The thing is, this really is a freak occurance. So many flights, every single day, over every single city. People need to piss and shit, its simple biology. Every time someone goes for a piss break, someone else needs to be called in? That is just silly and insulting to the people involved.

In the grand scheme of things to worry about, this isn't really one of them. Its ridiculous to feel we need new regulations every time something happens...the next tragedy will always happen. It is inevitable.

In addition to all of the other evidence against this.... its rare that a person feints while in a seated position, its far more common while standing. A pilot, especially one alone in the cockpit is in a seated position. Also you are assuming that people who feint are representative of the population as a whole and of the population of active working pilots; where there is likely some medical self selection bias at work in both of those assumptions.

Also for the most part, both pilots can leave the cockpit, or take a nap, and the plane shouldn't crash. This isn't exactly a wright brother's special here, this is a modern commercial airliner.

There really isn't a lot of room here for an accident based on the TFAs claims

Except that frictionless spherical cows are not realistic even if they are very helpful in physics.

When is the last time you actually talked to raw hardware? if its recent, you are a special case, and likely write drivers....in which case, good for you.

When you write "to disk" you are working in memory because its going to be a buffered access, likely reads as well, especially if it is something you recently wrote.

Exceptions will exist but, they are exceptions to the rule.

I wouldn't want to live in a home so unhospitable to life that it didn't have some insects.

You may feel the need for constant pest control but, I have never had such a service nor felt the need. Most pest issues that have rarely cropped up have been quite easy to control without professional help, much less retaining a service.

This is more like, retaining a pest service because you read in a book that insects exist and it made you shit yourself.

Effective implies effect. Effect implies change, what is it you are looking to change? Currently we have an average of 0 terrorist attacks a day, adding up to 0 per year....a number which has, aside from a statistically insignificant number of anomalies, has been the case for well....more than my entire lifetime, which is a bit more than 3 and a half times the lifespan so far of the TSA.

Implementing the invasive and expensive program of questioning everyone with trained staff seems excessive given the magnitude of the problem.

> It lets you go back to the pre 9/11 security screening procedure.

You mean, the excessive procedure that was security theater and hardly needed EVEN THEN? Yes paying more to get back to what was already excessive theater sounds like quite a win.

at least back then the fact that the security had to answer to people with a reason to keep customers happy was a very important check on how ridiculous it got, we lost that.

Actually thats demonstrably false. The only evidence I need is.... the entire history of airport security prior to the creation of the TSA.

Was airport security always a joke? You bet it was. It was always as much of a joke as it is now, but, it was a lot cheaper and, private security was not NEARLY as abusive to paying customers.

Fact is, without government intervention, all this security mumbo jumbo would quickly blow over and security would be downsized appropriately. We pay quite a lot for the ever present paranoia of committees charged only with pissing themselves at every shadow.

Good luck with that in a world where the public consider Rand Paul a model libertarian based on the media telling them its so ignoring both his actual party affiliation and that his stated policies are to libertarian philosophy what cheese product is to sharp aged cheddar.

Or we could embrace the power of AND..... they all belong under the same heading of "worthless waste".

So basically, this "hack" is likely really a hack on the administrative apparatus of the state in causing justification for certain paper pushers to request larger offices with bigger desks.

If they kill someone as a result....shouldn't both parties be guilty? Seems like they are willing accomplices to me. They are the ones offering the service of sending a violent gang of thugs to someone's front door, a service that's largely not needed at all and really just a jobs program, and usually one run by a private company.

The primary use of swat teams is busting down doors over flowers, usually of unarmed people. They are not what they pretend to be except in the most rare of circumstances, circumstances more rare then their misuse.

They are at least as guilty as he is, if not more for setting up a situation that causes such predictable harm without any legitimate reason.

The police who created all these unecessary swat teams for some extra cash and cooler toys to play with. There is just no need at all for so many of them, no need at all to have them available everywhere all the time. Its all just a jobs program, and usually one run by private interests (here in MA the MA police chiefs, a private org, both writes the opposition statements to marijuana legalization AND owns the swat teams that raid homes).

The primary reason for swat teams based on real calls, is going after hippies growing pot in their basements. Hardly a reason to endanger the entire community with a bunch of trigger happy yahoos who have no fear of prosecution even if they toss a flashbang in a baby's crib: http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/07/...

You know....as if they even need flashbangs in the first place to serve their no knock warrants on unarmed people with plants.

Yes its a bad idea....its wanton killing of a human being who is of no threat to you. Its murder in my eyes, and no amount of legal contortion will make it otherwise.

If you are going to do it...do it right.... do the world a favor and practice on yourself! I have no moral qualms with suicide; death penalty advocates CAN make the world a better place....by example.

Quite frankly, the ONLY death penalty I support, is for politicians who make laws which violate human rights. Only large scale crime deserves an example be made for history....the poor people its normally used to execute don't deserve such treatment, even the worst monsters have hurt what....a handful or two. They are petty and mean nothing to history.... no reason to take away their right to appeal.

In short, the only people deserving of such executions are the people who would have others perform them.

I think you are half right. This is the first step to dropping all charges and walking away.

He will not be immediately arrested because, he has already been neutralized and their ability to effectively imprison people like him has been demonstrated by effectively keeping him imprisoned for years. Few people would be so lucky in his shoes, so their point is well made.

Typically the last thing they would really want is a messy and contentious trial. They would much rather it fade away into obscurity.