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.

Your lips (keys) to God's ears.

New Brunswick?

She won. She will now sport a lucrative career as a public... whatever. The narrative has been formed. Political Correctness has no room for objective truth. Just like the crumbling of lies surrounding the Rolling Stone/UVA 'rape', we shouldn't be looking at facts and events. Brianna's feels are more important.

Once again, the most dangerous group to women is formed of other women.

You're right. Official US government spokesmen are not a credible source. I'm sorry you missed that the comment was more of a statement about our government officials and stupid pronouncements of cause than an actual assignment of such.

I could have used the example of the riots over a newspaper cartoon.

Yes, because it takes millions of "bomb strapping terrorists" to blow up a bus load of civilians or a local school. Everyone knows that a successful terrorist attack takes millions of perpetrators.

Try "one". All it would take is one McVeigh-style ANFO device parked outside a big city theater to create a panic, helpfully propagated by the news media, just as they helpfully propagated the news about the millions of armed, I mean, ONE armed nut who took hostages at a Lindt store in Oz.

No movie theater manager wants to be the "one" that the "one" shows up at.

And if you doubt that a "movie" can trigger a violent reaction from political reactionaries, look no further than the Benghazi attacks that were caused by a movie.

SMTP doesn't have headers. SMTP is a protocol for message transport.

There is likewise no "From:" envelope address. There is an envelope-sender (the argument to the SMTP "MAIL FROM" command) which is often inserted into a "Return-Path" header in the message, and is used in the mailbox separator "From" line in mbox email storage.

The "From:" header is a header, not something in the body of the message. As a header, it is subject to rewriting by transport agents.

The MUA has access to all headers in an email, including "Return-Path". It is usually never shown to the user, but a good MUA will have an option to show raw email, including headers. Why? For just this reason.

Well, there you go. I did say a GOOD MUA ...

There are several issues at play here:

1. Employees at a company that manages a huge part of the control of the Internet can't detect phishing email by looking at the address replies will go to.

2. The email system at said company creates email replies based on information that is supposed to be used ONLY for the transport system to report delivery issues.

3. The offline verification process intended to stop such fraud worked, which makes this a non-story from the beginning.