87-Year-Old World War II Veteran Takes On the TSA 218
McGruber writes "Orlando Sentinel columnist Lauren Ritchie has written about how Transportation Security Administration (TSA) checkpoints handle her father Sam, an 87-year-old who has a propensity to question authority in a quiet way, and make his target feel stupid. Sam points to the signs that the TSA posts stating that those above the age of 75 don't have to take off their shoes for screening. Maybe the TSA thinks all old people wear floppy tennies, but Sam's favorite pair have metal. So every time Sam goes through the screening, an alarm goes off, and an officer makes him remove his shoes. And every time he feels compelled to test the TSA. Sometimes, Sam spots them a few points by warning them ahead of time that his shoes have metal.... it got to be a ritual for a while, ending with him throwing his hands up and remarking to the TSA person: 'Hey, something's not right here.'"
News for nerds (Score:5, Funny)
Re:News for nerds (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a non-story.
TFA says nothing like the guy ever challenged the TSA. It was his daughter he challenged pointing out the sign that people over 75 don't have to take off their shoes. He's just not taking his wallet out for anyone and therefore getting the full search but he doesn't resist or try to engage the TSA. The author / daughter even says he very likely can't hear a word the TSOs say to him. So, exactly how does that qualify as him taking on the TSA?
Newsflash /. editors, yes we have no love for the TSA but, we're not stupid and don't appreciate totally misleading story titles!
Re: (Score:3)
Stories are voted on by users, ever heard of the firehose?
Straight plurality votes are what brought us the American congress with it's 5% approval rating. The "democracy == good" equation is not as straightforward as they teach you in school. In this case, a hot issue for a vocal minority gets upvoted, no matter how stupid the content, just to make a political point.
Re:News for nerds (Score:5, Insightful)
I bet this guy's raves are more about the fact that they let ethnics on the force than they are about whatever injustices he imagines about having to take off his shoes like the rest of us.
You have slave mentality. The injustice is anyone having to take off his shoes at all.
Re:News for nerds (Score:5, Informative)
Re:That is misleading (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:News for nerds (Score:5, Insightful)
You have a suicidal mentality.
Why, because he'd probably prefer to take the 0.0000000001% chance that a bomb would go off on a plane (most likely with or without the TSA) while he's on it than have everyone's freedoms be violated by slimy, worthless government thugs?
The injustice is bombs on planes.
But violating people's rights in an effort to keep people safe isn't an injustice?
Re:News for nerds (Score:5, Insightful)
Freedom is the issue here. Even if the security works, people's freedoms must not be violated.
How many armed robberies occur in police stations?
How many 9/11-scale attacks occurred before 9/11--and since we're talking about the TSA--in the US? Your chances of dying in a terrorist attack have always been infinitesimal.
Might you be one of those people that is baffled and troubled by increased incarceration rates while crime is falling?
Might you be one of those people who confuse correlation with causation?
Proper security measures increase the risk of failure and detection for terrorists.
And you assume the TSA is relevant here, or are you speaking of proper security measures like securing cockpit doors, which violate no one's rights?
Which actual right, as defined in law as interpreted by the courts, is being violated?
I'm not interesting in what your precious thugs have to say, bootlicker. From slavery to the internment of people of Japanese descent, the US government alone (as well as every other government) has committed many atrocities. Laws can be wrong. Interpretations can be wrong.
As for what's being violated, it's the fourth amendment, as well as privacy.
Absolutely nothing is a violate of people's freedoms to you if the government says it isn't. Do you even have a mind of your own?
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, it's slashdot's faviourite bootlicker!
Which actual right, as defined in law as interpreted by the courts, is being violated?
Genocide was legal under the Nazis. Mere legality is not a suitable way of determining rights.
Re:News for nerds (Score:5, Insightful)
Well that's it then, requiring people to take off their shoes one extra time a day is the first step on the path to genocide. Who knew?
You do, now. Slippery slope is a real world problem not a fallacy when it comes to exercise of government power.
Re:News for nerds (Score:4, Insightful)
Claiming that requiring people to take off their shoes once before boarding a plane is a movement down the "slippery slope" to genocide is ludicrous.
Ok, why is it ludicrous? Twelve years ago Richard Reed tried to blow up a plane with plastic explosives which were fashioned into the soles of his shoes. Since then several hundred million people in the US have had to take off their shoes a few billion times. A small event led to a vast, harmful reaction that hasn't stopped.
I see it as a haphazard acclimation to tyranny. There isn't a deliberate move to authoritarianism, it's just a natural consequence of these increasing constraints on our freedoms wordwide, with new constraints created as the public becomes accustomed to the older ones. Since the shoe thing, we have in addition, the backscattering x ray which effectively images us in the nude (and which incidentally has no security justification) and the unlawful NSA spying on all electronic communication worldwide.
That's what makes slippery slope a real, live argument. We see here that the step historically is part of a huge landslide that is still sliding.
Re: (Score:2)
Which has what to do with anything? Oh, you thought that moron who had a small amount of explosives in his shoes could somehow bring down a plane? Maybe he should have asked the folks on Hawiian Air flight 243 what happens when almost the entire roof of a plane comes off [wikipedia.org] or the Southwest flight 281 which had part of its roof come off [go.com].
Yeah, some moron with explosives in his shoes will be able to bring a plane down. It's not like he and others couldn't use their
Re:News for nerds (Score:5, Insightful)
You have slave mentality. The injustice is anyone having to take off his shoes at all.
You have a suicidal mentality. The injustice is bombs on planes.
Which bombs are these that the TSA has prevented from being taken onto a plane?
Re: (Score:3)
You must admit that there is a threshold where the damage caused by "preventing bombs by all costs" is outweighed by the damage caused by the prevention.
Perhaps your line is different than others, but there IS a line.
So, in order to have a semi-rational discussion about this topic, you must start from there.
Accusing someone of encouraging the exploding of airplanes because he feels that line is near (or has been crossed) is an asinine and unintelligent straw man.
I don't think the taking off of shoes crosses
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I hate niggers too. Gosh damn Obama and his socialist policies. /republican-mode
Oh, yes Republicans hate blacks, just ask National Black Republican Association chairman Frances Rice.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Do they have a warrant to take my shoes off and look inside? Or is this one of those blanket 'yeah we made a law to cover every aspect of that so deal with it' moments and to hell with the constitution? Even reading the *summary* you can see the guy is pointing out they do not even bother to follow their own rules.
Its not a slippery slope. Its just against the spirit of the law all together, and you could argue the letter. If you do not understand that, you have not read your history and *why* they made
Re:News for nerds (Score:5, Insightful)
> You think taking your shoes off violates your fourth amendment rights?
No, only if taking off the shoes was ordered by a government agent or otherwise required by a federal law, then yes, yes it is a violation of fourth ammendment rights. A private airline may put whatever restrictions they like on passengers buying tickets. FFS if fubar airlines wanted to ask every passenger to submit to a strip search, and informed them of this before they bought their ticket... you wouldn't hear a peep from me. (except about why I wont fly on their airline)
However, the government, very specifically, is bound to a code of civil rights which includes standards which, constitutes the agreement under which they operate, and especially conduct searches. If they do not respect civil rights, then they are acting beyond their agreed authority.
As far as I am concerned, even a metal detector is more search than the constitution authorizes. Anytime you are looking for anything, its a search, and if you are looking on another persons person, aside from what is plainly visible without aid, you are searching them. Its pretty fucking simple.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:News for nerds (Score:5, Informative)
So you can get to the front of the security line, see the x-ray machines, metal detectors, scanners, etc., you're free to turn around and leave, and the TSA cannot prevent you from leaving.
I'm [scaredmonkeys.com] afraid [gadling.com] you're [scaredmonkeys.com] wrong [sun-sentinel.com].
It's a fourth amendment issue only if they prevent you from voluntarily leaving after deciding that you'd feel violated.
"Once a person submits to the screening process, they can not just decide to leave that process," says Sari Koshetz, regional TSA spokesperson, based in Miami. Such passengers will be questioned "until it is determined that they don't pose a threat" to the public.
Once you are near the TSA security check points, you are not allowed to leave. The "Don't touch my junk" guy was told that he was being ejected from the airport while simultaneously being told that he would be arrested and fined $11,000 if he tried to leave. Not only was the underwear dude in San Diego arrested, another passenger who filmed the encounter on her iPhone also was arrested and had her phone confiscated for "illegally filming".
What's your position on this now?
Re: (Score:2)
My position is people need to stop flying and putting up with this nonsense. Money talks.
Re: (Score:2)
You can decide not to submit. That is not true of a warrant.
Re: (Score:2)
People have, and the airlines have handled this by merging more, and forming a stronger panopoly.
Re: (Score:3)
This isn't about money. It's about votes. (Which is, in turn, about money I suppose...) The point being ... the TSA is all about politics and making the voters think the government is making them safer. Not flying won't change that one bit.
Re: (Score:2)
> It's a fourth amendment issue only if they prevent you from voluntarily leaving after deciding that
> you'd feel violated
No, its an issue if they prevent you from doing anything that you would otherwise do, otherwise you didn't really have the right to refuse the search, you just had an option on which unwarranted interference to accept.
Missed opportunity (Score:2)
The TSA missed an opportunity here for further insulting the general populous. They could have applied logic and come up with the reasoning that old people have less years to live, therefor less to lose and are therefor are more likely to be a suicide bomber. The logical consequence would be that old people need more and closer inspection. not less.
Re:Missed opportunity (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, but then someone would point out that old people just don't give a shit. It's what makes them so endearing.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but then someone would point out that old people just don't give a shit. It's what makes them so endearing.
I am sure they give a shit, watching their nieces and nephews get blown to bits by remote control, from the link [youtube.com]:
A report by the Bureau of Investigative Journalists has uncovered Pakistani government documents suggesting the civilian death toll from US drone strikes is higher than previously thought. In a three year period 147 people were killed, including 94 children. Adam (@adamsich) takes a look at how many kids have been killed in Pakistan by US drones. See below for sources and extra links.
So yeah, I'd say old people are just as/more likely to want revenge (i.e a threat) [criticalcommons.org] as any other age range,,,
Aaaah TSA (Score:2)
Re:Aaaah TSA (Score:5, Funny)
It's unfair and unconstitutional.
I shouldn't have to lose my right to be seen naked just to get the groping.
Both the groping and the nude pictures are paid by my taxes! If I want them both I should get both!
Re: (Score:2)
Or as a cartoon character. I refuse to be a caricature for their amusement. [theatlanticwire.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Do this every time. And pack a large foot powder (for the drug screening, takes 5 minutes!).
Slow the system down. Always request to be manually searched.
I do.
Exaggerated headline (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Exaggerated headline (Score:4, Funny)
The man might have dementia and think he's playing "Are You Smarter Than A First Grader?" at the airport. I can see how the TSA would fuel that delusion.
Yea (Score:2)
Between 87 year olds taking on TSA and 90+ year olds storming the steps of the closed WWII memorial, I feel my rights and liberties are well protected. Well, at least until Social Security and Medicare run out of money then we're screwed.
Re: Yea (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess you could count Snowden and Wikileaks as contributions from the tech generations.
Sign of the times and our culture. I'd certainly support more civil disobedience, as long as it wasn't me... and I feel that is why big brother is still doing what they are.
Re: (Score:3)
Blindly following the rules doesn't seem like standing up to the system.
He doesn't take his shoes off because the sign says he doesn't have too even though he must know that his shoes will set of the metal detector he is about to walk through. So he blindly obeys the commands on the sign - "yes sir, how high sir".
He then consents to the more thorough search without raising any complaints - civil obedience if anything.
Re: Yea (Score:4, Interesting)
I do my part, as a European I actively boycott travel to the USA. There have been several opportunities for both myself and others to take trips to the USA, and I have proposed and worked with alternative plans every time. It's not a lot, but it's what I can do.
As long as the USA has insane paranoid immigration policies and the TSA I will not travel there, and neither will my immediate family. (I did go to Miami many years ago for a conference, but that was back when things were still sensible)
"Visa Waiver" my ass, that's just a visa-lite. If I need to apply to enter, they can forget it. The last countries I needed to request a visa to enter were Mauritania, Mali, and Burkina Faso, and as far as I could tell that was just a glorified way of squeezing extra cash out of visitors - and at least they didn't demand fingerprints and invasive grilling by border-guards. Mauritania border guards just wanted a small cash donation, and the others were happy with a ballpoint pen, an apple (he actually wanted sweets, but all we had was fruit) and an empty fuel-canister.
-- Pete.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm 34 with a wonderful family and a good job. No one is going to care when they throw me in jail and charge me with a few lame charges.. and that will follow me around for the rest of my life. Even if the charges are dropped, they'd be associated with my name via the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
What's the "news"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The article reads like it was written by a 13 year old with a fuzzy idea for an "interesting" story...
She could have at least detailed *what* the man said to make them feel stupid, it would have at least been humorous.
Re: (Score:2)
The article reads like it was written by a 13 year old with a fuzzy idea for an "interesting" story...
She could have at least detailed *what* the man said to make them feel stupid, it would have at least been humorous.
I think it was -her- that actually felt stupid. Any dad worthy of the name can do that to his kid.
Don't poke the peons (Score:3, Insightful)
Poor schlub is just trying to take home a paycheck. He (or she) did not make the stupid rules; she (or he) just has smell feet all day.
Take the TSA to court, or send letters to your congresscritter, or something. Don't make life more miserable for the privates.
(Did I mention that the TSA is just a depression-era jobs program wrapped up in patriotism and fear?)
Re: (Score:3)
Shaddup and get off my lawn you whippersnapper!
Re: (Score:3)
Irony is these are the guys who were dodging bullets from Germans who were "just following orders" too.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Poor schlub is just trying to take home a paycheck. He (or she) did not make the stupid rules; she (or he) just has smell feet all day.
People who mindlessly go along with abusive authoritarianism are part of the problem. Maybe not the largest part, but they do hold some of the responsibility for the problem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Third_Wave
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_German_Girls
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler_Youth
Re: (Score:2)
Damn right. I'll take it further though.
People who go along to get along in the face of tyranny just make me sad. People who think tyranny is just fine are another thing entirely. They make me violently ill. They are true scum.
Re:Don't poke the peons (Score:5, Interesting)
They did willingly sign up to work for the TSA. They have also witnessed and participated in violations of American's rights, and they remain at their posts. Therefore they are culpable as traitors to the cause of liberty. Should justice ever prevail, their heads will line the streets of our free cities!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Poor schlub is just trying to take home a paycheck. He (or she) did not make the stupid rules; she (or he) just has smell feet all day.
"Just following orders" is not a valid excuse for violating people's freedoms and the constitution.
Re: (Score:2)
If they were just following orders, then they shouldn't have expected him to take his shoes off. It's what their own signs said.
Big deal (Score:4, Insightful)
Cranky old man causes shit in lineups. News at 11.
WTF is this doing on Slashdot?
Re: (Score:2)
WTF is this doing on Slashdot?
It's on slashdot because you failed to submit something better: http://slashdot.org/~msobkow/submissions [slashdot.org]
Pro tip: Things people don't like (Score:5, Insightful)
People don't like having pointed out the logical inconsistencies of the way the do things, and it has a tendency to piss them off. This is not limited to TSA personnel. However the consequences of pissing off certain people (especially those who hold power over you) is something that you need to take into consideration before you do so.
Gotta search 'em all! (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm all for baiting the TSA. Most of their security measures are just plain ridiculous. I swear that after the shoe bomber got them to make us take off our shoes, the underwear bomber was sent in to see if they'd strip search us. (And they responded with backscatter scanners. Discuss.)
But, applying the same security measures to everyone -- old, young, crippled, whatever -- is not among their failings. That's the only part of what they do that makes sense. Once you declare a "safe" class of passengers who get waved through the searches, you're tempting The Bad Guys to enlist members of that class. Do 90 year old guys get a pass? I'm sure The Bad Guys can find some disgruntled nonagenarian to stuff some C4 down his pants or carry the dreaded 3.1 ounces of liquid explosive. The only way security searches work is if they're applied to everyone.
Of course, the TSA can't even get that right. They introduced their Pre-Check program which reduces the checks to pre-9/11 levels for pre-approved travelers. So how hard would it be to recruit some guy who qualifies for the Pre-Check lane to be the bomb mule?
Psssst! Hey Bad Guys! Want to cripple air travel in the US? Just bomb a couple airport security checkpoints. Lots of people, tightly packed together, all standing in a nice line, and no chance of being discovered early. Hit a couple of those and we'll shit ourselves trying to figure out how to strip-search passengers without causing big, vulnerable holding areas. It's a pretty damned obvious target. The fact that it hasn't happened in the past 12 years is the best evidence that there really isn't a legion of Bad Guys out there just waiting for the chance to attack. They've had the chance. We've gift-wrapped it for them. Now let's just admit that the bogeyman is mostly in our imaginations.
Re: (Score:2)
3.1 ounces of liquid explosives actually is fine. It's when you cross the 3.4 ounces that they have a problem with it.
Re: (Score:2)
I swear that after the shoe bomber got them to make us take off our shoes, the underwear bomber was sent in to see if they'd strip search us. (And they responded with backscatter scanners. Discuss.)
Yeah, there were even people who predicted that this would happen [newyorker.com].
Re: (Score:2)
I suggest Denver. Huge open area where people are herded into a giant square of snaking lines. And the queue of people is separated from the totally uncontrolled space by a few flimsy mobile walls.
It's a ridiculously soft target. To think that any real terrorist would risk getting on a plane rather than hit the juicy target the security screening line presents is stupid.
Re:Gotta search 'em all! (Score:5, Insightful)
A thousand times this.
Pre-911 hijackings weren't a huge issue. You played along, kept your head down, and eventually you'd be released after the hijackers made their statement. It was a huge inconvenience and I'm sure scary at the time, but playing along meant you were safe.
On 911 passengers played by the pre-911 rules assuming they would just be diverted to Mexico or something. The last plane got word of what happened to the previous 3 and fought back.
Post-911 security improvements have made another 911 virtually impossible. And by security improvements, I mean locked, reinforced cabin doors. Not TSA "security theater" checks. In addition, passengers won't trust any potential hijacker who says everyone will live if they just stay in their seats. A hijacker will quickly find himself outnumbered 30-1 by people who are facing death if they don't take him down and who, unlike the hijacker, don't want to die.
This isn't to say that no terrorist will ever bring a plane down again. Just that it will be extremely difficult for them to do so. They can get more bang for their buck (pun intended) by switching to other targets. Crowded airport security lines in major airports. (A few of these hit at the same time will ground all flights.) Crowded malls during the Christmas rush. Big sports events. These would all cause a lot of chaos and would be more likely to succeed than an airplane attack.
Of course, even then terrorism would be rare in the US. Look at the number of people who have died from terrorist attacks in the US over the last 15 years. Going by Wikipedia [wikipedia.org], that's about 3,038. This is only 203 people per year. If we don't count 9-11 (as it is obviously not a normal occurrence given the death tolls of the other terrorist attacks), we're down to 3 people per year. More people die from nut allergies each year (about 150) and I don't see us declaring a War on Nuts.
This terrorism-paranoia is ridiculous. We need to stay alert, yes, but we don't need to give up our freedoms to ensure our safety.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see us declaring a War on Nuts.
Thank god or else /. Would be high on the target list...
Re: War on nuts (Score:2)
Tried to pack a kid's lunch lately? Or held a birthday party? Or baked anything for a bake sale?
Nuts are the new communism party. "Are you or have you even been in contact with nuts?"
Re: (Score:3)
I'd like to address this, as I have personal experience.
First of all, nut allergies are not caused by crazy overprotective parents (yes, I know he didn't say that, but it was kind of implied). When our daughter was 4, she ate some pecan turtles, and swelled up like a balloon. We took her to the doctor who tested her and said, "Nut allergy".
Second, nut allergies can be deadly. Anaphlactic shock can kill someone fairly quickly.
Third, I never tried to regulate what other kids brought to school for *their*
Re: (Score:2)
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -- some old guy nobody remembers these days.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're going to apply it universally, then you really ought to make sure it's something a 90-year old can handle. Taking off shoes and putting them back on isn't exactly always easy at 90. They should be ready to offer an effective alternative anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
My only argument is that *if* the security measures are actually effective they need to be applied to everyone. Perhaps they could give the elderly assistance removing their shoes, putting them back on, or whatever. But if removing one's shoes is important enough to require it of most people, it's important enough to not make a known gaping security hole by allowing a class of people to skip it.
I don't claim there's any benefit at all in removing one's shoes. Quite the opposite, I think that allowing the
Re: (Score:2)
Or, removing the shoes is just faster than any alternative. The alternative could be effective but slow. If they're not actually taking an alternative inspection when someone can't remove their shoes, then that's the real issue.
So ..... (Score:2)
Old guy with nothing better do harasses TSA agents over loophole, wasting the time of innocent people trying to catch their planes.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
wasting the time of innocent people trying to catch their planes.
Blaming the victim, are we? Who's really wasting everyone's time here (and violating everyone's freedoms)? The government thugs who harass people who simply want to get on a plane, or the innocent people who... simply want to get on a plane. Heaven forbid anyone even do so much as slightly question evil authority figures; that might inconvenience the people in line behind you! Woe is them!
Haters will hate. (Score:2)
It really shouldn't matter what you are. If the metal detector goes off, you have to take off the shoes and every thing else that could cause the alarm. I don't see any reason for exceptions. What's the point of having a metal detector if you're not acting on an alarm...
You can hate the TSA, but at least they're doing their job.
Score one for hacking the TSA. (Score:3, Informative)
The guy has a point about his wallet. I "lost" a $10 watch (really nice looking, but a cheap birthday gift from my daughter, bought with her allowance money) on their belt. When I complained, everyone claimed ignorance and with the clock ticking and the line stopped I became aware of one interesting social feature in the security line system design: With the level of inconvencience already high, the impatience of your fellow travellers is a very effective cudgel that the TSA uses as a resource.
As I tried to plead my case I noticed the uninvolved TSA folks were playing to the crowd with how they talked and their body language -- "look guys, it's THIS guy who is gumming up the works and making you late." And I could certainly feel the love...
In the end, regardless of the sentimental value it was just a $10 watch. I think the entire affair lasted a bit under a minute and a half, but I knuckled under and the TSA thief won. I sometimes wonder how much of this was anticipated by the thief -- that at some set rate you can just snag an item of not much consequence and let the time pressure work for you...
Just remember, while you arguably benefit from their services, these people are not actually on your side here (you *are* the suspect after all) and it's not like their uniform implies any particular level of integrity.
aha (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Can we mod the article down? (Score:2)
This has no geek content whatsoever. In order to keep myself from slashing my wrists out of boredom I had to wonder about how hearing aid technology could be improved.
Re: (Score:2)
News for nerds. Stuff that matters.
Maybe you don't live here, but I do. It's important to keep up on the state of this mess.
Removing shoes was never about safety (Score:2)
Fun with the TSA and similar clows elsewhere (Score:5, Interesting)
Those passenger screenings are as we all know a big charade. Here's an anecdote of Munich Airport in Germany - probably the most idiotic airport in Germany I had to travel through.
While most airports in Germany don't care about cameras, Munich airport has a special fetish for controlling cameras. 2 times out of 3 they want me to take my dSLR out of my Backpack to finger it. Usually they want me to turn it on and look through it, but my friendly offers to take an image to prove it works usually ends it panicky horror. Whatever.
So I got a little pissed of and decided the next time to take out the battery of the camera. And sure enough they wanted to to search it again and asked me to turn it on. As usual, I turned the Power switch to on, but without battery nothing happened, and handed the camera to the goon. I don't know what he ascertained with his ritual, but after looking through it, he was happy the camera without power is real.
As at that time I was playing around with long-exposures during daytime, I carried with me an ND1000 filter. This is basically a piece of black glass that lets through only minimal light. It's about as dark as welders glasses or those things you used to observer the sun during an eclipse. In the rather low light at the airport, you don't see anything through that filter. So evil me removed the battery again and screwed that filter on in front the next times I flew out of Munich. Out of about 5 manual checks, here's the breakdown:
2 checked the camera after the power-up without battery and the black glass in front of the lens the usual way by looking through it and doing their magic ritual. The fact that the camera was dead as a brick and the didn't see anything didn't faze them to hand it back satisfied without comment.
2 wondered why the didn't see anything and looked if the lens-cap was still on. After they saw that no it isn't on and the front is some kind of glass, they relooked through the camera - without seining anything more - and were happy with the results.
Only one out if the 5 asked why he can't see anything and when I told him, that this is a special filter for long exposure was also happy to let me pass. Asking to remove it for the check wasn't in his book.
So 5 out of 5 weren't bothered by the fact that turning the camera on has no visible effect and the same 5 in the end were also happy that they didn't see anything when they looked through the camera.
What a strange world we live in!
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, even with a strong ND filter, it's pretty apparent that you're looking into a reflective prism.
meh...
I've never had that issue in Munich... (for what it's worth).
On a somewhat related note... (Score:2)
News story came up on the radio a couple of days ago while I was getting ready to enter the rat race. The interviewee was complaining about how Americans are so-o-o un-stylish when they travel -- wearing sweats and flip flops -- while the Italians, on the other hand, wear expensive suits and look so snazzy. And I thought: Let's see how long those Italians continue to wear their fancy suits while traveling when they start having to take off half their clothes before getting on the effin' plane.
If we shut do
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
87-Year-Old World War II Veteran (Score:2)
People like this grew up during the Great Depression and lived through a time when America achieved greatness.
No wonder they have a low BS tolerance.
Re:Its only a sensible precaution (Score:4, Funny)
Damnit now you've given them another attack vector to explore! You've helped the terrorists win, are you happy now?
Re:Its only a sensible precaution (Score:4, Funny)
Muzzie heaven, were all the terrorists are disappointed and all the virgins are male.
Re: (Score:2)
Muzzie heaven, were all the terrorists are disappointed and all the virgins are male.
According to "the innocence of Muslims" Muhammad wouldn't have been
Re:Its only a sensible precaution (Score:5, Insightful)
You can bet there are some 87-year old Muslims out there who would love to take a shoe-bomb if they thought they could get through.
Radical Islam specializes in young men for their operations, not old. It's only logical for a polygamous religion. Allowing men to marry as many women as they can afford means that you're going to have a lot of horny, angry young men on your hands who don't get ANY wives (or even get laid, since they don't like that either). So, assuming a equitable birthrate of males and females, you need some way to get rid of all those angry young men. So either you have a war or you con them into believing that they can have all the wives they want in heaven if they'll just walk into the nearest mall and blow themselves up. Sure, it's dumb as shit. But when you're talking desperately horny, poor, illiterate goat farmers--you can talk them into pretty much anything.
If someone has made it to 87 in this environment, odds are that they're one of the smart ones at the top of this big religious pyramid scam who actually have something to lose. Notice that Osama Bin Laden wasn't one of the 9-11 hijackers. He was sitting back safely in his bunker with his several wives, while the young saps killed themselves for Allah.
Re:Its only a sensible precaution (Score:5, Informative)
You can bet there are some 87-year old Muslims out there who would love to take a shoe-bomb if they thought they could get through.
But when you're talking desperately horny, poor, illiterate goat farmers--you can talk them into pretty much anything.
If someone has made it to 87 in this environment, odds are that they're one of the smart ones at the top of this big religious pyramid scam who actually have something to lose. Notice that Osama Bin Laden wasn't one of the 9-11 hijackers. He was sitting back safely in his bunker with his several wives, while the young saps killed themselves for Allah.
While OBL wasn't one of the 9-11 hijackers, some of the ones who were were university educated.
This meme that the archetypical Muslim terrorist is poor, illiterate, and has no other options needs to go away. We can't address the problem with incorrect presumptions floating around.
Re:Its only a sensible precaution (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Being university educated doesn't necessarily mean you aren't gullible and stupid.
But being University educated and still a Muslim does.
Surely you have this the wrong way round!
Re: (Score:2)
They actually go for engineers, from my understanding.
Here's my "theory" why: once they are convinced there is a problem, they have a need to fix it. All they have to do is make them believe there is a problem, and offer a convenient way to "fix" it.
Note: by theory I mean "thing that I just made up, now, on the spot"
Re: (Score:2)
And most of the July 2005 London bombers were doctors.
University educated, but not doctors.
He's probably thinking of the Glasgow Airport attack [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As opposed to the imperialism of western, mostly Christian nations, which is noted for sending women in their 50s off to invade other countries.
The use of young men as cannon fodder is unrelated to polygamous religion.
Some of the 9/11 hijackers were married. Some had been to college. Most were middle-class.
But don't le
Re: (Score:2)
As opposed to the imperialism of western, mostly Christian nations, which is noted for sending women in their 50s off to invade other countries.
I don't recall making the assertion that the West was perfect (most certainly not).
But on a very real-world level, who would you rather be ruled by--the Taliban or the U.S. government? If your argument for equivalency is valid, you shouldn't be able to answer that question. But I bet if you're being honest that you can, can't you?
Re: (Score:2)
So either you have a war or you con them into believing that they can have all the wives they want in heaven if they'll just walk into the nearest mall and blow themselves up.
So these wives must be soulless or never lived on earth or essentially "newborn." Or where would they all come from? I guess a wife is not a companion in Islam so maybe it wouldn't matter. Just a bunch of heavenly Realdolls that move.
Re: (Score:2)
maybe I shouldn't bother, but your statement "Allowing men to marry as many women as they can afford" betrays you lack of knowledge about Islam. I'll give you a hint: that practice is what is forbidden by Islam.
Re: (Score:2)
Notice that Osama Bin Laden wasn't one of the 9-11 hijackers. He was sitting back safely in his bunker with his several wives, while the young saps killed themselves for Allah.
Hell, even in Afghanistan in the 80s bin Laden sat back in the safety of Pakistan. He was always the radical Islamic version of an REMF.
Re: (Score:2)
It's sad that so many fools went to their deaths following a spoiled, rich poseur. Ironically, he was a lot like George W. Bush in that regard--the rich boy who's more than happy to send everyone else out to fight and die, but who runs and hides when it comes his time to fight.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Violating people's freedoms and the constitution is not and never will be "sensible." Even if this nonsense did make us safer (And it doesn't; secured cockpit doors and the willingness of passengers to fight back are the important things that have changed, and neither violate anyone's rights.), freedom is more important than safety from some bogeyman.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Why is this comment here? It's not contributing, it's barely a comment at all - this isn't a comment, it doesn't matter, and it's not for people.
Why is this here?
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, following orders .. jawohl mein herr. Sorry. The Lieutenant can order you to smash the baby's skull against the tree, but following orders is not a defense. The puppet masters whom you are right to hold at fault would be nowhere if there weren't people willing to take their orders and play their part in tyrranizing the people.
Can't find a single thing to argue about in your point that t
Re: (Score:2)
It may have been a reporter's father, so the benefits are skewed enormously. But it did gain national recognition, so I'd say it did a little more than harass someone at the bottom of the chain.
Since when does having served in any military capacity provide carte blanche for any behavior and imbue one with near mystical wisdom about life?
Obviously you can't rely on that, but it does highlight that everyone's treated as an enemy combatant - even those that have fought for our side.