0651: "Bag Check"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
plin25
Posts: 36
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:32 am UTC
Location: Lost in my mind
Contact:

Re: "Bag Check" Discussion

Postby plin25 » Mon Oct 19, 2009 5:17 am UTC

"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."
´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸ }<((((((º>

User avatar
vrek
pigasm!
Posts: 281
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 7:49 pm UTC

Re: "Bag Check" Discussion

Postby vrek » Mon Oct 19, 2009 5:18 am UTC

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
Didn't I tell you tomorrow that time is not linear?

Verator666: I get hot unicorn furry sex AND YOU DON'T!!

bugstomper
Posts: 40
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 6:03 am UTC

Re: "Bag Check" Discussion

Postby bugstomper » Mon Oct 19, 2009 5:20 am UTC


User avatar
aeris92
Posts: 43
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 4:03 am UTC

Re: "Bag Check" Discussion

Postby aeris92 » Mon Oct 19, 2009 5:22 am UTC

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.

Newto
Posts: 14
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 4:30 am UTC

Re: "Bag Check" Discussion

Postby Newto » Mon Oct 19, 2009 5:23 am UTC

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.

User avatar
BlueNight
Posts: 270
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:59 am UTC
Location: Albuquerque
Contact:

Re: "Bag Check" Discussion

Postby BlueNight » Mon Oct 19, 2009 5:26 am UTC

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.
---------
BlueNight

vslayer
Posts: 191
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 8:57 pm UTC
Location: rakaia, NZ
Contact:

Re: "Bag Check" Discussion

Postby vslayer » Mon Oct 19, 2009 5:29 am UTC

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?

User avatar
phillipsjk
Posts: 1213
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 4:09 pm UTC
Location: Edmonton AB Canada
Contact:

Withdrawal of the Do nothing, successfully. entry

Postby phillipsjk » Mon Oct 19, 2009 5:33 am UTC

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.
Did you get the number on that truck?

Sunidesus
Posts: 49
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2008 9:09 pm UTC
Location: Rhode Island
Contact:

Re: "Bag Check" Discussion

Postby Sunidesus » Mon Oct 19, 2009 5:37 am UTC

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!

User avatar
lulzfish
Posts: 1214
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2008 8:17 am UTC

Re: "Bag Check" Discussion

Postby lulzfish » Mon Oct 19, 2009 5:40 am UTC

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.

Someursault
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 3:46 am UTC
Contact:

Re: "Bag Check" Discussion

Postby Someursault » Mon Oct 19, 2009 5:42 am UTC

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.
"Attention, Morte. I have a question. Do you have a destiny? A purpose?"
"Is Annah still wearing clothes?"
"Affirmative."
"Then the answer is yes."

PleasingFungus
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 5:28 am UTC

Re: "Bag Check" Discussion

Postby PleasingFungus » Mon Oct 19, 2009 5:43 am UTC

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.

User avatar
Steve the Pocket
Posts: 695
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2007 4:02 am UTC
Location: Going downtuuu in a Luleelurah!

Re: "Bag Check" Discussion

Postby Steve the Pocket » Mon Oct 19, 2009 5:55 am UTC

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*
cephalopod9 wrote:Only on Xkcd can you start a topic involving Hitler and people spend the better part of half a dozen pages arguing about the quality of Operating Systems.

Baige.

User avatar
lulzfish
Posts: 1214
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2008 8:17 am UTC

Re: "Bag Check" Discussion

Postby lulzfish » Mon Oct 19, 2009 5:57 am UTC

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.

User avatar
Unforgiven
Posts: 162
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 8:48 am UTC
Location: Tokyo, Japan

Re: "Bag Check" Discussion

Postby Unforgiven » Mon Oct 19, 2009 5:58 am UTC

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! :?
"Now we're at the museum. Do you think they'll have DDR in there too?"
"It's Japan. Of course they will."

Razuul
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 6:12 am UTC

Re: "Bag Check" Discussion

Postby Razuul » Mon Oct 19, 2009 6:14 am UTC

Ahemm seems they thought of this already.

Lord Cathbad
Posts: 87
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 6:13 am UTC

Re: "Bag Check" Discussion

Postby Lord Cathbad » Mon Oct 19, 2009 6:18 am UTC

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.

Mindor
Posts: 28
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 7:53 pm UTC
Location: Milwaukee, WI

Re: "Bag Check" Discussion

Postby Mindor » Mon Oct 19, 2009 6:32 am UTC

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?
You get the 'Best Newbie (Nearly) Ever" Award. -Az
Yay me.

User avatar
alitheiapsis
Posts: 56
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 3:29 am UTC
Location: Just behind my eyes, between my ears.
Contact:

Re: "Bag Check" Discussion

Postby alitheiapsis » Mon Oct 19, 2009 6:41 am UTC

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.

User avatar
Unforgiven
Posts: 162
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 8:48 am UTC
Location: Tokyo, Japan

Re: "Bag Check" Discussion

Postby Unforgiven » Mon Oct 19, 2009 6:43 am UTC

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.
"Now we're at the museum. Do you think they'll have DDR in there too?"

"It's Japan. Of course they will."

dan131m
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 6:30 am UTC

Re: "Bag Check" Discussion

Postby dan131m » Mon Oct 19, 2009 6:54 am UTC

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.

User avatar
Max2009
Posts: 160
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 2:20 pm UTC
Location: Where?
Contact:

Re: "Bag Check" Discussion

Postby Max2009 » Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:10 am UTC

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.
Cogito ergo surf - I think therefore I network

Registered Linux user #481826 Get Counted! http://counter.li.org

Image

vslayer
Posts: 191
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 8:57 pm UTC
Location: rakaia, NZ
Contact:

Re: "Bag Check" Discussion

Postby vslayer » Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:19 am UTC

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?

User avatar
Eternal Density
Posts: 5551
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 12:37 am UTC
Contact:

Re: "Bag Check" Discussion

Postby Eternal Density » Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:23 am UTC

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 :(
Play the game of Time! castle.chirpingmustard.com Hotdog Vending Supplier But what is this?
In the Marvel vs. DC film-making war, we're all winners.

User avatar
LtBonzai
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 4:48 pm UTC

Re: "Bag Check" Discussion

Postby LtBonzai » Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:24 am UTC

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.

Forny
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:23 am UTC

Re: "Bag Check" Discussion

Postby Forny » Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:26 am UTC

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.

User avatar
LtBonzai
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 4:48 pm UTC

Re: "Bag Check" Discussion

Postby LtBonzai » Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:31 am UTC

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.

User avatar
SEE
Posts: 73
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 1:58 pm UTC

Re: "Bag Check" Discussion

Postby SEE » Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:33 am UTC

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.

SciBoy
Posts: 25
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2008 1:13 pm UTC

Re: "Bag Check" Discussion

Postby SciBoy » Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:33 am UTC

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).
Image

Kizor
Posts: 100
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: :noitacoL

Re: "Bag Check" Discussion

Postby Kizor » Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:40 am UTC

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

User avatar
eviloatmeal
Posts: 562
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 9:39 am UTC
Location: Upside down in space!
Contact:

Re: "Bag Check" Discussion

Postby eviloatmeal » Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:09 am UTC

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...
*** FREE SHIPPING ENABLED ***
Image
Riddles are abound tonightImage

riddler
Posts: 27
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 8:12 pm UTC

Re: "Bag Check" Discussion

Postby riddler » Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:14 am UTC

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.

User avatar
Unforgiven
Posts: 162
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 8:48 am UTC
Location: Tokyo, Japan

Re: "Bag Check" Discussion

Postby Unforgiven » Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:22 am UTC

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:
"Now we're at the museum. Do you think they'll have DDR in there too?"

"It's Japan. Of course they will."

sharpergut
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 9:33 am UTC

Re: "Bag Check" Discussion

Postby sharpergut » Mon Oct 19, 2009 9:40 am UTC

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

User avatar
Unforgiven
Posts: 162
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 8:48 am UTC
Location: Tokyo, Japan

Re: "Bag Check" Discussion

Postby Unforgiven » Mon Oct 19, 2009 9:45 am UTC

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.
"Now we're at the museum. Do you think they'll have DDR in there too?"

"It's Japan. Of course they will."

baf
Posts: 38
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 5:05 am UTC

Re: "Bag Check" Discussion

Postby baf » Mon Oct 19, 2009 9:47 am UTC

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?

Platinum01
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 10:10 am UTC

Re: "Bag Check" Discussion

Postby Platinum01 » Mon Oct 19, 2009 10:14 am UTC

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.

Ozzah
Posts: 54
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 10:15 am UTC

Re: "Bag Check" Discussion

Postby Ozzah » Mon Oct 19, 2009 11:04 am UTC

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.

cynicalbastard
Posts: 18
Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 8:08 pm UTC

Re: "Bag Check" Discussion

Postby cynicalbastard » Mon Oct 19, 2009 11:05 am UTC

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?
Poo-tee-weet?

User avatar
Tormuse
Posts: 50
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 5:34 pm UTC

Re: "Bag Check" Discussion

Postby Tormuse » Mon Oct 19, 2009 11:25 am UTC

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!"
I'm not really that patriotic... really!


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: PM 2Ring, tsotate and 26 guests