whats today's rant?

[keyboardlover]

its called off-topic for a reason, genius.

There's also a reason why it's not called 'Welly's Troll-baiting Kingdom of Lameness"

[wellington1869]

No they cannot see inside of you. The whole point of backscatter x-rays and what makes them different from regular x-rays (and the part they're using to claim that they're safe) is that they pass through clothing but bounce off of skin. If they could see through your skin, they would show your internal bits, instead of your naked body. And again, even if they DID show objects inside your body, they'd still be useless because you can opt for a pat-down instead.

if they cant see inside you then I fail to see what the complaint is about. And i'd urge the TSA to get something that can see inside you.

You didn't answer my question. If they told you it'd be safer if you had no carry-on, or you were body-cavity searched, or flew shackled, would you do it?

the answer is: if they had reasons to do it and made those reasons public (as they do now), then yes, i'd be for it. Why wouldnt I be? What, do I have a deathwish? No, I do not. Thats why i'd be for it.

[keyboardlover]

Eventually, Welly will be the only one on the airplane.

...and then he'll complain that he's lonely

[Fwiffo]

if they cant see inside you then I fail to see what the complaint is about. And i'd urge the TSA to get something that can see inside you.

The point is that people don't want strangers looking at them naked and don't feel they ought to submit themselves or their family to a sexual assault just to fly.

Scanners exist that can see inside you (you've probably seen them - they're called x-rays). The reason they don't use them is because they cause cancer. Ever notice how the x-ray tech covers your chest with a lead blanket and leaves the room when you get your teeth x-rayed? There are unanswered questions about the health risk of these back-scatter scanners too.

the answer is: if they had reasons to do it and made those reasons public (as they do now), then yes, i'd be for it. Why wouldnt I be? What, do I have a deathwish? No, I do not. Thats why i'd be for it.

Would you like your car searched every day? Would you like a body cavity search before you go for a drive? Car bombs are much easier to pull off and much more common than hijackings.

I think you really would be happier in a police state. Maybe you should consider moving to one and leave this one to people who value at least some measure of freedom.

[keyboardlover]

See, that's the thing...air travel is not some necessity of life, and as such it doesn't need to be easy or convenient. It can be secured to the point of it being genuinely difficult to access.)

Tell that to every company in the world that does business globally. Tell that to people who need to fly in order to visit loved ones that are far away. Unfortunately, air travel HAS become a necessity of life for many people. And unfortunately it also SUCKS now more than ever.

[Fwiffo]

You'd visit a relative in hospice via teleconference?

[keyboardlover]

You'd visit a relative in hospice via teleconference?

Or acquire a company in a foreign country???

[keyboardlover]

And what exactly is unethical about purchasing a company in a foreign country?

And, aside from that example, do you have any idea how many consultants need to travel globally? Do you have any idea how big the demand is for global consultants?

Do you have any idea how many people work and live in countries which are not their homeland? For which air travel is often the only reasonable way to visit their parents, brothers, sisters, etc.??

[wellington1869]

Nah, I'd be on the plane too (if I felt the need to travel somewhere. See, that's the thing...air travel is not some necessity of life, and as such it doesn't need to be easy or convenient. It can be secured to the point of it being genuinely difficult to access.)

exactly. thats how it is in israel from what i hear. and for good reason. All thats happened is that now israel's woes are the world's woes, and so israel's security practices necessarily are finding a place around the rest of the world.  Its not a big deal at all. I agree that flying is a privelege and not a right. The company and the govt have a responsibility to make it secure for others.  If that means patting you down, deal with it.

[Fwiffo]

I still don't think 95% of flying could easily be skipped. Most people fly to visit relatives during the holidays, and I don't think teleconference is a good substitute. Maybe it would work for the airing of grievances, but certainly not the feats of strength.

[Fwiffo]

...Its not a big deal at all. I agree that flying is a privelege and not a right. The company and the govt have a responsibility to make it secure for others.  If that means patting you down, deal with it.

Why don't you feel that way about driving, which is many times more dangerous than flying? Terrorists use car-bombs much more often than bombing planes.

[wellington1869]

The point is that people don't want strangers looking at them naked and don't feel they ought to submit themselves or their family to a sexual assault just to fly.

i'm sorry but if thats 'sexual assualt' to you, i suggest you talk with someone who's actually been sexually assaulted.  
typical hyperbole, isnt it? The kind that gives us liberals a bad name? Thanks for continuing to give us a bad name.

Would you like your car searched every day?

if i daily take my car onto an airplane, then yes, of course.

Would you like a body cavity search before you go for a drive?

if the general public can get into my car, and cars are known to be targeted by suicide bombers posing as innocent passengers, then yes, of course. Why wouldnt I?

I think you really would be happier in a police state.

i think you'd be happier in an anarchic state in which everyone just kills each other with abandon cuz they're "free".

dude, you're the one who wants an Maybe you should consider moving to one and leave this one to people who value at least some measure of freedom.

what you value is not freedom. I dont know what it is, but it sure aint freedom. Freedom isnt free, its a right earned with accompanying responsibilities. You want the former without the latter. That makes you bat**** insane in your political values. Basically. Either an anarchist posing as a liberal, or a fascist posing as a liberal.

[wellington1869]

Why don't you feel that way about driving, which is many times more dangerous than flying? Terrorists use car-bombs much more often than bombing planes.

see answer in previous post. First off car bombs are far more limited in the damage they can do in comparison to flying planes into 100 story buildings. SEcond, there ARE precautions being taken for cars, such as 'no drive' perimeters around buildings. Third, we havent yet seen a spate of car bombings (times square attempt not withstanding) and i expect more policies if that ramps up. Fourth, if the public boarded my car, then I would expect the goverment to expect me to take the same precautions.  If buses are targeted as a matter of course in this country, i'd expect some kind precaution before boarding a bus too. or a train. Its the same thing. I'd expect - and want - such precautions. Why wouldnt you?

[Fwiffo]

Terrorists can fill a car with bombs, drive it into a crowded area and then blow it up. They do that all the time! The first attack on the world-trade center was a truck bomb. The Murrah federal building was destroyed by a truck-bomb. Hundreds of people are killed by car-bombs! It's way easier than getting a bomb onto a plane, even under pre-9/11 security, and the damage can be just as devastating. Subways were targeted by al-Qaeda in Madrid and London, killing dozens. Sarin gas was used by a cult on a Tokyo subway. Do you take the subway?

You used examples of suicide bombers acting in war zones (e.g. your dog-bomb example) to justify security measures here. Do all the car bombs in Iraq and Afghanistan, which have at times killed hundreds of people, justify screening of cars and busses and trucks in American cities?

Either an anarchist posing as a liberal, or a fascist posing as a liberal.

[microsoft windows]

I am a strong supporter of increased flight security.

There should be a set of requirements across the board such as:
-All plane tickets must be booked four weeks in advance.
-Any person flying must have a background check.
-Any person from certain countries: i. e. Syria, Yemen, Iran, etc. must be put through further scrutiny
-Everything going on planes to and/or from those nations and the U. S. must be scanned for explosives
-Any person flying internationally must go through a body scanner and be sniffed over by bomb-sniffing dogs.

The people who are terrorists and blowing up planes are also of a distinct heritage. I would encourage profiling here, even if ACLU doesn't agree. What you would rather have? Scan the grannies or scan the terrorists?

[keyboardlover]

What if the terrorists are grannies?



Really messed up movie, btw.

[RoboKrikit]

[keyboardlover]

There are A LOT of people whose job requires > 75% travel, including airfare travel. I'm sorry, but you have no idea what you're talking about in that regard. Anyway, it really doesn't matter how often you travel or not right? Every person is subject to the same thing.

[msiegel]

although extremely rare, plane crashes are scarier than car crashes.

that is all

[wellington1869]

although extremely rare, plane crashes are scarier than car crashes.

that is all

yup, and there are a lot of other differences that reasonable people take into account. Such as the fact that once you're up in the air, you're in an isolated environment (to put it mildly).  THis means if you can secure what gets on it, you can be reasonably safe from terrorism for the duration of the (usually quite long) trip. Since that is something that it is feasable to secure on the ground before takeoff, it makes all the sense in the world to do it.

ANd it makes NO sense to oppose it, especially on false analogies to cars, which are a very different environment to begin with.  And even if you couldnt secure it on cars - so waht? does that mean you have to STOP securing it on planes? Wheres the ****ing sense in that?

This is what i dont get with these straw man arguments ffwifo is floating. I'm just really glad he's not in charge of anyone's security. ANd if he is, god help them.

First off he wants to blame the victims. Second he wants to BE a victim. Its the ultimate self-hating-liberal syndrome. You see it so commonly these days. The idea is that some kind of moral high ground is secured if you take all the blame upon yourself.  Great - and do it on your own man, dont take the rest of us down with you!

You can go out into the middle of traffic, stand there and get hit by a bus, and die imagining yourself to be a frickin' SAINT!  At least in that scenario you wouldnt force me to go down with you.

[keyboardlover]

I still like the idea of you moving to England.
...and also being banned from Off Topic.

[wellington1869]

fwiffo, you also dont seem to realize that terrorism is a global problem now, not just a middle eastern problem. Its actually really retrograde of you to keep placing terrorism in the middle east alone. Almost like racial profiling on your part.

[keyboardlover]

At least if you move to England you won't have to worry and complain about Crazy Americans anymore...

...you'll be too busy worrying and complaining about crazy English folks!

[Fwiffo]

You can't outrun a car-bomb explosion any more than you can get off a plane mid-flight. Statistically, you're much more likely from a terrorist attack on the ground than one in the air. Yet we don't engage in these kinds of searches in other many other places that are at risk. You don't have to go through a backscatter x-ray when entering a shopping mall, or getting on the subway, or entering a crowded public area.

I don't oppose reasonable measures to secure airplanes. I oppose unreasonable, ineffective ones. Taking off my shoes for airline security is annoying, but I don't have a problem with it, because it's merely an inconvenience. I haven't seen any convincing argument that these machines are effective or reasonable. The items they're looking for that pose a threat could easily be detected by other existing, less invasive means, such as explosive sniffing dogs and machines, metal detectors, etc.

The difference between myself and someone like Microsoft Windows on this topic is a matter of degree. I would agree broadly with many of his ideas of what is reasonable airline security, and disagree with a few on practical and philosophical grounds, but I'm sure he would find many hypothetical measures unreasonable.

Wellington, on the other hand, would submit himself to any restriction or humiliation if the government said it was necessary. He's said that he would accept body cavity searches, or being shackled during the flight would be reasonable, if the government said it would prevent a terrorist attack. And he seems to think his point of view is a liberal one.

"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to greater danger. It works the same in any country."

    -- Hermann Goering, second in command of the Third Reich

That's right, I'm going the full Godwin.

[keyboardlover]

Wellington, on the other hand, would submit himself to any restriction or humiliation if the government said it was necessary. He's said that he would accept body cavity searches, or being shackled during the flight would be reasonable, if the government said it would prevent a terrorist attack.

I seriously hope that happens to Welly one day. Karma is a BEE-ATCH

[msiegel]

if the goal *were* to save lives, we'd put our resources toward more-low-hanging fruit such as disease prevention, instead of trying to stave off unlikely hostile acts.

i for one, hope no one is further inconvenienced or manipulated

[wellington1869]

You can't outrun a car-bomb explosion any more than you can get off a plane mid-flight. Statistically, you're much more likely from a terrorist attack on the ground than one in the air. Yet we don't engage in these kinds of searches in other many other places that are at risk.

this is precisely what i dont get in your DAFT argument. You're argument boils down to this: Its harder to protect you in a car, therefore we WONT protect you in a plane, even tho we COULD.
Again: Really glad you're not in charge of my security man.

I don't oppose reasonable measures to secure airplanes. I oppose unreasonable, ineffective ones.

there's no evidence that these new measures are ineffective, on the contrary, i think they're probably highly effective, based on new techniques and attempts that terrorists have made in trying to board planes or get bombs on planes.
maybe its just that you're truly not keeping up with whats going on in the world.

Wellington, on the other hand, would submit himself to any restriction or humiliation if the government said it was necessary. He's said that he would accept body cavity searches, or being shackled during the flight would be reasonable, if the government said it would prevent a terrorist attack.

another ffwifo-straw-man. Thats not what i said at all; i said if the govt explains its reasoning and if that reasoning makes sense in light of what we know in the public shere about terrorist techniques. And in fact that is what the new measures abide by.
However, the way you put it allows you to continue preaching anarchism against reason, so yea, you'll stick with that.
Nothing like an old fashioned straw-man-burning!

And he seems to think his point of view is a liberal one.

and you seem to think your straw men are thinking.

That's right, I'm going the full Godwin.

no surprise there, you've already proven yourself the hyperbole-king.

[keyboardlover]

Hey, you never answered my original question!
Do you ever discuss keyboards here anymore?

(Oh wait...he didn't answer it because it had something to do with keyboards. No wonder.)

[wellington1869]

Hey, you never answered my original question!
Do you ever discuss keyboards here anymore?

yes, in the hundreds of other threads going on on this forum right now. Why arent you over there?

click on "keyboards" rather than "off topic". You'll find it.

[msiegel]

this is the area where we can type mindlessly, to receive pure enjoyment from our keyboards

[keyboardlover]

yes, in the hundreds of other threads going on on this forum right now. Why arent you over there?

Name one that you posted in today.

EDIT: Just checked your posts. You haven't said jack squat about keyboards in weeks, at the very least!

The proof is in the pudding, the secret's in the sauce.
Exposing Welly's troll-iness...

...so easy a caveman could do it.

[Fwiffo]

You already accused me of being a fascist or an anarchist (not sure which), so you went both ad hominem and straw man long before me. You're either a troll, or mentally ill. I'm thinking borderline personality disorder.

Ma'am, trying to have a conversation with you is like trying to argue with a dining room table; I have no interest.

[msiegel]

welly likes this community. we have interesting people here

[RoboKrikit]

You already accused me of being a fascist or an anarchist (not sure which), so you went both ad hominem and straw man long before me. You're either a troll, or mentally ill. I'm thinking borderline personality disorder.

Hey, if you can't handle a little anal probing to make everyone else feel safe, you're clearly an anarchist fascist.

[keyboardlover]

Well, he used to spam us with different threads about every little thing that annoyed him. 'What's today's rant' is obviously an effort to condense all the whining and trolling into one mega thread. To that end, I guess Welly has succeeded. Unfortunately, it seems to really be the only reason he still participates on this board.

Also, FWIW, he once THREATENED me in a PM. True story.

[ch_123]

Like any type of security, airport/aeroplane security is a constant cat and mouse game - there's no real progress in it because the advance in technology and methods for the good guys only serves to offset the advance in technology for the bad guys. The net effect is that airport security is getting more and more intrusive and inconvenient for passengers as time goes on.

Now, I'm not saying that this is not necessary, but I do wonder, will it ever reach a point where it becomes unfeasible to allow public air travel, or at very least it becomes such an inconvenient thing to do that almost no one will want to do it?

[msiegel]

the idea of reducing travel waste by inconveniencing and scaring the population also makes good fuel for a conspiracy theory

[Fwiffo]

IMO, the best way to deal with the negative externalities of flying should be pricing them into the cost of the ticket, e.g. through a carbon tax or cap-and-trade system.

[msiegel]

it could get pretty expensive!

[wellington1869]

You already accused me of being a fascist or an anarchist (not sure which), so you went both ad hominem and straw man long before me. You're either a troll, or mentally ill. I'm thinking borderline personality disorder.

lol, and you accused me of wanting a police state. Just tryin' to keep up with ya man.

KBL: why you should care this much about which threads I'm posting in today, is beyond me. Sounds a little stalker-ish, doesnt it?  If you dont like this thread honestly go post in the ones you like. Its a free country. And GH has an off-topic section for our enjoyment.

[Lanx]

no one said the terrorists win when we have have TSA pedo happy aholes happily strip searching a 5 year old.
They won, it might have taken 9 years for us to become this delirious but they've won, terrorism isn't about dieing on an exploding airplane everyday, it's the threat of it.

Plus we forget one crucial fact. I can guarantee that in the next 50 years there will never be a successful terrrorist hijack, because ppl will just mutter 9-11 throughout the cabin and those terrorists will be dog meat. Unless of course they hijack a mostly non American plane.

[keyboardlover]

KBL: why you should care this much about which threads I'm posting in today, is beyond me. Sounds a little stalker-ish, doesnt it?  If you dont like this thread honestly go post in the ones you like. Its a free country. And GH has an off-topic section for our enjoyment.

Dude, you avoid direct questions worse than a politician! Just tell us all why you only post in off topic! Is your life really that exciting that you participate in a forum about computer keyboards, only to abuse its OFF TOPIC section for your own personal amusement? You seem like a real winner to me bro.



And the thruth is that you really haven't said **** about keyboards in weeks and you know it. You are the TRUE definition of a troll. You only post here for your own amusement. Admit it!

[woody]

Julle, you're right - stealing focus is intolerable. Firefox has this wonderful bug where after some actions on a page you can't use keyboard anymore for navigation. All the joy of software.

[RoboKrikit]

Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Lightroom is awesome. Flash is ****.

[maclover]

If you aren't comfortable being molested by a federal employee or being blasted by radiation maybe you should take the train oh wait you're in America - not China where they actually have trains.

China's Incredible 5 Year Train Run Makes America Look Third World

China Wins Again!

[keyboardlover]

That's because they spend more money on high speed trains than their people. Spend a year living in China, and then tell me which country is more developed.

[Lanx]

isn't china gonna spend 100billion for universal health care?

[keyboardlover]

Will that stop people who work daily 15 hour shifts assembling electronic devices from committing suicide because they feel that their lives have no dignity or meaning?

[Lanx]

Will that stop people who work daily 15 hour shifts assembling electronic devices from committing suicide because they feel that their lives have no dignity or meaning?

that's why foxconn installed suicide nets, so they can catch the employees!

hmmm how do i embedd youtube?

this is why chinese factory workers go all suicidal.

[keyboardlover]

that's why foxconn installed suicide nets, so they can catch the employees!

Lol brilliant!

[high expectation asian foxconn manager]
"What you doing hanging in net? Get back to work lazy!"