Page 2 of 6

Re: "Bag Check" Discussion

Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 5:17 am UTC
by plin25
"Sir, do you have any dangerous items to declare at this time?"

"Well, let’s see now. There’s the laptop in my backpack that I can bean someone with, also the paper in there can be used to give someone a paper cut... I can strangle someone with the laptop cord, not to mention suffocate someone with the backpack. I can do the same thing with my jacket, I can stuff my sock down someone’s throat, there are various pens and pencils in my pocket that can be used to stab someone’s eye out, or neck if I applied enough force. I could chuck my phone at someone and potentially knock them out. Oh, and I could always use my bare hands."

Re: "Bag Check" Discussion

Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 5:18 am UTC
by vrek
If you wanted to make this more ironic you could cut the conductors to the windows key and then solder them into a small circuit board(put it in the space they provide to add extra memory) with a simple transistor circuit to switch on connection between the battery connections. This way the laptop would work would security made you "prove it works" and for first time in history AFAIK Windows would literally crash(an airplane). :-D

Im not anti-american or a terrorist or anything....I just hate windows :-D

Re: "Bag Check" Discussion

Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 5:20 am UTC
by bugstomper

Re: "Bag Check" Discussion

Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 5:22 am UTC
by aeris92
Whats with the shameless multiple threads and limericks tonight? I didn't find the comic nearly as interesting as the discussion board. I remember [accidentally] taking some fireworks in my luggage. They didn't catch those or the decorative dagger. 9/11 has really affected everyone in ways that we probably can't see yet.

Re: "Bag Check" Discussion

Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 5:23 am UTC
by Newto
I knew I couldn't have been the only person to think of this, but probably more than most people :P

It seems to me I could take a large laptop (17 inch), and reconfigure it to be genuinely lethal weapon carrier. Take an extended battery and remove all but 1 cell, and fill the space with explosives. Remove the hard drive and replace with a SD/CF card with a bootable flavour of linux, and replace the hard drive with knives. And pretty much do this with every possible part that won't effect it's ability to turn on for several seconds. I could probably work in a functioning zip gun out of parts of the frame.

As people have said before, if someone really wants to take out a plane, it really wouldn't be too difficult. And this plan is completely ignoring how easy it would be to get a terrorist to work at an airport. Not all bad guys have a criminal record, or even suspicious activity.

Re: "Bag Check" Discussion

Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 5:26 am UTC
by BlueNight
Yes, almost any physical object can be kludged into a weapon. This is the reason gun control doesn't work. A bullet, tube, and striker can be concealed in many different ways. Knives are ubiquitous, from restaurants to England's mean streets to the aisles of the planes used on 9/11. Rocks -- pieces of the planet itself -- have been used from time immemorial to bean people. Tossed from the Moon, a single rock the size of the Goodyear Blimp could take out a city, or more.

Bullets, knives, nukes, swords, and candlesticks don't kill people; people kill people.

Until peace reigns in the hearts of mankind, there will be murder and war.

Re: "Bag Check" Discussion

Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 5:29 am UTC
by vslayer
we could render airport security obsolete by simply installing a panic button in the cockpit which turned over control of the plane to a remote operator on the ground, making it impossible to hijack. once you remove the ability to use the plane itself as a weapon there is no need for any security screening, as anything that can be done on a plane can be done just the same on the ground, and why waste $1000 on a plane ticket if all you want to do is blow up a dozen infidels?

Withdrawal of the Do nothing, successfully. entry

Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 5:33 am UTC
by phillipsjk
Thursday, September 18, 2008 2:13 AM
From: "James Phillips" <anti_spam256@yahoo.ca>
To: prize[at]flyclear.com

Hello,

I am informing you in writing that I am withdrawing my entry for the "Clear Prize for Innovation in Airport Security." I used the title "Do nothing, successfully" to describe my proposal. There are two major reasons for my decision:

1. Lack of progress. I have things I obviously feel are more important than this contest. That said, my home file-server project (as an example) has been a goal for ~8 years and is still not complete. So, lack of progress in itself is not a good enough reason until the deadline in much closer.

2. To qualify for the prize, my proposal essentially involves replacing useless security with cheaper, faster, but still useless security. I have decided it is not worth the trouble. Since implementing my proposal would essentially be a research and letter-writing campaign: the chances of success may actually be improved as an independent third party. If I have no possibility of receiving funds from anybody in the industry, I can avoid accusations of bias due to a conflict of interest.

Regards,

James Phillips



__________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Canada Toolbar: Search from anywhere on the web, and bookmark your favourite sites. Download it now at
http://ca.toolbar.yahoo.com.

Typo and AD in original.

Re: "Bag Check" Discussion

Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 5:37 am UTC
by Sunidesus
I once got on a plane with two 14" long sharp-ish metal objects about 3/4" in diameter...

...

I'm a knitter and had forgotten that I had that particular pair of straights in my purse. Only did that once though, I've switched almost exclusively to interchangeable circulars and just travel with that kit now. My backpack full of various geek toys plus various knitting accessories almost always gets an extended look in the x-ray machine. But none of it has ever been an actual problem. Thankfully. I'd be much more dangerous if they took away my knitting and my toys!

Re: "Bag Check" Discussion

Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 5:40 am UTC
by lulzfish
Reminds me of my dormitory...

We have a rule that says, "no weapons and no decorative weapons".

So I had this knife that I used to cut up potatoes, but someone saw me with it and I had it taken away.
So that forced me to use my backup knife.

I'm not really friends with my RA, so they don't even know about the 4 box cutters, 2 Nerf Guns..

They do know about the scooter, which definitely weighs enough to hurt somebody.
The laser printer is also quite heavy, it could probably give someone bad brain damage if an accomplice pinned their head against the floor or wall and I smacked them with it. Then again, I could just have that accomplice smash their head into said floor or wall.

Of course my laptop is big enough to smack people around with.

Not to mention the math and computer science books I have for class, each of which is a small melee weapon.
And all the charging cords and fishing line that are for strangling, and the boots for stepping on people..

"Weapon" is ill-defined. I have a fucking armory in here.
And if I actually wanted IRL weapons, I could just bring home laundry and my giant backpack every weekend, and then come back to the dorm with small firearms hidden in both.

I hope they aren't watching my Internet too closely here... If they are, I don't actually own any firearms, so they have nothing to worry about. Except for the Nerf Guns. Which are more like foamarms. Or springarms. Whatever.

Edit: Also, I have a wrench for working on said scooter. And I could probably bring in some power tools without any trouble. If I was insane, I would be set.

Re: "Bag Check" Discussion

Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 5:42 am UTC
by Someursault
bob k. mando wrote:It's amazing how paranoid we are about planes when our entire rail system is a sitting duck.

well, you know, it would be rather difficult to crash a freight train into the Twin Towers or the Pentagon or the White House.


Difficult, but not impossible! Obviously, it would have to be an inside job.

Re: "Bag Check" Discussion

Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 5:43 am UTC
by PleasingFungus
Numbers. Assume a ~2-pound (~1 kg) battery. Wiki claims 100-160 Wh/kg in a Li-ion battery; that's somewhere from 360 to 575 KJ in our battery. Had difficulty finding the energy contained within a hand-grenade, but Google found, from a search for "hand grenade joules", a physics-calculation offhandedly describing the energy in an "average hand grenade" as half of 1.24 MJ, or 620 KJ. (Though the mass of TNT it lists seems rather odd - it suggests 150 grams in a hand-grenade, but the M5, the grenade the US Army has been using for the last two decades, according to Wiki, has 220 grams of explosive, 40% TNT and 60% RDX. (Which is more potent, so call it perhaps twice that energy; back to over 1 MJ.)

Still. An Li-ion, by these numbers, has somewhere from one-quarter to three-quarters the energy of a hand grenade. Assume the worst case, one-quarter the energy of our hand-grenade of choice. Also assume that the 'casualty radius' (15 m for the M5) is proportionate to the square root of the energy discharged (dispersal in 3D-space); so if you can kill or incapacitate anyone in 15 m with 1 MJ, you can do the same for anyone in about 7 meters (~23 feet) with a laptop battery.

...now I kinda wish I hadn't run the numbers.

Re: "Bag Check" Discussion

Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 5:55 am UTC
by Steve the Pocket
fabiocbinbutter wrote:When asking a guard, without flattery,
to tell me what was the matter, he
took my water away,
said the laptop could stay,
for you cannot assault with a battery

*groans profusely*

Re: "Bag Check" Discussion

Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 5:57 am UTC
by lulzfish
Which would be great if electrical energy, resistive heating, and the thermal energy being dumped into the batteries could kill.

Grenades produce shockwaves, which are probably a lot better at killing.

Re: "Bag Check" Discussion

Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 5:58 am UTC
by Unforgiven
Newto wrote:It seems to me I could take a large laptop (17 inch), and reconfigure it to be genuinely lethal weapon carrier. Take an extended battery and remove all but 1 cell, and fill the space with explosives. Remove the hard drive and replace with a SD/CF card with a bootable flavour of linux, and replace the hard drive with knives. And pretty much do this with every possible part that won't effect it's ability to turn on for several seconds. I could probably work in a functioning zip gun out of parts of the frame.

You do realize that nowadays they make you take out your laptop and run it through the scanner separate from your other stuff? And have you ever seen what a laptop looks like under a security scanner?

My point here is: if you put knives in place of your hard drive, they will see it. If you put explosives in it, they might see it or have a dog smell you out (sometimes they do random explosives checks).

Using your laptop as a weapon is viable. Using your laptop to conceal weapons is not.

vslayer wrote:we could render airport security obsolete by simply installing a panic button in the cockpit which turned over control of the plane to a remote operator on the ground

Brilliant idea! Now the terrorists have a way to hijack an aircraft without even being on it! :?

Re: "Bag Check" Discussion

Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 6:14 am UTC
by Razuul
Ahemm seems they thought of this already.

Re: "Bag Check" Discussion

Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 6:18 am UTC
by Lord Cathbad
Great comic! Glad to see you back randall.

On topic: And they also give you freaking aluminum cans in-flight which can easily be torn and used as weapons.

Re: "Bag Check" Discussion

Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 6:32 am UTC
by Mindor
Unforgiven wrote:
Newto wrote:It seems to me I could take a large laptop (17 inch), and reconfigure it to be genuinely lethal weapon carrier. Take an extended battery and remove all but 1 cell, and fill the space with explosives. Remove the hard drive and replace with a SD/CF card with a bootable flavour of linux, and replace the hard drive with knives. And pretty much do this with every possible part that won't effect it's ability to turn on for several seconds. I could probably work in a functioning zip gun out of parts of the frame.

You do realize that nowadays they make you take out your laptop and run it through the scanner separate from your other stuff? And have you ever seen what a laptop looks like under a security scanner?

My point here is: if you put knives in place of your hard drive, they will see it. If you put explosives in it, they might see it or have a dog smell you out (sometimes they do random explosives checks).

Using your laptop as a weapon is viable. Using your laptop to conceal weapons is not.

vslayer wrote:we could render airport security obsolete by simply installing a panic button in the cockpit which turned over control of the plane to a remote operator on the ground

Brilliant idea! Now the terrorists have a way to hijack an aircraft without even being on it! :?

They'd still have to get someone on the plane, how else are they gonna get you to push the panic button?

Re: "Bag Check" Discussion

Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 6:41 am UTC
by alitheiapsis
When my academic team was going to Chicago last May for nationals, we were worried about airport security: we brought along a set of buzzers, which (we feared) might cause some raised eyebrows. Our fears were confirmed, we thought, when we were departing from O'Hare. The lane through which our buzzers were passing was temporarily shut down. We later realized it wasn't the buzzers that caused the problem, but the laptop and backpack directly preceding the buzzer system. All that was in the backpack was clothes. Perhaps I'm naive when it comes to explosives, but I would think that little boxes of wires, triggers, etc. would warrant at least a second glance. In any case, that cemented my already bad opinion of the TSA.

My friend and I discussed the seeming discrepancy between the laxity of airport security and the relative dearth of terrorist attacks/attempts. I think it all comes down to guts. Many people have the resources and perhaps the motive to carry out a terrorist attack, but so few have the guts to make it happen.

Re: "Bag Check" Discussion

Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 6:43 am UTC
by Unforgiven
Mindor wrote:
Unforgiven wrote:
vslayer wrote:we could render airport security obsolete by simply installing a panic button in the cockpit which turned over control of the plane to a remote operator on the ground

Brilliant idea! Now the terrorists have a way to hijack an aircraft without even being on it! :?

They'd still have to get someone on the plane, how else are they gonna get you to push the panic button?

Ah sorry, I misread that and didn't realize it could only be initiated from inside the plane.

The infrastructure for it would be very, very complicated though. You'd need a way to stream constant updates from all instruments, as well as visuals (camera on the nose?) to the ground operator and the ground operator's input back to the flight control system. The latter wouldn't be too hard if you lock the aircraft on autoflight and only allow the ground operator to command the autopilot. Of course that's a problem if whatever airport you want to land on doesn't have CATIIIb ILS, you'd need direct, zero-latency control to land a plane manually remotely.

There's also the issue of needing to have people on stand-by 24/7 to do this (regular ATC can't do it, they're busy enough already), and problems in remote areas where only HF radio is available (like over an ocean) which doesn't have the bandwidth necessary to pull this off (and satellites have too much latency).

Then there's the issue of the hijackers threatening to kill everyone on the plane until the ground operator relinquishes control back to the aircraft.

And the fact that FAA safety regulations probably require for it to be possible for the pilots to override such a system in case of malfunction, which would make the whole thing pointless.

Re: "Bag Check" Discussion

Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 6:54 am UTC
by dan131m
What gets to me isn't the ridiculousness of security procedures so much as the fact that there's just this huge gulf between us and the rest of the population. I cannot think of very many people that I know who don't understand this kind of observation for precisely what it is -- an observation. And yet most of us, or at least the "well-adjusted" ones, behave exactly like the girl in the comic... we "know" that you should "never" make a joke about a bomb at the airport.

The question is, why do we put up with this? If law enforcement started taking at face value everything football fans describe doing to the opposing team, the entire chain of command responsible would be looking for new employment within the week. And it's not as though the stakes are trivial -- the zero-tolerance, out-of-context society we're building makes it literally impossible for smart people to hold academic discussions without being pilloried by whoever wants to make something of it. Remember when John Poindexter was fired for attempting to use the wisdom of crowds to stop terrorist attacks?

It's a sad fact of human nature that "afraid" is always going to outweigh "repressed." This makes it way to easy for us to implement ridiculous policies and norms anytime someone gets scared. If we're ever going to avoid this, those of us who can naturally see through the problems need to make it clear that there will be hell to pay for making and implementing such decisions.

Re: "Bag Check" Discussion

Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:10 am UTC
by Max2009
My favorite is when they confiscate my empty bottle.
Yeah, as if I'm gonna fill it with nitroglycerine once I get into the terminal.

Re: "Bag Check" Discussion

Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:19 am UTC
by vslayer
Max2009 wrote:My favorite is when they confiscate my empty bottle.
Yeah, as if I'm gonna fill it with nitroglycerine once I get into the terminal.


the part i don't understand, is that if they really suspect these water bottles are full of chemicals which can combine to cause an explosion, then why the hell are they so calm about tossing them haphazardly into the bin right beside them?

Re: "Bag Check" Discussion

Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:23 am UTC
by Eternal Density
I was explosive checked on Friday. It's been a few months since last time, which is odd since I fly every month and at the beginning of the year they'd pick me every 3 or 4 flights. The sniffer picked up nitrates which resulted in a second (probably more precise) check and I had to show my boarding pass. But the second test must have been within tolerances as there was no further trouble.
Since it was the last flight out for the day and it was only an 18 seater, they probably tested everyone as they had nothing better to do.

The alt text reminds me that proving my parents' rules inconsistent does not get me out of chores :(

Re: "Bag Check" Discussion

Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:24 am UTC
by LtBonzai
PhoenixEnigma wrote:Also, I've always wondered about people highly skilled in unarmed combat. Shouldn't we tie them up or make them check their limbs or something before we let them on the plane?



There was one time when my entire Jujitsu dojo was allowed to be on the same flight. Not that we're malicious individuals, but I think I'm safe in saying that the ten or so of us could have posed a serious threat to the passengers and crew had we been so inclined.

Re: "Bag Check" Discussion

Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:26 am UTC
by Forny
vslayer wrote:
Max2009 wrote:My favorite is when they confiscate my empty bottle.
Yeah, as if I'm gonna fill it with nitroglycerine once I get into the terminal.


the part i don't understand, is that if they really suspect these water bottles are full of chemicals which can combine to cause an explosion, then why the hell are they so calm about tossing them haphazardly into the bin right beside them?


There are two words to solve this: Drink. Swallow. I can't think of very many liquids (none come to mind actually) that are colourless, odourless, and can do much damage on a plane that you can actually drink without poisoning yourself.

Re: "Bag Check" Discussion

Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:31 am UTC
by LtBonzai
Forny wrote:
vslayer wrote:
Max2009 wrote:My favorite is when they confiscate my empty bottle.
Yeah, as if I'm gonna fill it with nitroglycerine once I get into the terminal.


the part i don't understand, is that if they really suspect these water bottles are full of chemicals which can combine to cause an explosion, then why the hell are they so calm about tossing them haphazardly into the bin right beside them?


There are two words to solve this: Drink. Swallow. I can't think of very many liquids (none come to mind actually) that are colourless, odourless, and can do much damage on a plane that you can actually drink without poisoning yourself.


I dunno if that's a valid solution. If I was planning to blow up a plane I was in, I think I'd be okay with poisoning myself so long as I lived long enough to do it.

Re: "Bag Check" Discussion

Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:33 am UTC
by SEE
PleasingFungus wrote:Numbers. Assume a ~2-pound (~1 kg) battery. Wiki claims 100-160 Wh/kg in a Li-ion battery; that's somewhere from 360 to 575 KJ in our battery. Had difficulty finding the energy contained within a hand-grenade, but Google found, from a search for "hand grenade joules", a physics-calculation offhandedly describing the energy in an "average hand grenade" as half of 1.24 MJ, or 620 KJ. (Though the mass of TNT it lists seems rather odd - it suggests 150 grams in a hand-grenade, but the M5, the grenade the US Army has been using for the last two decades, according to Wiki, has 220 grams of explosive, 40% TNT and 60% RDX. (Which is more potent, so call it perhaps twice that energy; back to over 1 MJ.)

Still. An Li-ion, by these numbers, has somewhere from one-quarter to three-quarters the energy of a hand grenade. Assume the worst case, one-quarter the energy of our hand-grenade of choice. Also assume that the 'casualty radius' (15 m for the M5) is proportionate to the square root of the energy discharged (dispersal in 3D-space); so if you can kill or incapacitate anyone in 15 m with 1 MJ, you can do the same for anyone in about 7 meters (~23 feet) with a laptop battery.

...now I kinda wish I hadn't run the numbers.

Confounding factors:
1) The fifteen-meter effectiveness radius you're dealing with is for a fragmentation grenade, based on metal shrapnel from the case flying through the air, not concussion effects. An MK3A2 concussion grenade is a better comparison; it has 8 ounces of TNT filler, and an effective radius in the open of about 2 meters.
2) Blast and concussion effects from explosives in the open follow an inverse cube law, not an inverse square.
3) In an enclosed space, blast reflects off the walls, increasing the deadliness.
4) You're not going to get a Li-ion to discharge its energy anywhere near as fast as TNT.

Re: "Bag Check" Discussion

Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:33 am UTC
by SciBoy
fabiocbinbutter wrote:When asking a guard, without flattery,
to tell me what was the matter, he
took my water away,
said the laptop could stay,
for you cannot assault with a battery

Now that was funny. I liked the comic too, but this "limerick" was funnier. Although I put limerick within quotes, since a proper limerick should have a city (or place) name at the end of the first line and be lewd. But it's funny so I'll allow it (and very few limericks follow the proper form anyhow).

Re: "Bag Check" Discussion

Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:40 am UTC
by Kizor
bob k. mando wrote:It's amazing how paranoid we are about planes when our entire rail system is a sitting duck.

well, you know, it would be rather difficult to crash a freight train into the Twin Towers or the Pentagon or the White House.


Image

Re: "Bag Check" Discussion

Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:09 am UTC
by eviloatmeal
So once upon a time someone had this fantastic idea: "Hey, we're on a small, fragile piece of machinery relying heavily on some even smaller, more fragile pieces of electronics, catapulting us through the air at insane speeds. Even the slightest malfunction could send us bolting out of the sky and smashing into the nearest patch of farmland. I think we need a BOMB to asplode this airplane!".

As if the large quantities of fuel coarsing through the plane weren't explosive enough, no, we actually have to bring a spraycan on board to have enough flammable materials...

Re: "Bag Check" Discussion

Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:14 am UTC
by riddler
mystichobo wrote:I wonder If they would let you take a parachute on as hand luggage?


It's perfectly legal to carry parachute rigs (containing two parachutes) as carry-on. I've done it several times. Forget about using it if the plane goes down - there are too many factors going against you. You would simply not survive the attempt.

Re: "Bag Check" Discussion

Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:22 am UTC
by Unforgiven
For some reason airport security can also make a fuss if you're carrying approach plates or other charts related to the airport you're flying to (if they find them, which they usually don't). What do they think I'm going to do? Hijack the plane and then land it safely at our destination? :lol:

Re: "Bag Check" Discussion

Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 9:40 am UTC
by sharpergut
This just goes to show that these so called "terrorist countermeasures" are nothing more than shows to create the illusion of safety without actually keeping people safe, and to reinforce the "nanny state" mentality which causes people to think that more state intervention is always a good thing.

All these laws do is remove the responsibility of true safety from the air companies and airports because everything is assumed to be fine as long as they follow the regulations. If air companies honestly believed there was a serious threat it is likely they would make better decisions on what could or could not be carried onto a plane as it is in their interest not to allow their customers/employees to be killed/threatened or to have their property (planes) destroyed.

/rant

Re: "Bag Check" Discussion

Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 9:45 am UTC
by Unforgiven
sharpergut wrote:as it is in their interest not to allow their customers/employees to be killed/threatened or to have their property (planes) destroyed.

Depends. Preventing people from taking laptops on board would be very unpopular, and unless it's a universally applied rule would drive customers away from the airline. If that would cost the airline more money in lost revenue than the cost of an occasional hijacked plane (and yes, airlines have a "value" for a lost human life which they use in these kinds of comparisons) than they will not do it.

Re: "Bag Check" Discussion

Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 9:47 am UTC
by baf
SEE wrote:2) Blast and concussion effects from explosives in the open follow an inverse cube law, not an inverse square.


Really? Huh. How does that work? Surely the energy is still expanding in a sphere, which means dispersing over an area that increases as the square of the radius. Or is it that it somehow loses its oomph as a result of pushing aside a cubically-increasing volume of air or something like that?

Re: "Bag Check" Discussion

Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 10:14 am UTC
by Platinum01
riddler wrote:
mystichobo wrote:I wonder If they would let you take a parachute on as hand luggage?


It's perfectly legal to carry parachute rigs (containing two parachutes) as carry-on. I've done it several times. Forget about using it if the plane goes down - there are too many factors going against you. You would simply not survive the attempt.


I guess the other passengers will try to steal it from you or hinder you from getting off without them. But it should be fine if you also carry a gun and enough ammunition with you to shoot your way to the exit.

Re: "Bag Check" Discussion

Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 11:04 am UTC
by Ozzah
I remember a little over a year ago I was arguing with a lady at the airlines over the phone.

They didn't sell my contact lens solution in smaller bottles, and you're not supposed to change brands of contact lens, or contact lens solution without first contacting your optometrist and going through a trial period to see if there are any reactions.

I was arguing with the lady saying "But a small drop of binary explosive is more than enough to blow the whole plane in half, so there's no reason why you should set the limit at 100mL. It's just an arbitrary number that someone pulled out of a hat, and it's not a large enough arbitrary number that would let me bring my harmless contact lens solution on the plane, but not small enough to prevent me from blowing the plane in 2."

...Needless to say, I didn't win the airline over, and I ended up having to put my solution in my check-in luggage, and be blind the whole trip.

Re: "Bag Check" Discussion

Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 11:05 am UTC
by cynicalbastard
I fully expect to be stripped naked, x-rayed, handcuffed and issued a hospital gown next time i fly.
What was that again about existential liberty vs temporal safety?

Re: "Bag Check" Discussion

Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 11:25 am UTC
by Tormuse
The last few times I've flown, airport security asked me for my water bottle, but then allowed me to carry on the empty bottle after I drank it in front of them. Every time I do that, I get tempted to say, "Mmm... That's some good kerosene!"