This is of course in addition to the less than 1% increase in capture rates during test over previous security...
More reasons why the TSA are a complete waste of money and resources
This is of course in addition to the less than 1% increase in capture rates during test over previous security...
So what is your solution? Privatized security wasn't any better.
Also, contrary some what some people think, the purpose of security isn't to catch people doing wrong, it's to deter them from attempting to do wrong in the first place, so your 1% statistic means absolutely nothing.
More reasons why the TSA are a complete waste of money and resources
This is of course in addition to the less than 1% increase in capture rates during test over previous security...
So what is your solution? Privatized security wasn't any better.
Also, contrary some what some people think, the purpose of security isn't to catch people doing wrong, it's to deter them from attempting to do wrong in the first place, so your 1% statistic means absolutely nothing.
My solution would be to have an independent department evaluate thier security and then have some people get fired when they don't improve. That or scrap the whole thing and instead of looking for al-qaeda in peoples underwear or using cancer scanners that are banned in europe because of the potential risk they roll out the bomb sniffing dogs and bees. They could also, I don't know TRAIN THE FREAKING TSA TO ACTUALLY KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING instead of showing a training video and letting them loose. You know give them some law training and make them take the same oath every military or police officer is supposed to take...
Dude, their is like 500 million people a year who travel in planes in the US. You're bound to have some problems at security check points, whether intentional or not. A perfect system is not possible. Even a system that has problems 0,01% of the time, that would mean 50,000 incident a year.
Sure but we can get it down to a reasonable level. I don't feel safe when I'm felt up by lower IQ people whose training is totally reliant on watching a 30 minute video...
Sure but we can get it down to a reasonable level. I don't feel safe when I'm felt up by lower IQ people whose training is totally reliant on watching a 30 minute video...
Define "reasonable level".
Sure but we can get it down to a reasonable level. I don't feel safe when I'm felt up by lower IQ people whose training is totally reliant on watching a 30 minute video...
Define "reasonable level".
You're asking Lokaire to define something "reasonable?" This won't end well.
My solution would be to have an independent department evaluate thier security and then have some people get fired when they don't improve. That or scrap the whole thing and instead of looking for al-qaeda in peoples underwear or using cancer scanners that are banned in europe because of the potential risk they roll out the bomb sniffing dogs and bees. They could also, I don't know TRAIN THE FREAKING TSA TO ACTUALLY KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING instead of showing a training video and letting them loose. You know give them some law training and make them take the same oath every military or police officer is supposed to take...
1) A lot of the body scanners used in the US aren't the type mentioned in the article. Many airports have switched to millimeter wave technology which is better than the x-ray scanners.
2) People panic whenever x-rays or radiation is mentioned. Just like the US military has been using tungsten penetrators lately instead of depleted uranium. They aren't any safer, but people don't panic when they hear the word "tungsten", whereas "uranium" makes them think we are creating hordes of Godzillas. Your own link even states that the EC believed the risk was almost zero, which tells me this move likely had more to do with politics than safety.
3) You can opt out of the scanners and get a pat down instead. Or you can choose not to fly. Or at least choose not to fly on a commercial airline.
4) The TSA is not law enforcement. Don't expect them to be trained and treated as such.
5) Bomb-sniffing dogs/bees/rats/animal of your choice are far from perfect. In many ways they are worse than the trace detectors (at least for what TSA is doing). You need the animals to be bred, raised, trained, certified, retrained and recertified periodically, you need to train a dog/animal handler, the animals require rest cycles, they can be thrown off or overwhelmed by scents, and they can only detect explosives that you specifically train them to find, and there's only so many different ones you can teach them, plus you then need the explosives to train them with (something you complained about DHS doing)....yeah dogs and other animals are great for certain purposes but far from perfect.
6) Their training is far from perfect. I've been a firm advocate of getting them better training. However, they do get more than watching a 30 minute training video.
Dude, their is like 500 million people a year who travel in planes in the US. You're bound to have some problems at security check points, whether intentional or not. A perfect system is not possible. Even a system that has problems 0,01% of the time, that would mean 50,000 incident a year.
Sure but we can get it down to a reasonable level. I don't feel safe when I'm felt up by lower IQ people whose training is totally reliant on watching a 30 minute video...
What makes you think it's not at 0,01% right now? Or, god forbid, 0,02%?
Its 1% better than before 9/11. That's after $60 billion dollars being spent on it...
Sure but we can get it down to a reasonable level. I don't feel safe when I'm felt up by lower IQ people whose training is totally reliant on watching a 30 minute video...
Define "reasonable level".
How about not molesting old ladies with colostamy bags in wheel chairs?
How about not doing vaginal searches?
How about following police procedure for pat downs?
How about following constitutional procedure (Amendment IV)?
How about non-invasive methods such as Dogs and Bees? Dogs would require a kennel and expensive training. Bees can be housed in a much smaller area and don't need constant supervision, and can be trained much more rapidly, they can also provide honey as an alternate source of income. I really don't think I'm asking for a lot...
How about non-invasive methods such as Dogs and Bees? Dogs would require a kennel and expensive training. Bees can be housed in a much smaller area and don't need constant supervision, and can be trained much more rapidly, they can also provide honey as an alternate source of income. I really don't think I'm asking for a lot...
How would bee be used?
How about non-invasive methods such as Dogs and Bees? Dogs would require a kennel and expensive training. Bees can be housed in a much smaller area and don't need constant supervision, and can be trained much more rapidly, they can also provide honey as an alternate source of income. I really don't think I'm asking for a lot...
How would bee be used?
The link is above. They are trained just like dogs, but quicker, less expensive, and take up less space...
Here is the link. Click here...
I don't see any link that leads to information about bees. Which one is it?
I edited the post and put it in there...
The link is above. They are trained just like dogs, but quicker, less expensive, and take up less space...
Here is the link. Click here...
From your link:
Although there are a variety of newspaper articles about this invention, I haven't found the company's claims supported by respected scientific periodicals.
The link is above. They are trained just like dogs, but quicker, less expensive, and take up less space...
Here is the link. Click here...
From your link:Although there are a variety of newspaper articles about this invention, I haven't found the company's claims supported by respected scientific periodicals.
I'm sure its in the works. The cool thing is they could just let these things loose in the airport and if you carry explosives (or honey) you'll get stung to death by hungry bees, problem solved...
Sure but we can get it down to a reasonable level. I don't feel safe when I'm felt up by lower IQ people whose training is totally reliant on watching a 30 minute video...
Define "reasonable level".
How about not molesting old ladies with colostamy bags in wheel chairs?
How about not doing vaginal searches?
How about following police procedure for pat downs?
How about following constitutional procedure (Amendment IV)?
How about non-invasive methods such as Dogs and Bees? Dogs would require a kennel and expensive training. Bees can be housed in a much smaller area and don't need constant supervision, and can be trained much more rapidly, they can also provide honey as an alternate source of income. I really don't think I'm asking for a lot...
If I ask you to define a duck and you say "it's not a weasel, head of lettuce, or celestial body" then you're doing a pretty crappy job of defining what a duck is.
So try again. What is a reasonable level. Be specific. Do not say what it is not, as that is a useless way to define something. Do not specify your preferred methods, as that is a means to a goal, not a measurement of success or failure at said goal.
I'm sure its in the works. The cool thing is they could just let these things loose in the airport and if you carry explosives (or honey) you'll get stung to death by hungry bees, problem solved...
Right. The bees would just go find the person wth explosives and ignore all the restaurants with sugary snacks and stuff. By the way, did you actually read the article you linked? The bees stay in their box tied down. They are not let loose. As for their training method... pretty funny claims.
I'm sure its in the works. The cool thing is they could just let these things loose in the airport and if you carry explosives (or honey) you'll get stung to death by hungry bees, problem solved...
Right. The bees would just go find the person wth explosives and ignore all the restaurants with sugary snacks and stuff. By the way, did you actually read the article you linked? The bees stay in their box tied down. They are not let loose. As for their training method... pretty funny claims.
So you are saying that pavlov's dogs is wrong? Nice, attack a dead guy...
I'm sure its in the works. The cool thing is they could just let these things loose in the airport and if you carry explosives (or honey) you'll get stung to death by hungry bees, problem solved...
Right. The bees would just go find the person wth explosives and ignore all the restaurants with sugary snacks and stuff. By the way, did you actually read the article you linked? The bees stay in their box tied down. They are not let loose. As for their training method... pretty funny claims.
So you are saying that pavlov's dogs is wrong? Nice, attack a dead guy...
To be honest, Pavlov got lucky.
I'm sure its in the works. The cool thing is they could just let these things loose in the airport and if you carry explosives (or honey) you'll get stung to death by hungry bees, problem solved...
Right. The bees would just go find the person wth explosives and ignore all the restaurants with sugary snacks and stuff. By the way, did you actually read the article you linked? The bees stay in their box tied down. They are not let loose. As for their training method... pretty funny claims.
So you are saying that pavlov's dogs is wrong? Nice, attack a dead guy...
To be honest, Pavlov got lucky.
What he got lucky and got dogs that salivate when they heard a bell they associated with dinner?
I'm sure its in the works. The cool thing is they could just let these things loose in the airport and if you carry explosives (or honey) you'll get stung to death by hungry bees, problem solved...
Right. The bees would just go find the person wth explosives and ignore all the restaurants with sugary snacks and stuff. By the way, did you actually read the article you linked? The bees stay in their box tied down. They are not let loose. As for their training method... pretty funny claims.
So you are saying that pavlov's dogs is wrong? Nice, attack a dead guy...
To be honest, Pavlov got lucky.
What he got lucky and got dogs that salivate when they heard a bell they associated with dinner?
Yup. He got lucky that he noticed it. AS HC points out, that wasn't what he was researching.
I'm fairly certain that letting bees fly around an airport willy-nilly would just never, you know, fly. Cuz some peeps? Allergic to bee stings. Deathly so.
Not only would the bees catch terrorists, but they would also help control the population, reduce airline emmissions, cut costs at airports, and create more jobs in the medical field. I think this is a great idea.
Actually, it looks like a money grab designed by big pharma to me. More people go into anaphylaxis? More epi-pens sold. I can't believe Loki is an agent of big pharma. I never would have guessed.
You have a problem with job creators making money?
Only when it's big pharma cuz they use fetus goop to make all their pills an' stuff. You want women to basically become livestock?
You're a few hundred years too late.
Actually, she does make the sammiches. I do not.
Sure, why would she want you to make the kids anything? You're likely to stick a hoof in there.
Nah, just broken glass.
She did mention you started drinking vodka.
I'm sure its in the works. The cool thing is they could just let these things loose in the airport and if you carry explosives (or honey) you'll get stung to death by hungry bees, problem solved...
Yeah until someone who is afraid of bees (like a lot of children) freak out, get the bees riled up by swatting at them, and they sting random people. Or someone that uses explosives legimitately in his line of work and still has residue on them. Or the fact that the publicity of such an incident makes this impractical.
My solution would be to have an independent department evaluate thier security and then have some people get fired when they don't improve. That or scrap the whole thing and instead of looking for al-qaeda in peoples underwear or using cancer scanners that are banned in europe because of the potential risk they roll out the bomb sniffing dogs and bees. They could also, I don't know TRAIN THE FREAKING TSA TO ACTUALLY KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING instead of showing a training video and letting them loose. You know give them some law training and make them take the same oath every military or police officer is supposed to take...
1) A lot of the body scanners used in the US aren't the type mentioned in the article. Many airports have switched to millimeter wave technology which is better than the x-ray scanners.
2) People panic whenever x-rays or radiation is mentioned. Just like the US military has been using tungsten penetrators lately instead of depleted uranium. They aren't any safer, but people don't panic when they hear the word "tungsten", whereas "uranium" makes them think we are creating hordes of Godzillas. Your own link even states that the EC believed the risk was almost zero, which tells me this move likely had more to do with politics than safety.
3) You can opt out of the scanners and get a pat down instead. Or you can choose not to fly. Or at least choose not to fly on a commercial airline.
4) The TSA is not law enforcement. Don't expect them to be trained and treated as such.
5) Bomb-sniffing dogs/bees/rats/animal of your choice are far from perfect. In many ways they are worse than the trace detectors (at least for what TSA is doing). You need the animals to be bred, raised, trained, certified, retrained and recertified periodically, you need to train a dog/animal handler, the animals require rest cycles, they can be thrown off or overwhelmed by scents, and they can only detect explosives that you specifically train them to find, and there's only so many different ones you can teach them, plus you then need the explosives to train them with (something you complained about DHS doing)....yeah dogs and other animals are great for certain purposes but far from perfect.
6) Their training is far from perfect. I've been a firm advocate of getting them better training. However, they do get more than watching a 30 minute training video.
Still waiting...
My solution would be to have an independent department evaluate thier security and then have some people get fired when they don't improve. That or scrap the whole thing and instead of looking for al-qaeda in peoples underwear or using cancer scanners that are banned in europe because of the potential risk they roll out the bomb sniffing dogs and bees. They could also, I don't know TRAIN THE FREAKING TSA TO ACTUALLY KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING instead of showing a training video and letting them loose. You know give them some law training and make them take the same oath every military or police officer is supposed to take...
1) A lot of the body scanners used in the US aren't the type mentioned in the article. Many airports have switched to millimeter wave technology which is better than the x-ray scanners.
You mean the still dangerous and untested scanners?
2) People panic whenever x-rays or radiation is mentioned. Just like the US military has been using tungsten penetrators lately instead of depleted uranium. They aren't any safer, but people don't panic when they hear the word "tungsten", whereas "uranium" makes them think we are creating hordes of Godzillas. Your own link even states that the EC believed the risk was almost zero, which tells me this move likely had more to do with politics than safety.
They rightly panic. Supposedly you are only supposed to use X-Ray or radiation if there is a medical benefit. Now they are throwing people into poorly tested (see above link) scanners because a company wants to make money. In fact they were ordered before the underwear bomber.
3) You can opt out of the scanners and get a pat down instead. Or you can choose not to fly. Or at least choose not to fly on a commercial airline.
Your rights are inalienable. You cannot 'give them up' according to the constitution and declaration of independence. So airlines should be forced to follow constitutional procedure too regardless of the 'reasoning' behind it. I would have no problem with non-invasive detection, but radiation and getting felt up are extremely invasive and no more effective than what we had before 9/11.
4) The TSA is not law enforcement. Don't expect them to be trained and treated as such.
You are right, they aren't law enforcement, but they are violating constitutional rights and doing the jobs of law enforcement which means they need to be sworn in and trained like law enforcement. As it stands the TSA can do more to you than a police officer. There's something wrong with that. If they aren't law enforcement they should not be able to do as much let alone more.
5) Bomb-sniffing dogs/bees/rats/animal of your choice are far from perfect. In many ways they are worse than the trace detectors (at least for what TSA is doing). You need the animals to be bred, raised, trained, certified, retrained and recertified periodically, you need to train a dog/animal handler, the animals require rest cycles, they can be thrown off or overwhelmed by scents, and they can only detect explosives that you specifically train them to find, and there's only so many different ones you can teach them, plus you then need the explosives to train them with (something you complained about DHS doing)....yeah dogs and other animals are great for certain purposes but far from perfect.
Bees can be trained and implemented with a fraction of the cost of the TSA and/or dogs. They are much more accurate though there hasn't been a field test yet. Trace detectors are passive in that you don't get bombarded with radiation or get felt up. They are perfectly acceptable if implemented properly.
6) Their training is far from perfect. I've been a firm advocate of getting them better training. However, they do get more than watching a 30 minute training video.
Still waiting...
Check this link out they sit in a lecture for 40 hours on how to operate machinery. Many of the people explain how the training is basically a joke. When I say they watch a 30 minute video, I'm exaggerating. What I mean is minimal training, basically they aren't even qualified to be a security guard let alone perform the functions of law enforcement...
Still waiting for what?
Well, I don't know about him, but I'm still waiting for you to define "reasonable level". Your first attempt was a spectacular failure.
Still waiting for what?
For you to finally address any of what I said.
You mean the still dangerous and untested scanners?
So says an article that clearly doesn't even understand the difference between the two technologies because it uses the terms interchangeably. The two types of scanners are not the same.
They rightly panic. Supposedly you are only supposed to use X-Ray or radiation if there is a medical benefit. Now they are throwing people into poorly tested (see above link) scanners because a company wants to make money. In fact they were ordered before the underwear bomber.
They don't rightly panic, they just panic. That's why I used the term "panic". Like my references to depleted uranium, doesn't matter what it actually does, it sounds really scary so it gets people up in arms.
Your rights are inalienable. You cannot 'give them up' according to the constitution and declaration of independence. So airlines should be forced to follow constitutional procedure too regardless of the 'reasoning' behind it. I would have no problem with non-invasive detection, but radiation and getting felt up are extremely invasive and no more effective than what we had before 9/11.
You know, this doesn't surprise me at all. Yes, you can give up your rights. If you sign a non-disclosure agreement, you are legally binding yourself not to say certain things regardless of the First Amendment. You have a right not to incriminate yourself, but if you choose to give a confession, the government will accept it (well there is always an exception, but as a general rule). The police can't just hack into your computer, but if you choose to post your criminal activity on a public facebook page, it becomes fair game.
You are right, they aren't law enforcement, but they are violating constitutional rights and doing the jobs of law enforcement which means they need to be sworn in and trained like law enforcement. As it stands the TSA can do more to you than a police officer. There's something wrong with that. If they aren't law enforcement they should not be able to do as much let alone more.
You still haven't shown that they are violating your Constitutional rights. Again, there are alternatives available.
Bees can be trained and implemented with a fraction of the cost of the TSA and/or dogs. They are much more accurate though there hasn't been a field test yet. Trace detectors are passive in that you don't get bombarded with radiation or get felt up. They are perfectly acceptable if implemented properly.
And you are the first one to jump up and down if you don't feel that the government has tested something to your level of expectation. BTW, they tried bees in Afghanistan. Guess what? The bees are no longer there.
Oh and in case you didn't realize, they already use trace detectors at airports. Of course, using them involves "feeling you up", but they're there.
Check this link out they sit in a lecture for 40 hours on how to operate machinery. Many of the people explain how the training is basically a joke. When I say they watch a 30 minute video, I'm exaggerating. What I mean is minimal training, basically they aren't even qualified to be a security guard let alone perform the functions of law enforcement...
Dude, I've been saying in every single TSA thread here and in the OTTercave that I believe TSA needs better training. You won't get any argument there. It drives me crazy when I have to deal with some idiot panicking over something that I would handle in my sleep. But there was a push to get a lot of people in a short time. You can quantity, quality, or timeliness, but you can't have all three.
I'm sure its in the works. The cool thing is they could just let these things loose in the airport and if you carry explosives (or honey) you'll get stung to death by hungry bees, problem solved...
Yeah until someone who is afraid of bees (like a lot of children) freak out, get the bees riled up by swatting at them, and they sting random people. Or someone that uses explosives legimitately in his line of work and still has residue on them. Or the fact that the publicity of such an incident makes this impractical.
No, no... See, they're not bomb-sniffing bees - what they do is they drag you into their little room, cover you in honey and threaten to let the bees loose...
TSA, ahhhh, I dunno why but I was thinking this was about TSO, I love those guys!
I feel stupid for expecting something full Russian like Alexandrov Choir or ЛЮБЭ.
Anyway, awesome :D
Idiots. The guy had no explosives but was charged with possessing materials used to make an explosive device? I have the materials and information to make one in my own home. Oh, and he modified his boots. So what? I've modified boots and shoes of mine. He had several layers of insoles? Before I tried minimalist shoes I tried going in the opposite direction and had two layers of insoles because of my knees.
Now I would expect this stupidity from the TSA retards. However, there should have been a TSA BAO that should have known better. And the local law enforcement should have known better and not arrested him.
www.nytimes.com/aponline/2012/11/16/us/a...
Idiots. The guy had no explosives but was charged with possessing materials used to make an explosive device? I have the materials and information to make one in my own home. Oh, and he modified his boots. So what? I've modified boots and shoes of mine. He had several layers of insoles? Before I tried minimalist shoes I tried going in the opposite direction and had two layers of insoles because of my knees.
Now I would expect this stupidity from the TSA retards. However, there should have been a TSA BAO that should have known better. And the local law enforcement should have known better and not arrested him.
Um... any $5 digital watch with an alarm on it can be made into a timer for a bomb and house hold cleaners can be made into explosives. I guess they are just going to go around arresting random people now...
And seeing as they're all in a nice, warm terminal, all TSA workers would work in the nude.
Either that, or we all boycott travel and see how long before the economy shuts down.
Here's what we do, we wear see-through clothes. If it's warm at both places, fly nude. All seats would come with a built in toilet, that way we wouldn't have to leave our seats to use the facilities.
And seeing as they're all in a nice, warm terminal, all TSA workers would work in the nude.
Either that, or we all boycott travel and see how long before the economy shuts down.
Actually many people no longer fly. There has been a huge drop off in ticket sales. If it continues something will give. Either the airliners will go bankrupt or the government will start mandating ticket sales...
www.nytimes.com/aponline/2012/11/16/us/a...
Idiots. The guy had no explosives but was charged with possessing materials used to make an explosive device? I have the materials and information to make one in my own home. Oh, and he modified his boots. So what? I've modified boots and shoes of mine. He had several layers of insoles? Before I tried minimalist shoes I tried going in the opposite direction and had two layers of insoles because of my knees.
Now I would expect this stupidity from the TSA retards. However, there should have been a TSA BAO that should have known better. And the local law enforcement should have known better and not arrested him.
Um... any $5 digital watch with an alarm on it can be made into a timer for a bomb and house hold cleaners can be made into explosives. I guess they are just going to go around arresting random people now...
That was exactly my point. Things like charcoal, matches, even sugar can be used to make an explosive. Any watch or phone can be used to make a trigger. Of course you still need a detonator, but if you have gotten the other two out of the way, you are already capable of making that last one.
One will get you charged with indecent exposure...
You are aware of just how crowded the courts are. One nudist they can handle, a planeload full of them?
Here's what we do, we wear see-through clothes. If it's warm at both places, fly nude. All seats would come with a built in toilet, that way we wouldn't have to leave our seats to use the facilities.
And seeing as they're all in a nice, warm terminal, all TSA workers would work in the nude.
Either that, or we all boycott travel and see how long before the economy shuts down.
They spent three hours searching a women in lingerie before, so I doubt it would work.
One will get you charged with indecent exposure...
You are aware of just how crowded the courts are. One nudist they can handle, a planeload full of them?
Would you like to take your chances with this protest?
Here's what we do, we wear see-through clothes. If it's warm at both places, fly nude. All seats would come with a built in toilet, that way we wouldn't have to leave our seats to use the facilities.
And seeing as they're all in a nice, warm terminal, all TSA workers would work in the nude.
Either that, or we all boycott travel and see how long before the economy shuts down.
Actually many people no longer fly. There has been a huge drop off in ticket sales. If it continues something will give. Either the airliners will go bankrupt or the government will start mandating ticket sales...
Yup. All arilines will go bankrupt and none will exist anymore. We will be stranded and they will have succeded.
Mandating tickets sales?
Might as well they are mandating health care coverage...
Might as well they are mandating health care coverage...
Normally I would point out all the flaws in your logic, but in this case...yeah that was pretty messed up.
However, I will say that the airlines won't go out of business entirely because they are already subsidized by the government. The government mandates that its employees use certain airlines whenever possible, regardless of the convenience of flight times or your frequent flyer miles. The government also pays certain airlines money that allows them to utilize that company's aircraft in emergencies.
Might as well they are mandating health care coverage...
Normally I would point out all the flaws in your logic, but in this case...yeah that was pretty messed up.
However, I will say that the airlines won't go out of business entirely because they are already subsidized by the government. The government mandates that its employees use certain airlines whenever possible, regardless of the convenience of flight times or your frequent flyer miles. The government also pays certain airlines money that allows them to utilize that company's aircraft in emergencies.
I'm just pointing out that there is a certain minimum amount of profit that has to be made for a business to stay afloat and government subsidization won't cut it. You might see a few airlines still in business with old broken down planes with nothing but coach and horrible service, but the luxury airliners are going to be gone...