Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

[ Create a new account ]

SamTheButcher (574069)

SamTheButcher
  (email not shown publicly)

"The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress." - Joseph Joubert

"If you want really want to hurt your parents and don't want to be gay, go into the arts" - Kurt Vonnegut

I'm the mysterious American guest in cottage #8. And I'd like more towels, please. -artifex2004

Journal of SamTheButcher (574069)

Glimpse into the future of air travel

[ #141855 ]
Monday August 14 2006, @11:00AM
User Journal

Remember when people would buy insurance at kiosks in the airport before they travelled? Seeing this makes me think that we're going to have to have "travel insurance" to reimburse people for all of the items that will be stolen out of bags if we have to start packing everything in checked baggage.

I forget who it was that was talking about secure airlines starting in order to get around that problem. I see either that or airlines/government charging people to run background checks on them to verify that they're not terrorists.

Of course, that option would let business travellers and people with the money to pay for it waltz right on, while the "unwashed masses" wait at the security gate.

I still contend that it's not *Islamic* fascists that we need to be worrying about....


List all Journal entries
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Glimpse into the future of air travel 35 Comments More | Login /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login
Loading... please wait.
  • I still contend that it's not *Islamic* fascists that we need to be worrying about....
    they are just little darlings who wouldn't hurt a fly.

    ugh.
    • Well, I think Sam is pointing out that there are many people doing more damage to this country than any group of terrorists ever have. For example, the war in Iraq has cost 63 trillion dollars, with 2,592 American troops killed (and some incredibly large number of Iraqi civilians). Rather than curbing terrorist activity, because of our actions over the last several decades I would say it is safe to assume there are now more people who are pissed at us than ever before. Rather than hampering psychotic people
      • That was a great encapsulation, but I was thinking even more on just a linguistic level. From Apple's Dictionary:

        fascism |fa sh izm| (also Fascism) noun an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. (in general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice. The term Fascism was first used of the totalitarian right-wing nationalist regime of Mussolini in Italy (1922-43), and the regimes of the Nazis in Germany and Franco in Spain were a

        • C'mon, Sam. Despise him or only mildly dislike him, Bush is no fascist.

          First of all, you bring up the anti-immigrant sentiment in some segments of the Republican party. Bush, in the 2000 campaign and since, has been pretty outspoken in his support of immigration in general and having a good system where Mexicans can come to the US and improve their lives in particular. And that count he is undeserving of the charges you levy.

          Second, his foreign policy - particularly in Iraq - is exactly the opposite

          • C'mon, Sam. Despise him or only mildly dislike him, Bush is no fascist.


            Absolutely correct. He's actually a complete moron, ie orders of magnitude worse than a fascist.

          • If we're really turning over a new leaf and supporting democracies instead of dictators, by God I'm all for it. (I'll even allow that the PNAC is not such a bad idea in principle, although the level of risk entailed has always made my nethers pucker.)

            But if we were doing that... wouldn't we be supporting the democratically-elected Palestinian government led by Hamas? Or at least not actively trying to strangle them with sanctions?

            I totally agree that you've stated a good goal, but I'm having trouble believi

            • If we're really turning over a new leaf and supporting democracies instead of dictators, by God I'm all for it. (I'll even allow that the PNAC is not such a bad idea in principle, although the level of risk entailed has always made my nethers pucker.)

              But if we were doing that... wouldn't we be supporting the democratically-elected Palestinian government led by Hamas? Or at least not actively trying to strangle them with sanctions?

              I don't think there is an obligation to support every democratic governm

      • hmmm. well i think you are completely and totally wrong. i don't have time to go into why i think not only you are wrong, but your attitude is, well, let me just say i'm glad you aren't the one making policy.
        • Yeah I know you don't agree; thats one of the reasons why I friended ya, so you can pound some sense into me when my ideas get too whacky :-) I would like to hear your take on things later btw.....
        • Okay, I'll bite.

          Since many of the problems in the region revolve around our relationship with Israel, let me start with a question: How, when, and why did Israel become our ally?
          • My jaded opinion is we like having them there to stir things up and provide a target for everyone else. Just imagine if (somehow) the whole area was united under one (or a few) government(s)? Like OPEC only worse. I would like to hear the official reason(s), but am too lazy to go look them up.
      • Now had we left Iraq alone I'm sure Libya still would have disarmed and Syria would have pulled out of Lebanon simply because we asked nicely...

        Now, let's say we didn't invade Iraq. Explain to me how that would have given us a stronger position for deterring either Iran or North Korea. (I suppose the extra checks from Iraq to North Korea would have made them more willing to negotiate?)

        Thanks for our daily does of useless talking points...
        • Ah, but you see, if Iraq had not been invaded, Iran wouldn't have a reason to hate America. Just like Al-Quaeda wouldn't hate America if it werent for the bases in Saudi Arabia, or Hezbollah wouldn't hate destroy Israel if it weren't for occupying Lebanese soil.

          No, if we all packed up and went home, the middle-east would become a bastion of peace, stability, science, human rights and equality it was in biblical times.

          Really, it's all our fault. And only by self-loathing may we gain this insight.
          • My sarcasam detector is jumping around like a speedometer at a UFO invasion, so I'm not sure what to make of that post. But as for this particular bit:

            "Ah, but you see, if Iraq had not been invaded, Iran wouldn't have a reason to hate America."

            There's the coup we sponsored against democratically-elected Mosaddeq in 1953 in order to put our pet dictator in charge. I think they may still be a bit grumpy about that.
        • I think our armed forces could have been put to better use in other ways (like, say, chasing down Osama when he was in Afghanistan) rather than overthrowing a petty dictator that was no direct threat to us (if the current administration knew Saadam was or wasn't a threat has been beaten to death already; in my opinion we used the "threat" of Saadam as an excuse to keep Russia/China/France from grabbing Iraq's oil). Unilaterally invading Iraq and burning through our international goodwill wasn't such a great
          • At the risk of sounding cynical...

            in my opinion we used the "threat" of Saadam as an excuse to keep Russia/China/France from grabbing Iraq's oil)

            *DING* We have a winner!

            • There is plenty to tie the Saudi's to 9/11. And the population is smaller, likely easier to pacify. Plus they are hated throughout the middle east. Why not take over Arabia, depose the Sauds, reinstall Hussein (from Jordan, not Iraq) in his historically rightful role as Sherrif of Mecca and Medina, and slurp all the oil we want?

              The answer is that Iraq represented what the administration beleived to be the best opportunity to remake the region. We got to eliminate a fascist dictator who supported terro

              • My understanding is some of the largest whiners to our plans for invading (Russia/France/China) had deals with Saadam to develop Iraqi oil fields after sanctions were lifted. It seems like a no-brainer that we wouldn't want those three (especially China) to have exclusive access to Iraqi oil. In the case of China, it is more of a matter of keeping it out of their hands (moreso than filling tankers bound for the U.S.) A few URLs after a quick google search:

                http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/irqindx.h t [globalpolicy.org]

                • You might cut yourself.

                  The issue wasn't that France, Russia, and China were cutting oil deals with Iraq, the issue was that Iraq was using these potential deals to try to get sanctions lifted.

                  Of course this all goes against those arguments about how Saddam was "in the box" if there were real worries that oil contracts were going to go to another country after sanctions were lifted...
        • If we hadn't invaded Iraq, our forces wouldn't have been so overstretched - and we could have invaded Iran instead.

      • Ummm... $63 TRILLION? Interesting that none of the replies have thrown a flag on this number.

        I've seen figures suggesting it has cost around $300 Billion to date. You don't have a source for the $63 Trillion number, do you? I mean, I'm a fan of exaggeration, but the next statistic you produce is that 2,592 American troops have been killed, which seems fairly specific. There's a lot of ground to cover between $300B, and $63T.

        I wasn't opposed to going into Iraq. I'm not thrilled with the obvious lac

        • Oops, I agree 300 billion is probably more accurate; the trillions number was pulled off of a less than reliable website. Thanks for calling me on this one; it is hard enough discussing all this without throwing wild-ass numbers around. Here [costofwar.com] is what I would deem a good discussion of the numbers; if anyone can find a better assessment I would love to see it.
    • Sorry, forgot the word "just".

      As in, "it's not just Islamic fascists we need to worry about."
  • Of course, that option would let business travellers and people with the money to pay for it waltz right on, while the "unwashed masses" wait at the security gate.

    Is that a problem? Does it in any way harm the unwashed massses? Wouldn't the unwashed line actually get shorter if all the regular flyers didn't take up space there?

    Hells yeah we should have seperate lines. One for regular flyers who have undergone a background check and constitute a very low risk, one for you, me, and average Joe flying to Disne
    • Did 9/11 hijackers, London Bombers, Beslan hostage takers, Madrid Bombers, Bali bombers, current batch of arrestees in England share any common traits?

      I'd bet they all owned at least one garment or other article with the Nike symbol on it.
    • Sounds good, but I hear the ACLU screaming about "common sense dictates" from here....

      And it would be just another difference between the haves and have-nots.
    • The 7th July London bombers would have of course been able to waltz right through the security lines as frequent flyers. Until they did the bombing, they had no criminal or other background record that would point the finger at them. Once you have this kind of screening system, you can bet the terrorists would work to get vetted "clean" people.
  • ..I'd rather see Louisville sluggers issued to flyers.

    Just for sport you know...
    • Haha.


      Actually, I still don't understand why the don't just seal off the cockpit (i.e., put in a bulkhead so you can't get to the cockpit from the rest of the plane). Then as long as people don't blow a big hole in the plane, they can pretty much have whatever else they want; kinda hard to hijack the plane if you can't even get into the cockpit.

      • A friend in the airline business told me that after 9-11 they beefed up the doors to the cockpit so that terror types wouldn't be able to get in. Well they went out and did a test on one of the doors on a Northwestern flight. WHen they kicked on the door it did not open. The bad news, is that while they had beefed up the door, they hadn't beefed up the frame. So the door and the frame flopped into the cockpit. Oops.

        • el al (Score:2, Interesting)

          by zogger (617870)
          el al has had armored doors for years and years now. works fine if you do it correctly.

          with that said, this tarism stuff is a load of hooie. It's to put in bigbro action all over. ya, they are whizzing off the islamics, that's part of the plan to, keep picking at them until they go postal. That part seems to be working. I'm amazed at their restraint. Over one hundred years of constant meddling in their affairs, first by the UK now by both the USA and UK. How much are they supposed to eat? I am not a fan of
  • With smirking black humor. "I'm taking out a side-bet on your life, my Brotha. It came cheap - 75p."
  • A little UV glow powder on a 'checked baggage' pistol would find the thief. Just make sure the other baggage handlers know how much time the thief got during sentencing.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2008 SourceForge, Inc.