaggerated comedic impersonation of hammy-overacting. I guess the producers get cheap props that way, so... the needs of the many...)