I most look forward to flying with ...
Displaying poll results.19646 total votes.
I most look forward to flying with ...
"In the face of entropy and nothingness, you kind of have to pretend it's not there if you want to keep writing good code." -- Karl Lehenbauer
Liberty must win... (Score:5, Funny)
...though in the meantime I'll enjoy having my leatherman micro, and not just the silly disguised as a key microtool.
Being able to carry my telescoping and entirely non-functional travel sword would be nice, too. Or bottles of maple syrup and jars of pumpkin butter. (This list drawn from some of my more memorable interactions with TSA.)
Re:Liberty must win... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Liberty must win... (Score:5, Funny)
Works for me, as long as you stay out of my seat.
(Though "sense of liberty" seems rather vague - you might not have it but you sense it? Drugs? A disturbance in the Force? Wat?)
Re:Liberty must win... (Score:5, Funny)
Shouldn't you at least see who you're talking to before you add that condition?
Re:Liberty must win... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Liberty must win... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Liberty must win... (Score:5, Interesting)
Hm. Gender isn't particularly a selection criterion (though while Dexter is frequently a male name, I'd be less likely to attribute gender to a 'nym).
I think it's more about the social affectations of people likely to show up in an airplane nude. Which is to say that I'm fine with the nudity - as long as they're not being aggressive about it. Most folks I know who are interested in being nude in places not generally considered appropriate for social nudity are either totally chill, or totally in your face.
Re: (Score:3)
I remember from, oh, 20 years ago or so, there was a newspaper article about a charter trip for a nudist club, where they traveled nude in the plane. I thought it was silly that they had to come clothed, then undress on the plane and then dress again before debarking.
I honestly see no reason for the nudity taboo we have. Covering the seat with a towel would be appreciated for hygienic reasons, but what's this obsession with whether people have clothes on or not? If you;re so much of a pervert that you ca
Re:Liberty must win... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll explain the problem to you. In san fran they had public nudity for awhile. fat, ugly wrinkled old geezers walked around with their hairy moobs swinging in the breeze, along with their wrinkled peckers and sagging butt cheeks. get the picture? who the hell wants to see that, especially when trying to eat at a sidewalk cafe?
Clothing: it's for our protection, cause not everyone has a hot bod!
Re:Liberty must win... (Score:5, Informative)
Oh boy! Let me tell you a good one... For work I spent a couple of years travelling to St. Marteen (or St. Martin), a small Caribbean Island, half is a French poseession, the other half a Netherlands posession.
Upon arrival everyone tells you about Orient Beach, a nudist beach and say you must go there.
Of course, you imagine the beach to be populated by naked Nataly Portmans covered in hot grits...
The reality is, all of the nude people there is over 60, fat and and way too ugly.
You visit Orient Beach once and see a shrink the rest of your life!
Re: (Score:2)
Upon arrival everyone tells you about Orient Beach, a nudist beach and say you must go there.
Of course, you imagine the beach to be populated by naked Nataly Portmans covered in hot grits...
Um, no. I grew up with shared saunas and nudity being allowed on pretty much any beach, so I know what naked bodies look like.
Re:Liberty must win... (Score:4, Insightful)
Um, no. I grew up with shared saunas and nudity being allowed on pretty much any beach, so I know what naked bodies look like.
This is the internet. We all know what naked bodies look like.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
We know what attractive naked bodies look like - frequently airbrushed to make them even more attractive, or surgically enhanced to 'improve' their appearance. What we don't really know is what a genuine cross section of the general population would look like naked.
Re:Liberty must win... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Sadly it's many times hard to separate them when nudity is present. If everyone was able to turn off the sexual machinery when they don't want it to react without permission, I'd be happy about nudity or just simply don't care about it, but as things are nudity just makes everyone else uncomfortable.
Maybe the issue with our culture isn't nudity itself, but rather that we have been taught to feel ashamed about said machinery working properly.
Re:Liberty must win... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll explain the problem to you. In san fran they had public nudity for awhile. fat, ugly wrinkled old geezers walked around with their hairy moobs swinging in the breeze, along with their wrinkled peckers and sagging butt cheeks. get the picture? who the hell wants to see that, especially when trying to eat at a sidewalk cafe?
Clothing: it's for our protection, cause not everyone has a hot bod!
Most people don't have pretty faces either - do you advocate hijab?
Nor pretty clothes, for that matter.
So what's your point again, unless, of course, you are a perv looking at bodies as sexual objects, and getting disappointed when they don't gratify your voyeurism?
Clothing is useful when protecting the clothed. But demanding that people wear clothing is religious baggage we can do without. I don't care whether my 70 year old neighbor wants to walk around naked and enjoy the sun on his frail body. Good for him. But he'd go to jail and be registered a sex offender because of religious perverts who can't distinguish sex from nudity, and think sex is bad so nudity is bad too. Balderdash.
Re:Liberty must win... (Score:5, Interesting)
Clothing is useful when protecting the clothed.
Clothes, because I need somewhere to keep my pockets.
Re:Liberty must win... (Score:4, Informative)
Just a correction. A hijab doesn't cover the face, just hair and shoulders.
You might be thinking of niquab, which only shows the eyes, or burqa, which doesn't even show the eyes.
Your other points are well made and I agree with your sentiments.
Re: (Score:3)
We'd probably all have a better sense of self body image if we saw what other people's real bodies looked like on a regular basis. Maybe we'd go easier on ourselves about body perfection if we saw what regular bodies were.
I wonder if women would really aspire to model thinness if they could see the way their bones stuck out all over.
Re: (Score:3)
I think my bod is incredible, and I don't give a rat's patootie what you or anyone else thinks. Get over yourself.
Re:Liberty must win... (Score:4, Insightful)
I would answer your question, but you already answered it, immediately after that.
Do you think it's abnormal for me to force you to change your behaviors because of my problem?
No, wait. I didn't ask you if it was unjustified, unfair, evil, unreasonable, psychotic or antisocial. I asked you if it's abnormal. Look at history. We fuck around with each other because of our own problems all the time. That practically the only reason for half our laws.
Re: (Score:3)
If you;re so much of a pervert that you can't see nude bodies without reacting one way or another, you're the problem, not them.
Sometimes the "reaction" can be involuntary, if you get my drift.
Re:Liberty must win... (Score:5, Funny)
Teabaggers.
Re: (Score:2)
Stay out of my seat unless invited? Though really, the likelihood I'll invite a random naked stranger on the plane to share my seat seems fairly small. Conditions on planes are crowded enough.
Re:Liberty must win... (Score:5, Funny)
"A sense of natural liberty", that means I can fly naked now, right? Right?
You can fly naked or you can carry a knife. You can't do both.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
actually, if I fly naked, then the knife can ride in my rearpouch
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Liberty must win... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
That way you may at least be able to avoid both being irradiated and being patted down.
Re:Liberty must win... (Score:4, Insightful)
"A sense of natural liberty", that means I can fly naked now, right? Right?
No, it means some Slashdot editor is confusing Atlas Shrugged for reality again.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Liberty must win... (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't fly, but I think the "I can do that but choose not to" feeling is important, compared to "I am not allowed to do that, therefore I so wish it!" feeling.
Re: (Score:3)
Two years ago I had a bottle of maple syrup in my checked luggage during a flight from Ottawa to Chicago. The guy at the scanner asked "Maple Syrup?" I nodded. He nodded. Nothing of consequence followed.
...and let's be honest, if you carry syrup in your carry-on with the intent to use it during the flight, you're gonna have a bad time.
Me (Score:2)
There goes the 3 oz "travel size" industry.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's the "looking forward" part. Still looking.
Re:Me (Score:5, Interesting)
I love the business model - I will provide service so horrible to you that you are willing to pay an additional 100 dollars a year to get through my service and just pretend like I wasn't here. I can see the model now. Pay Dell 100 bucks a year and someone with a soft midwest accent will answer the phone and actually provide service. Oh wait - I guess that is already an option for their business customers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Me (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Dell's service is "North American Tech Support", but it's pretty obvious it's "Talk to White People For An Additional Fee".
Re:Me or Missing Option (Score:2)
There was a missing option: Marijuana.
Although, 3 oz is kind of a lot for travel. At least for most people.
Actually, while it is legal to fly with 1 oz or less of MJ from CO to/from WA, you can't fly with more, unless it's medically prescribed.
So the 100 ml limit still works.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? Fascinating. Of all the bullshit ways the feds have twisted and perverted the meaning of "interstate commerce" to use as rationalization for their interference, here we have an example of something literally being interstate, and they don't take advantage of the situation?
Re: (Score:2)
a lot? not if you share by lighting the wad so the whole plane can get toked.
Thank our politicians (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I think it might be somewhat alleviated by priority boarding/priority security lanes. I used to fly a few times a week for work, so I had status on a few major airlines. It would usually take me 10-15 minutes from arriving at the airport to being through security. Usually there was no extra scanner, just a metal detector. That combined with the other passengers knowing what to do made it a very efficent, somewhat painless process. I am guessing any politician would be going through this kind of lane.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
last time I flew (just in February) I never even noticed the seconds it took to walk up to the delta check in with two clerks, only one busy and went about my way ... to the hour long security line.
I was carrying a brief case with a fluke scope meter, soldering iron, small spool of wire, a hand full of prototyped boards, a half dozen capacitor and resistor sample kits and they made my shit go though the scanner twice because my phone was in the same bin as my dell laptop
fucking retarded
Re: (Score:3)
I could never figure out the point of all these restrictions. One of the 1st things the govt did after 9/11 was lock and harden the cockpits and cockpit doors. Because of that, something like 9/11 can never, ever, ever happen again because terrorists can't get into the cockpit. Planes might have terrorists and they might get blown up or some passengers might get killed, but no terrorist will ever again have control of the plane and use it as a missile/bomb. Pilot's simply won't relinquish control.
So, wha
Re: (Score:3)
Xanax (Score:2)
I won't fly without being semi-unconscious.
Re: (Score:2)
Who still gets nervous about the flying part? that's easy, it's the conditions at security that are the issue, and they don't take kindly to semi-unconscious people.
Re: (Score:3)
Twenty five years ago, flying was almost fun. Now, it's "Another One Rides The Bus", with wings.
Liberty, of course (Score:4, Insightful)
Which is why I'm still not flying until the naked-scan machines are actually gone (the policy has changed, but the machines are still there in some cases) and the rules are returned to complete sanity.
Some examples of the silliness: They allow you to have a knife, but still ban box cutters, which are shorter and less dangerous than knives. Why? Well, the 9/11 terrorists used box cutters. So now, they're going to just have to use knives instead, or maybe beat people to death with golf clubs. What I know for sure is that this isn't about security.
Re: (Score:2)
You can always opt-out of the naked scan machines you know.
Not that I like them and support them being there at all, I just mention that as a practical matter - and if enough people travelled that opted out they would be gone as they are too slow.
Re: (Score:2)
A folding pocket knife is less likely to be sharp and the grip isn't particularly good. It's adequate for slashing, but as a stabbing weapon it's as likely to fold back on the attacker's fingers as it is to enter the intended victim's body.
There's no good excuse for a person to carry a box cutter onto a plane, but a "Swiss army knife" is the commonest utility tool for a man
Re: (Score:2)
I use my keys about as much as my Victorinox knife. They are quite nice at opening boxes with delicate insides.
Re: (Score:2)
There's no good excuse for a person to carry a box cutter onto a plane
There's no good excuse to spend millions of dollars screening for them either. You can take a box cutter on a subway train or a ferry. What difference does it make if you have one on an airplane?
Re: (Score:3)
Golf clubs and hockey sticks and the like should be prohibited from carry-on luggage for totally different reasons than safety. They are just too unwieldy in an aircraft cabin. There is no good reason for that kind of luggage not to go in the cargo hold.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I actually traveled a fair amount before the naked scan machines went in. Nowadays, I've limited my traveling to the US, going by train or car. Sure, it's inconvenient, sure it means I can't go places I'd otherwise be able to, but compared to the price others have paid for the Fourth Amendment I'm not feeling like it's that much of a sacrifice.
Re: (Score:2)
If his actions won't have any effect on the freedom of others, nor have any likelihood of fixing the problem, then it's not so simple as saying you hate freedom just because you choose to fly instead of stay home.
I'd love it if things would change because enough people stop flying, but they won't. the airlines will blame whatever they want, the government will bail out the airlines, and the security theatre will ocntinue unchanged. Avoiding flying is not the way to fix this. So it's perfectly consistent to
Re: (Score:3)
I'd love it if things would change because enough people stop flying, but they won't. the airlines will blame whatever they want, the government will bail out the airlines, and the security theatre will ocntinue unchanged. Avoiding flying is not the way to fix this. So it's perfectly consistent to enjoy freedom, hate what they do at airports, and fly anyway.
See, I tend to disagree there. The reason is this: The standard argument used by the courts when deciding cases about airport security is "You chose to fly, which means you consented to whatever searches the government wants to make." Since I oppose those kinds of searches, the very least I can do is avoid willingly and intentionally participating in it.
Another way of putting it: The government has known that people hate the TSA for a very long time. But they don't care. They don't have to. What they do car
How Natural? (Score:2)
Flying tomorrow from LHR (Score:4, Informative)
Flying out of the UK isn't too bad, just the usual x-ray machines. Landing in Japan requires fingerprint scans and a photo of your face. That's about my limit.
BTW, if there had been a "sit next to Cowboy Neil" option I would have ticked that instead.
Re: (Score:2)
Japan just joined USA on my do not visit list, what the hell is it with worldwide immigration, like rape is illegal unless some immigrations official wants to stick their hand up your arse. Wrong, very wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Landing in Japan requires fingerprint scans and a photo of your face
As does landing in the USA, if you're not American or Canadian.
Missing option (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Swiss army knife (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Swapped out a hard drive in a Compaq server (you know, with the weird screw heads) using my tiny little Swiss army knife with an 1.5 inch blade. Oddly enough, the knife's miniscule scewdriver just fit the weird screw heads that Compaq used and we were able to install a new hard disk in time for a customer demo.
Cheers,
Dave
I will go... (Score:5, Insightful)
Dignity. When I can fly with that, I will be much more likely to fly.
Not 3oz; 3.4oz (Score:2)
Above maybe all else, I loathe the completely inconsistency in rules. Check out the TSA's own website [tsa.gov] where it says:
And yet every airport sign I've seen says the maximum limit is 3 ounces. That's a critical distinction b
Not At All (Score:5, Insightful)
I most look forward to staying home. Or traveling by some means other than airlines.
My favorite polearm (Score:5, Funny)
Duh!
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely. Polearms, arkebuses, crossbows, muskets, rifles, swords, longbows. Just about anything that was invented before 1871 (if my law says I can have these, without any licence, I don't see why I can't take them onto a plane) .
Besides, I already did fly with my longbow and a dagger; on a Cessna 174 though, and the pilot also had his own longbow with him. No use trying to use the bow during flight though, you cannot get it out of the luggage compartment even though it's open to the cabin, and the cabin
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I've seen hockey sticks in action. In middle school girls field hockey, a girl got a full wind up shot to the face. I had to walk her to the nurse's office, while she held most of her teeth in her hand...
Missing option: (Score:2)
A tire iron.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Richard Reid can suck my dirty white kafir dick.
When my liberty is impinged on, I blame those who impinge on it, not whoever they point to for ostensible justification.
Richard Reid and the rest of those inept "terrorists" are a distraction — don't fall for it.
isn't a box cutter (Score:2)
A small folding knife? At least some models fold. Sweet.
Missing options: (Score:2)
All the options from the previous poll should also be on this poll.
Missing Option (Score:3)
Small folding knife (Score:2)
Not yours (Score:5, Insightful)
My own damned food and drink.
Missing option (Score:2)
I usually take ... (Score:2)
... headset, map, Pooleys, and other navigation equipment as needed for the trip.
Any passengers I carry had better not be carrying explosives, acid etc but beyond that I only really care about the weight.
Re: (Score:3)
The Boeing 747 can carry a space shuttle orbiter on its back.
Weight limits for passengers and hold cargo are a fail.
Shoes! (Score:2)
Missing option (Score:4, Funny)
TSA won't go away until... (Score:2)
TSA won't go away until politicians stop thinking it's useful to bully us. Policemen pretty much always think that it's useful to bully us, and the politicians think it's useful to give the police agencies what they want.
Remember the Twilight Zone episode where Shatner shoots the gremlin that's out on the plane wing? You could still bring guns on planes until about 1970, when too many planes got hijacked to Cuba.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
TSA won't go away until politicians stop thinking it's useful to bully us.
You gotta realize that one of the key reasons the TSA is around and that the politicians don't change them is they enjoy widespread public support - If you were to interview 100 people coming out of a checkpoint in Orlando, 95 of them would say they support the TSA because it 'keeps them safe.' Sure, they'll bitch about the queues, but they'll say it's the price they expect to pay to keep their family safe from terrorists. Sad but
Re:Missing option -- Polearm (Score:5, Funny)
Definitely. I will feel more secure on my next flight with a squad of armored footmen carrying halberds.
Re: (Score:2)
By your logic, there should only be an ID age check to own a nuclear bomb. Jetliners packed with civilians are dangerous tools, and the companies who own them have proven inadequate to defend them. I still think a better solution would be an armed plainclothes combat specialist on each flight though. Or even an open carry "marshall" who could double as a bus monitor.
Re: (Score:3)
and the companies who own them have proven inadequate to defend them
Sure they have. They've hardened the cockpit doors and changed in-flight policies. They've trained their crews differently. As a consequence, there hasn't been an in-air terrorist event in nearly 12 years over hundreds-of-thousands of flights.
Re: (Score:2)
While I applaud your sentiment, this is hardly a case of "somebody else in charge, who then gets to make the rules because it's their plane". I don't think the airlines are the issue here. The airlines don't run the TSA. And if airlines were responsible for their own security, we'd probably see a much different version, where airlines could compete for business based on the customer service at security, or based on the level of risk they were willing to take (imagine one that let you bring a water bottle on
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Anybody flying with me is required to carry a sidearm as well
Make sure you never fly with me. I'd throw it out the window at 6000 feet into the nearest lake. F*cking gun nuts.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm getting sick and tired of all these motherfucking cakes on this motherfucking plane.