It seems that the proof that someone is carrying a phone, laptop or
bomb is to ask the owner to turn it on. If it works then it's fine and
perfectly safe to zoom around the skies with a few hundred passengers.

What's the game? It seems almost as stupid as looking for terrorists
with tanks although there were more obvious reasons behind that
particular scam.

Anyway can anyone suggest what possible use the "turn on" test could
be?

HN

hugh neary wrote:

Anyway can anyone suggest what possible use the "turn on" test could
be?

It proves that you haven't replaced *ALL* the batteries with little
canisters of C4.

"hugh neary" wrote in message
...
It seems that the proof that someone is carrying a phone, laptop or
bomb is to ask the owner to turn it on. If it works then it's fine and
perfectly safe to zoom around the skies with a few hundred passengers.

What's the game? It seems almost as stupid as looking for terrorists
with tanks although there were more obvious reasons behind that
particular scam.

Anyway can anyone suggest what possible use the "turn on" test could
be?


Because terrorists have invented a bomb that looks exactly like a laptop
battery, so when it's x-rayed, it doesn't raise suspicion, obviously it
cannot power the laptop

On Mon, 14 Jul 2014 20:03:12 +0100, "Phil L"
wrote:


"hugh neary" wrote in message
.. .
It seems that the proof that someone is carrying a phone, laptop or
bomb is to ask the owner to turn it on. If it works then it's fine and
perfectly safe to zoom around the skies with a few hundred passengers.

What's the game? It seems almost as stupid as looking for terrorists
with tanks although there were more obvious reasons behind that
particular scam.

Anyway can anyone suggest what possible use the "turn on" test could
be?


Because terrorists have invented a bomb that looks exactly like a laptop
battery, so when it's x-rayed, it doesn't raise suspicion, obviously it
cannot power the laptop

But if a terrorist can disguise a bomb to look like a battery, and a
phone is considered a risk also. Logic suggests that a mass similar to
a phone battery would be a threat.

The clue is in the word "battery". A collection of low capacity cells
to power up the laptop for a short period does not really seem like it
may be a major problem for for a bombmaker.

HN

"hugh neary" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 14 Jul 2014 20:03:12 +0100, "Phil L"
wrote:


"hugh neary" wrote in message
. ..
It seems that the proof that someone is carrying a phone, laptop or
bomb is to ask the owner to turn it on. If it works then it's fine and
perfectly safe to zoom around the skies with a few hundred passengers.

What's the game? It seems almost as stupid as looking for terrorists
with tanks although there were more obvious reasons behind that
particular scam.

Anyway can anyone suggest what possible use the "turn on" test could
be?


Because terrorists have invented a bomb that looks exactly like a laptop
battery, so when it's x-rayed, it doesn't raise suspicion, obviously it
cannot power the laptop

But if a terrorist can disguise a bomb to look like a battery, and a
phone is considered a risk also. Logic suggests that a mass similar to
a phone battery would be a threat.

The clue is in the word "battery". A collection of low capacity cells
to power up the laptop for a short period does not really seem like it
may be a major problem for for a bombmaker.

Well obviously the security officials who put these proposals forward have
more information than you or I, I would just assume that the potential bomb,
whether it be in a smart phone, laptop or tablet has no capacity to power up
the device, hence the ban on 'uncharged' items

On 14/07/2014 20:37, hugh neary wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2014 20:03:12 +0100, "Phil L"
wrote:


"hugh neary" wrote in message
...
It seems that the proof that someone is carrying a phone, laptop or
bomb is to ask the owner to turn it on. If it works then it's fine and
perfectly safe to zoom around the skies with a few hundred passengers.

What's the game? It seems almost as stupid as looking for terrorists
with tanks although there were more obvious reasons behind that
particular scam.

Anyway can anyone suggest what possible use the "turn on" test could
be?


Because terrorists have invented a bomb that looks exactly like a laptop
battery, so when it's x-rayed, it doesn't raise suspicion, obviously it
cannot power the laptop

But if a terrorist can disguise a bomb to look like a battery, and a
phone is considered a risk also. Logic suggests that a mass similar to
a phone battery would be a threat.

Put in contact with the pressure hull of a 'plane, it could be.

The clue is in the word "battery". A collection of low capacity cells
to power up the laptop for a short period does not really seem like it
may be a major problem for for a bombmaker.


It is if your laptop is packed as tightly internally as mine are. Unless
they can make a 50/ 50 bomb/ battery unit that will also pass the
screening test. It could also fail with a few older laptops that I owned
that had space for 2 or in one case, 3 batteries. I liked that one, it
could actually do a decent amount of work away from base.

Looking at it dispassionately, though, it's just a way to convince the
travelling public that there is a threat worth worrying about. In the
same way that taking a swig from a sealed, branded 500ml mineral water
bottle is not considered to be proof that it is actually water. If it's
over 100ml, it's in the bin...

In much the same way, every coach passing through the ferry ports
travelling from France to England is stopped, and all the passengers
made to get off and walk through passport control while the coach is
searched. Superficially. It inconveniences people, and makes them think
that something necessary is being done. Or the random explosives
screening on the Channel Tunnel. One in ten vehicles or thereabouts is
stopped at random. If it's not random, it's a good imitation, as they
seem to run a one out, one in policy at the screening bays.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

In message , hugh neary
writes
On Mon, 14 Jul 2014 20:03:12 +0100, "Phil L"
wrote:


"hugh neary" wrote in message
. ..
It seems that the proof that someone is carrying a phone, laptop or
bomb is to ask the owner to turn it on. If it works then it's fine and
perfectly safe to zoom around the skies with a few hundred passengers.

What's the game? It seems almost as stupid as looking for terrorists
with tanks although there were more obvious reasons behind that
particular scam.

Anyway can anyone suggest what possible use the "turn on" test could
be?


Because terrorists have invented a bomb that looks exactly like a laptop
battery, so when it's x-rayed, it doesn't raise suspicion, obviously it
cannot power the laptop

But if a terrorist can disguise a bomb to look like a battery, and a
phone is considered a risk also. Logic suggests that a mass similar to
a phone battery would be a threat.

The clue is in the word "battery". A collection of low capacity cells
to power up the laptop for a short period does not really seem like it
may be a major problem for for a bombmaker.

HN
If the case is full of battery plus the necessary electronics to power
up the screen and load up an operating system there's not much room for
anything else. No it's not foolproof or if it is it may well not be
tomorrow. What's your alternative? Just wait for an aircraft to be blown
out the sky and then blame the security services? Thanks to Snowden it's
just that much harder for them to do their job. And yes there are
would-be terrorists about.
--
bert

On 2014-07-14, John Williamson wrote:

It is if your laptop is packed as tightly internally as mine are. Unless
they can make a 50/ 50 bomb/ battery unit that will also pass the
screening test. It could also fail with a few older laptops that I owned
that had space for 2 or in one case, 3 batteries. I liked that one, it
could actually do a decent amount of work away from base.

Looking at it dispassionately, though, it's just a way to convince the
travelling public that there is a threat worth worrying about. In the

"security theatre"

On 14/07/2014 20:37, hugh neary wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2014 20:03:12 +0100, "Phil L"
wrote:


"hugh neary" wrote in message
...
It seems that the proof that someone is carrying a phone, laptop or
bomb is to ask the owner to turn it on. If it works then it's fine and
perfectly safe to zoom around the skies with a few hundred passengers.

What's the game? It seems almost as stupid as looking for terrorists
with tanks although there were more obvious reasons behind that
particular scam.

Anyway can anyone suggest what possible use the "turn on" test could
be?


Because terrorists have invented a bomb that looks exactly like a laptop
battery, so when it's x-rayed, it doesn't raise suspicion, obviously it
cannot power the laptop

But if a terrorist can disguise a bomb to look like a battery, and a
phone is considered a risk also. Logic suggests that a mass similar to
a phone battery would be a threat.

The clue is in the word "battery". A collection of low capacity cells
to power up the laptop for a short period does not really seem like it
may be a major problem for for a bombmaker.

Yeah, but it also keeps the proletariat compliant with ever further
erosion of their civil liberties in the pursuit of the government "doing
something"


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Following the shoe bomber every time you go through security in the USA shoes had to be taken off should imagine it has contributed to a verruca epidemic. I was just grateful he did not conceal it in one of his orifices like drug mules, god knows what you would have to do to get through security - "Bend over sir while we search you!"

Richard

On 14/07/2014 21:25, John Rumm wrote:
On 14/07/2014 20:37, hugh neary wrote:
....
Yeah, but it also keeps the proletariat compliant with ever further
erosion of their civil liberties in the pursuit of the government "doing
something"


It simply makes me more determined than ever to avoid flying whenever I can.

--
Colin Bignell

On 14/07/14 21:25, Tricky Dicky wrote:
Following the shoe bomber every time you go through security in the USA shoes had to be taken off should imagine it has contributed to a verruca epidemic. I was just grateful he did not conceal it in one of his orifices like drug mules, god knows what you would have to do to get through security - "Bend over sir while we search you!"

Richard


Google for "Bum Bomber".

I am serious.

And you would be best to turn graphics off, unless you have a strong
stomach.

On Monday, July 14, 2014 8:59:43 PM UTC+1, bert wrote:
If the case is full of battery plus the necessary electronics to power
up the screen and load up an operating system there's not much room for
anything else.

A smartphone or tablet takes care of the electronics and operating system, and many will output to an 'external' display, so you'd only have to power the LCD. Or an Android mini stick is smaller than a smartphone:

http://blog.laptopmag.com/android-mini-pc

If you only have to get as far as a pseudo-'boot screen' then pretty simple electronics will do - bitmap in ROM.

Owain

On Mon, 14 Jul 2014 19:47:40 +0100, hugh neary wrote:

It seems that the proof that someone is carrying a phone, laptop or
bomb is to ask the owner to turn it on. If it works then it's fine and
perfectly safe to zoom around the skies with a few hundred passengers.

What's the game? It seems almost as stupid as looking for terrorists
with tanks although there were more obvious reasons behind that
particular scam.

Anyway can anyone suggest what possible use the "turn on" test could
be?

None at all. Arrive with a laptop say five years old when they were a bit more
chunky, turn it on, appears to work ok to droid at security. But Mr Jihad the
Terrorist has replaced the insides with a more modern motherboard or a Raspberry
Pi leaving plenty of space for explosives. With a bit of work the x-ray could
even look 'ok' The only issue is the detection methods of the organic content of
the explosives and I believe there could be a simple work around that probably
wouldn't cause any suspicion in an electronic device.

So the only solution is to round them up, put them in a field and bomb the
*******s (as one of Kenny Everetts characters once said)


--

On 14/07/2014 21:17, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2014-07-14, John Williamson wrote:

It is if your laptop is packed as tightly internally as mine are. Unless
they can make a 50/ 50 bomb/ battery unit that will also pass the
screening test. It could also fail with a few older laptops that I owned
that had space for 2 or in one case, 3 batteries. I liked that one, it
could actually do a decent amount of work away from base.

Looking at it dispassionately, though, it's just a way to convince the
travelling public that there is a threat worth worrying about. In the

"security theatre"

Yup.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On Mon, 14 Jul 2014 21:39:30 +0100, "Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insert my surname
here wrote:

On 14/07/2014 21:25, John Rumm wrote:
On 14/07/2014 20:37, hugh neary wrote:
...
Yeah, but it also keeps the proletariat compliant with ever further
erosion of their civil liberties in the pursuit of the government "doing
something"


It simply makes me more determined than ever to avoid flying whenever I can.

Flying is very safe, the plane exploding and falling apart into thousands of
pieces at 30000 feet and then hitting the ground a few minutes later is the
dangerous bit.


--

hugh neary wrote

It seems that the proof that someone is carrying a phone, laptop or
bomb is to ask the owner to turn it on. If it works then it's fine and
perfectly safe to zoom around the skies with a few hundred passengers.

What's the game? It seems almost as stupid as looking
for terrorists with tanks although there were more
obvious reasons behind that particular scam.

Anyway can anyone suggest what possible use the "turn on" test could be?

Presumably to check if its been gutted and stuff with explosive.

There isnt a lot of space most phones or laptops to put explosive in.

Phil L presented the following explanation :
"hugh neary" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 14 Jul 2014 20:03:12 +0100, "Phil L"
wrote:


"hugh neary" wrote in message
...
It seems that the proof that someone is carrying a phone, laptop or
bomb is to ask the owner to turn it on. If it works then it's fine and
perfectly safe to zoom around the skies with a few hundred passengers.

What's the game? It seems almost as stupid as looking for terrorists
with tanks although there were more obvious reasons behind that
particular scam.

Anyway can anyone suggest what possible use the "turn on" test could
be?


Because terrorists have invented a bomb that looks exactly like a laptop
battery, so when it's x-rayed, it doesn't raise suspicion, obviously it
cannot power the laptop

But if a terrorist can disguise a bomb to look like a battery, and a
phone is considered a risk also. Logic suggests that a mass similar to
a phone battery would be a threat.

The clue is in the word "battery". A collection of low capacity cells
to power up the laptop for a short period does not really seem like it
may be a major problem for for a bombmaker.

Well obviously the security officials who put these proposals forward have
more information than you or I, I would just assume that the potential bomb,
whether it be in a smart phone, laptop or tablet has no capacity to power up
the device, hence the ban on 'uncharged' items

The entire internals of a phone or a laptop could be removed to turn it
into a bomb, not just the battery.

--
Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

hugh neary wrote
Phil L wrote
hugh neary wrote

It seems that the proof that someone is carrying a phone, laptop or
bomb is to ask the owner to turn it on. If it works then it's fine and
perfectly safe to zoom around the skies with a few hundred passengers.

What's the game? It seems almost as stupid as looking for terrorists
with tanks although there were more obvious reasons behind that
particular scam.

Anyway can anyone suggest what possible use the "turn on" test could be?

Because terrorists have invented a bomb that looks exactly like a laptop
battery, so when it's x-rayed, it doesn't raise suspicion, obviously it
cannot power the laptop

But if a terrorist can disguise a bomb to look like a battery, and a
phone is considered a risk also. Logic suggests that a mass similar to
a phone battery would be a threat.

The clue is in the word "battery". A collection of low capacity cells
to power up the laptop for a short period does not really seem like it
may be a major problem for for a bombmaker.

Sure, but its clearly worth checking if it turns on at all
so that you do catch the ones that weren't that smart.

Be interesting to know how many they have ever found tho.

And it may be that that turn on requirement is what drove
the terrorists to go for containers of liquid explosive too.

On 14/07/2014 22:27, The Other Mike wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2014 21:39:30 +0100, "Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insert my surname
here wrote:

On 14/07/2014 21:25, John Rumm wrote:
On 14/07/2014 20:37, hugh neary wrote:
...
Yeah, but it also keeps the proletariat compliant with ever further
erosion of their civil liberties in the pursuit of the government "doing
something"


It simply makes me more determined than ever to avoid flying whenever I can.

Flying is very safe, the plane exploding and falling apart into thousands of
pieces at 30000 feet and then hitting the ground a few minutes later is the
dangerous bit.


I don't mind flying. What I object to is usually spending more time in
the airport than in the air. It is simply no longer an enjoyable
experience. These days I drive whenever possible and fly only when it is
completely unavoidable.

--
Colin Bignell

"Tricky Dicky" wrote in message
...
Following the shoe bomber every time you go through security in the USA
shoes had to be taken off should imagine it has contributed to a verruca
epidemic. I was just grateful he did not conceal it in one of his orifices
like drug mules, god knows what you would have to do to get through
security - "Bend over sir while we search you!"

Richard

That has already been done. An assassination attempt in Saudi Arabia.
The Xrays are supposed to pick that up.

On 14/07/2014 23:07, Nightjar "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote:
On 14/07/2014 22:27, The Other Mike wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2014 21:39:30 +0100, "Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insert my
surname
here wrote:

On 14/07/2014 21:25, John Rumm wrote:
On 14/07/2014 20:37, hugh neary wrote:
...
Yeah, but it also keeps the proletariat compliant with ever further
erosion of their civil liberties in the pursuit of the government
"doing
something"


It simply makes me more determined than ever to avoid flying whenever
I can.

Flying is very safe, the plane exploding and falling apart into
thousands of
pieces at 30000 feet and then hitting the ground a few minutes later
is the
dangerous bit.


I don't mind flying. What I object to is usually spending more time in
the airport than in the air. It is simply no longer an enjoyable
experience. These days I drive whenever possible and fly only when it is
completely unavoidable.


I do agree that the queues, a few less than enlightened staff (IME), and
the ridiculous 'thinking' behind the screening can be cause for fury.

However, how much time does it add to a flight? An hour at most. And a
bit of indignity as you wrestle with belts and shoes, and run the risk
of your 'special items getting a public show?

Where's the harm?

:-)

--
Cheers, Rob

Well, I'd imagine it was to make passengers feel something was being done.
As we all know if anyone is determined enough to cause mayhem, death or
injury, and do not care about their own safety,t there is little one can do.
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"hugh neary" wrote in message
...
It seems that the proof that someone is carrying a phone, laptop or
bomb is to ask the owner to turn it on. If it works then it's fine and
perfectly safe to zoom around the skies with a few hundred passengers.

What's the game? It seems almost as stupid as looking for terrorists
with tanks although there were more obvious reasons behind that
particular scam.

Anyway can anyone suggest what possible use the "turn on" test could
be?

HN

I was reading some article on line about two years ago about how small a
container of Sarin gas could be to effectively disable a whole aircraft
through the air circulation system. It is frightening and not an explosive
in sight.
Really, it is worrying but then again, if you are in the wrong place at the
wrong time there are lots fo dangers in the world.
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"Andy Burns" wrote in message
news
hugh neary wrote:

Anyway can anyone suggest what possible use the "turn on" test could
be?

It proves that you haven't replaced *ALL* the batteries with little
canisters of C4.

On 14/07/2014 19:47, hugh neary wrote:
It seems that the proof that someone is carrying a phone, laptop or
bomb is to ask the owner to turn it on. If it works then it's fine and
perfectly safe to zoom around the skies with a few hundred passengers.

What's the game? It seems almost as stupid as looking for terrorists
with tanks although there were more obvious reasons behind that
particular scam.

Anyway can anyone suggest what possible use the "turn on" test could
be?

HN

I don't buy the posted argument that it's all about scaring passengers
and showing "something is being done".

I think there are sound (and pragmatic) technical arguments behind the
advice, and that it is a bad idea to discuss them here. I am sure that
many of us could come up with good terrorist strategies and
counter-strategies; but why risk giving bad people good ideas.

On 15/07/14 08:23, RJH wrote:
On 14/07/2014 23:07, Nightjar "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote:
On 14/07/2014 22:27, The Other Mike wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2014 21:39:30 +0100, "Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insert my
surname
here wrote:

On 14/07/2014 21:25, John Rumm wrote:
On 14/07/2014 20:37, hugh neary wrote:
...
Yeah, but it also keeps the proletariat compliant with ever further
erosion of their civil liberties in the pursuit of the government
"doing
something"


It simply makes me more determined than ever to avoid flying whenever
I can.

Flying is very safe, the plane exploding and falling apart into
thousands of
pieces at 30000 feet and then hitting the ground a few minutes later
is the
dangerous bit.


I don't mind flying. What I object to is usually spending more time in
the airport than in the air. It is simply no longer an enjoyable
experience. These days I drive whenever possible and fly only when it is
completely unavoidable.


I do agree that the queues, a few less than enlightened staff (IME), and
the ridiculous 'thinking' behind the screening can be cause for fury.

However, how much time does it add to a flight? An hour at most. And a
bit of indignity as you wrestle with belts and shoes, and run the risk
of your 'special items getting a public show?

Where's the harm?


I think we spent a total of 7 hours in airports for a 2 hour flight.

:-)



--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

Brian Gaff wrote

Well, I'd imagine it was to make passengers feel something was being done.
As we all know if anyone is determined enough to cause mayhem, death or
injury, and do not care about their own safety,t there is little one can
do.

There in fact plenty that can be done with explosives being carried on the
plane.

"hugh neary" wrote in message
...
It seems that the proof that someone is carrying a phone, laptop or
bomb is to ask the owner to turn it on. If it works then it's fine and
perfectly safe to zoom around the skies with a few hundred passengers.

What's the game? It seems almost as stupid as looking for terrorists
with tanks although there were more obvious reasons behind that
particular scam.

Anyway can anyone suggest what possible use the "turn on" test could
be?

HN

On 15/07/2014 07:18, harryagain wrote:
"Tricky Dicky" wrote in message
...
Following the shoe bomber every time you go through security in the USA
shoes had to be taken off should imagine it has contributed to a verruca
epidemic. I was just grateful he did not conceal it in one of his orifices
like drug mules, god knows what you would have to do to get through
security - "Bend over sir while we search you!"

Richard

That has already been done. An assassination attempt in Saudi Arabia.
The Xrays are supposed to pick that up.


Eddy current metal detectors in the UK, I don't think we are routinely
x-raying people, as in Total Recall :-).

John Williamson wrote:

Looking at it dispassionately, though, it's just a way to convince the
travelling public that there is a threat worth worrying about.

Or, more cleverly, it's a way to convince the travelling terrorist that
their super new smuggling system isn't going to work so there's no point
trying.


--
Scott

Where are we going and why am I in this handbasket?

newshound wrote
hugh neary wrote

It seems that the proof that someone is carrying a phone, laptop or
bomb is to ask the owner to turn it on. If it works then it's fine and
perfectly safe to zoom around the skies with a few hundred passengers.

What's the game? It seems almost as stupid as looking for terrorists
with tanks although there were more obvious reasons behind that
particular scam.

Anyway can anyone suggest what possible use the "turn on" test could be?

I don't buy the posted argument that it's all about scaring passengers and
showing "something is being done".

I don't either.

I think there are sound (and pragmatic) technical arguments behind the
advice,

Yes.

and that it is a bad idea to discuss them here.

No.

I am sure that many of us could come up with good terrorist strategies and
counter-strategies;

Yes.

but why risk giving bad people good ideas.

Because they are very unlikely to bother with usenet.

The Natural Philosopher wrote
RJH wrote
Nightjar "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote
The Other Mike wrote
Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insert my surname here wrote
John Rumm wrote
hugh neary wrote

Yeah, but it also keeps the proletariat compliant with ever further
erosion of their civil liberties in the pursuit of the government
"doing something"

It simply makes me more determined than ever to avoid flying whenever
I can.

Flying is very safe, the plane exploding and falling apart into
thousands of pieces at 30000 feet and then hitting the ground a few
minutes later is the dangerous bit.

I don't mind flying. What I object to is usually spending more time in
the airport than in the air. It is simply no longer an enjoyable
experience. These days I drive whenever possible and fly only when it is
completely unavoidable.

I do agree that the queues, a few less than enlightened staff (IME), and
the ridiculous 'thinking' behind the screening can be cause for fury.

However, how much time does it add to a flight? An hour at most. And a
bit of indignity as you wrestle with belts and shoes, and run the risk
of your 'special items getting a public show?

Where's the harm?

I think we spent a total of 7 hours in airports for a 2 hour flight.

I dont spend anything like that for a 1.5 hour flight.

Jethro_uk wrote:

When the Israelis stop a car for a search, they perform the search at
least 100 metres away from the queue - the obvious point being that if
there is a bomb, and it detonates, it won't take too many innocents with
it.

How does that stop someone detonating it while they're still in the
queue, before they're asked to drive forward to be searched? All it does
is make the bomber choose between taking out innocents and taking out
police/military, they can't take out both at once.

On 14/07/2014 20:59 bert wrote:

What's your alternative? Just wait for an aircraft to be blown
out the sky and then blame the security services?

We were in the queue to go through security in Mombasa Airport a few
years ago just a week after someone had been picked up trying to get a
gun through. A woman in the queue started moaning at length about the
ten or so minute delay the extra checks were taking. She shut up when I
asked if she would prefer a two minute fall from 30,000 feet.

Some people just don't think it through...

--
F

On 14/07/2014 22:27 The Other Mike wrote:

Flying is very safe, the plane exploding and falling apart into thousands of
pieces at 30000 feet and then hitting the ground a few minutes later is the
dangerous bit.

Driving at high speed is similarly safe. It's the quick stop when you
hit something solid that does the damage.

--
F

On 14/07/2014 23:07 Nightjar "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote:

I don't mind flying. What I object to is usually spending more time in
the airport than in the air.

On more than one occasion we have spent more time between push back and
the wheels leaving the runway at Heathrow than we were actually in the
air between there and Leeds Bradford.

--
F

On 15/07/2014 10:56, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jul 2014 09:53:39 +0100, newshound wrote:

On 14/07/2014 19:47, hugh neary wrote:
It seems that the proof that someone is carrying a phone, laptop or
bomb is to ask the owner to turn it on. If it works then it's fine and
perfectly safe to zoom around the skies with a few hundred passengers.

What's the game? It seems almost as stupid as looking for terrorists
with tanks although there were more obvious reasons behind that
particular scam.

Anyway can anyone suggest what possible use the "turn on" test could
be?

HN

I don't buy the posted argument that it's all about scaring passengers
and showing "something is being done".

I think there are sound (and pragmatic) technical arguments behind the
advice, and that it is a bad idea to discuss them here. I am sure that
many of us could come up with good terrorist strategies and
counter-strategies; but why risk giving bad people good ideas.

Because it helps the good people think like bad people ?

I'm curious as to why terrorists are so infatuated with air travel -
which affects a tiny minority of the population. I can think of far more
straightforward ways of terrorising the population which are incredibly
low-tech. Which rather makes me wonder if the terrorists are being as
honest with us as our own security services.


Two reasons.

1) Passenger plane targets get a big media profile

2) The "high mile" travellers are generally high profile people: CEOs,
pop stars, etc, so strikes disproportionately hit the top 0.1%.

On 15/07/14 10:13, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 15/07/14 08:23, RJH wrote:

I think we spent a total of 7 hours in airports for a 2 hour flight.

Sounds about right.

3 hours to arrive, lose car, check in (could be 2 hours, but you always
need padding for transport delays unless you are in an airport hotel).

1 hour getting out the other end if you are lucky!

Best airport - Riga in 1997. Walk across tarmac - show passport at one
of 2 huts, through door into hall. Road is 30m away the otherside of the
large hall. Hole in wall where they literally lobbed the suitcases through.

Out in about 25 minutes!

On 15/07/2014 12:13 Tim Watts wrote:

Best airport - Riga in 1997. Walk across tarmac - show passport at one
of 2 huts, through door into hall. Road is 30m away the otherside of the
large hall. Hole in wall where they literally lobbed the suitcases through.

Out in about 25 minutes!

Masai Mara.

Having a drink in the open air watching elephants and a waitress comes
up to us and announces 'You're plane is waiting sir.' We climb into a
Land Rover alongside the pilots and are driven to the plane on the grass
airstrip. The pilot opens the door to the plane, bags are thrown on, he
asks us to fasten belts and points out the 'emergency exit (the door we
just came through), walks to the front, climbs in his seat and we take off.

Priceless!

--
F

"Jethro_uk" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Jul 2014 09:53:39 +0100, newshound wrote:

On 14/07/2014 19:47, hugh neary wrote:
It seems that the proof that someone is carrying a phone, laptop or
bomb is to ask the owner to turn it on. If it works then it's fine and
perfectly safe to zoom around the skies with a few hundred passengers.

What's the game? It seems almost as stupid as looking for terrorists
with tanks although there were more obvious reasons behind that
particular scam.

Anyway can anyone suggest what possible use the "turn on" test could
be?

HN

I don't buy the posted argument that it's all about scaring passengers
and showing "something is being done".

I think there are sound (and pragmatic) technical arguments behind the
advice, and that it is a bad idea to discuss them here. I am sure that
many of us could come up with good terrorist strategies and
counter-strategies; but why risk giving bad people good ideas.

Because it helps the good people think like bad people ?

I'm curious as to why terrorists are so infatuated with air travel

They arent. Even you should have noticed that more
trains have had bombs on them than planes.

- which affects a tiny minority of the population. I can think of far
more straightforward ways of terrorising the population which are
incredibly low-tech. Which rather makes me wonder if the terrorists
are being as honest with us as our own security services.

Its got nothing to do with honesty, everything to do with opportunity.

Tim Watts wrote:

Best airport - Riga in 1997. Walk across tarmac - show passport at one
of 2 huts, through door into hall. Road is 30m away the otherside of the
large hall. Hole in wall where they literally lobbed the suitcases through.

Västerås used to be like that in the 70s, long before the cheap
flight merchants flew folk there bound for Stockholm.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK


Plant amazing Acers.