Is that software written BY males, software written FOR males, or software written ABOUT males?
And to be a bit more serious, make sure you use this when accusing software of being malware; it's a pretty good reference:
https://www.microsoft.com/secu...
As to the pilot having his gun taken from him... we need to clarify where and how that happens.
If the gun is being taken while the pilot is off the airplane, I can come up with a lot of really easy ways to make the gun useless off the plane.
If we're talking about the gun being taken from the pilot WHILE he is on the plane... I don't see that because you'd have to get into the cabin to do that.
So what is your concern? Off the plane or on the plane? If you can get into the pilot's cabin to take his gun then you're already too close.
Main concern is off the plane. Agreed that if you can take the gun away in-cabin, the gun doesn't really make a difference one way or the other.
As to electrified clothing... if they get close enough to touch me, I'm calling that a total failure.
Yes, that's why I included all staff in this; it would be more useful for attendants, to make them another large self-aware obstacle between the attacker and the cockpit.
As to depressurizing the cabin and forcing the hijacker to sit in a seat sucking oxygen... that's a good point. I'd still recommend the defense training and the taser.
Me too
I've been training people to recognize pitch for years. I'm not sure who the "we" is here, but I've had no problems teaching adults pitch OR tempo, which is actually more difficult to master, and goes away faster than pitch if not practiced.
The techniques behind mastering pitch and tempo are hardly new, and have been used for centuries. Maybe the newbie developmental psychologists just forgot to involve musicians in their previous studies?
Why hide this behind shell companies if it's all above board, authorized and legal? Oh, wait, anything that law enforcement does must be legal right?
The same reason that you don't go around blabbing your bank account number and transit number, even though it's likely public record.
When things are too easy to know, a larger percentage of the population will take advantage of the knowledge.
And you already knew that the FBI's mandate wasn't to deter crime... it's in their TLA
This statement also screams "we'd rather obfuscate what we're doing so the guy who sees our plane flying around his building doesn't google the registration and figure out instantly that it's the FBI, and they've found him and are monitoring his actions."
Thing is, the only groups who fly planes in these circles are government agencies. They should really switch to drones
Except dogs DO have useful context awareness (just not enough) -- unlike a chemical scanner that flags specific reactions, dogs know the difference between fertilizer + earth and explosives sans earth. Chemical testers don't check to see what other smells are also present.
But yeah; in that setting, sniffers don't work. Too many variables to account for.
As to the training, glad we agree.
As to the weapon... you can come up with reasons why people shouldn't have ice cream or reasons why alternating tuesdays should have people standing out side balancing on their hands. Coming up with reasons for things doesn't mean they're good reasons.
In your case, you're saying having a weapons there might create problems. Sure. Giving your passangers sodas can cause problems too. the issue is do they actually matter?
Yeah; I agree with this too. It's all a measure of calculated risk. And yes, the question is: is the risk worth taking?
First, you have the gun be controlled by the pilot when he boards and debarks. The gun does not stay on the plane. It goes with the pilot.
Second, as the to the TSA regs being useless if the pilot can bring a gun through... bullshit. The pilot would have dispensation to do that and you the passanger would not. Air marshals take guns through the TSA lines on to those planes. Or at least I dont' think anyone would really argue the TSA was useless if they flashed their badge and did it.
I think you missed my point here, although the "goes with the pilot" is a good clarification. What I'm saying is that unlike air marshals who are anonymous, pilots carrying guns makes them a target, as everyone knows they're carrying a gun. This means that any attacker can leave their gun at home, and get one off the pilot after they've gone through security. It doesn't even have to be the pilot for the plane they're boarding, as long as they incapacitate the victim pilot for long enough that their plane can get in the air.
Third, as to the pilot focusing on the plane and not on the gun. The issue is that the pilot could hurt people on the plane if he jukes the plane all over the place. Lets say there is someone at the door and they some how snuck a pocket blow torch onto the plane. What are you going to do? Juke around? Good luck with that especially if they just hold on back there. You have to keep in mind that in tight spaces you're not that vulnerable to being shook up because you're not going very far in any direction. YOu can wedge yourself into that entry way and just work on the door.
Now what? I'm saying... give the pilot something say "here's Johnny!" to the would be hijacker.
You're worried about the bullets going through the plane and hurting people... again... subsonic rounds are not going to do that. I suggested subsonic rounds. They have less powder in them, the don't go as fast.
If this bothers you... let me suggest at the very least, a taser. A good one. Something you could make the guy really ride the lightning with... is that acceptable? I want some sort of stand off supremacy weapon that a pilot could use to stop an attacker cold.
I think I already covered this one. The pilot can depressurize the cabin. Doing so would not only deprive the attacker of oxygen, it would also deprive the blow torch of oxygen. No need for a gun where the shots could cause more damage. Subsonic rounds are great, but if they hit the wrong person, they're still going to do damage -- and subsonic rounds can actually do MORE damage in some cases, as instead of a clean puncture, they can cause greater internal damage.
Your taser suggestion is actually really good -- Tasers are great for close quarters, and are usually a one-use weapon, which means that the attacker can't then take the taser and turn it on someone else.
This is a weapon that will also be of less use if taken off a pilot who has gone through security but not yet boarded. Good idea all around
Another idea I was thinking about was outfitting pilots and cabin crew with these: http://www.gizmag.com/go/2357/ -- 80,000 volts when armed should be enough to deter most attackers.
2. Give flight attendants and pilots some defense training. That includes possibly giving them weapons. I have no problem for example with the pilot having a gun. If he can fly the plane into a mountain then he can be have a machine gun for all I care. He's fully capable of killing everyone on the plane as well as whomever is on the ground when the plane strikes. So give him a gun. If you want it to be one of those subsonic jobs that don't penetrate very far, that is fine. But lets not pretend the pilot can't kill everyone. He can.
Defense training is a great idea; not just a bit of Aikido like police get, but plane-centric defense training (when to depressurize the cabin, dropping the oxygen masks, when to cause turbulence, getting everyone back into their seat, when to seal off the cabin, etc.)
Guns? We now know that depressurization due to a few shots isn't explosive on modern planes, and so this isn't a problem. However, if an attacker/terrorist knew for certain that every pilot carried a machine gun, the reason for the TSA would cease to exist -- the weapon he needs is pre-loaded on the plane. If you lock up the gun enough that it takes some time to get it out and ready, then you've lost its effectiveness. If it is portable and loaded and just needs the safety released, then there are MANY creative ways for someone to get their hands on it who isn't the pilot/copilot. This isn't a situation where you can see the shady group of thugs hanging out at the other end of the street; anyone going after the gun is going to give close to no warning and already be in close quarters.
Plus there's the facts that a) you don't want someone already operating a deadly weapon to have to be distracted by a second deadly weapon, b) guns tend to miss their targets a LOT even when fired on stable ground; in the air with a bunch of people packed in like sardines, there's going to be a lot of friendly fire.
It'd be better to give the pilots gas masks and a panic button, so they can depressurize and stay conscious. Oh wait -- they've already got that!
So it comes back again to training.
>and dogs to sniff out anything explosive.
In 2001, there were digital sniffers that performed better than dogs. These digital sniffers could not only could detect more items than dogs, but do so at a lower concentration.
The biggest problem with that solution, is that it outperformed every thing else. Its high price was a secondary issue.
No, the biggest problem with that solution is that it could sniff out if you'd been in someone's garden shortly after it had been fertilized, or if you'd eaten a lemon-poppyseed muffin for breakfast, or had handled cash, or a multitude of other things.
In other words, Dogs have better context awareness than a chemical sniffer.
I ain't lettin' no goddamned mime swab my bag!
It's worth it just to see them raise the alarm.
Interesting method of waging war in space -- make mines out of objects that use their electrons to move into position -- then anytime a neutrally-charged object comes near them -- BOOM
It also makes you more valuable to your manager, as you're seen as someone who tells it like it is and has confidence in your abilities. Just make sure not to get over-confident, or that nest egg will dry up pretty quickly.
-When doing estimates, know that it will always take longer and be released with bugs. Factor that in.
i wonder if apk can fix this with a hosts file. he really is quite obsessed with them, to teh point of not using other tools even when they can complement a good hosts file. like a religious zealot. oh and i love the way he declares victory every time he gets trolled, he takes the bait EVERY SINGLE TIME and pats himself on the back for it. an amazing feat of self-delusion.
apk can fix this with a hosts file really easily:
0 slashdot.org
What level of luminescence and at what frequency do current UV sterilizers need to be for current treatment systems? And what wattage/gal are we talking about here? If they can find a way to mass produce these, there could be some significant wins globally for water sanitation.
Also: would this make it possible to create portable systems that you could carry with you whle hiking/carry to remote locations and operate via solar power/battery?
To do nothing is to be nothing.
