These will nuke unexposed and undeveloped exposed film. Kodak put a warning out a year or 2 back
You can keep a few rolls in a clear plastic bag and ask for them to be hand checked separately.
UK airport scraps 100ml liquid rule with new scanners
241–250 of 252 posts
Re: UK airport scraps 100ml liquid rule with new scanners
#242Earlier quoted context omitted.
How many dead annually from inactive lifestyles or overeating? Those are all choices that people make that affect them — nobody should be forced to live in a virtuous bubble just because it might extend their life a few years. That's all totally different from choosing to harm another human being.
not doing anything and overindulging in an activity required to live are not equivalents to a drug addiction.
A drug addiction, yes, sure. But the war on drugs isn't a war on addiction, it's a war on all use.
Re: UK airport scraps 100ml liquid rule with new scanners
#243Earlier quoted context omitted.
not doing anything and overindulging in an activity required to live are not equivalents to a drug addiction.
A drug addiction , yes, sure. But the war on drugs isn't a war on addiction, it's a war on all use.
Does supply play a role in addiction? Opportunity?
Re: UK airport scraps 100ml liquid rule with new scanners
#244Earlier quoted context omitted.
A drug addiction , yes, sure. But the war on drugs isn't a war on addiction, it's a war on all use.
Does supply play a role in addiction? Opportunity?
I'm not sure exactly what you're asking, but to your point in another comment, I have some sympathy to setting an 'addiction bar' and prohibiting drugs above that bar. Of course, the biggest issue with all these discussions is that, by any objective measure of harm/addiction, alcohol ranks right up there alongside heroin, meth, etc.
But all of this is a tangent to the 'war on drugs' which doesn't even begin to address the issue sensibly.
Re: UK airport scraps 100ml liquid rule with new scanners
#245Earlier quoted context omitted.
People do it to themselves. It's not like people don't know what hard drugs do to human body. They willingly start taking them. It ultimately is their own choice. Same can be said about alcoholism, btw, yet that is perfectly legal. Somehow, it's mostly accepted that making it harder to intentionally kill oneself is not the right way to stop people from committing suicide. Yet at the same time, we still consider this…
Constraining supply of highly addictive drugs isn't an important factor to you? At all? Alcohol is legal, how does it follow that there should be more iterations of addictive substances that do more damage to the fabric of society?
> Constraining supply of highly addictive drugs isn't an important factor to you? At all?
Isn't, at all. Something not being easily available makes it more attractive and makes people more curious about it. Such is human psychology.
Prohibition of anything for which there's demand does not work. It can't work. In general, laws only work when the majority of the society is on board with them. If the only people who are willing to enforce a law are police officers, then such a law only works when there's a police officer nearby.
> Alcohol is legal, how does it follow that there should be more iterations of addictive substances that do more damage to the fabric of society?
Again, if there's demand, there will be supply, regardless of legality. And since there will be supply of addictive substances either way, it makes sense to legalize them. The legalization will remove the criminal element from the cost, making it significantly cheaper, and would also ensure high quality/purity. I see no downsides here.
Re: UK airport scraps 100ml liquid rule with new scanners
#246Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't associate with trouble makers, that's your racist bias. I work with palestinian students and software developers.
It is a degrees of separation thing. Logically derived and proven to be effective. Very hard to argue with the last part. I understand how someone who has been inconvienced might perceive it differently but that in and of itself is by design and "priced in" as the goal is not to make 100% of travelers feel good but rather keep 100% of travelers safe.
So if it's for the safety of the travelers how logical is it that half of these "inconveniences" happen AFTER the actual flight?
Re: UK airport scraps 100ml liquid rule with new scanners
#247Earlier quoted context omitted.
What????
Understand that none of the counter measures are derived from hypotheticals. For example, one of the questions asked is "did you pack your own suitcase?" They aren't going to search your suitcase because of your race. That would be bad. It is bad not because of touchy feely reasons but rather because it isn't optimally effective. They search based on a far more sophisticated probabilistic threat model based on real w…
They absolutely search your suitcase purely based on race/appearance. Given how often I've sat in the interrogation rooms with EU passport holders with an arab background, and they really only came over to visit the beach.
How you justify racial profiling, only show that you are completely clueless to what it's like being racially profiled ALL the time.
Re: UK airport scraps 100ml liquid rule with new scanners
#248Earlier quoted context omitted.
Understand that none of the counter measures are derived from hypotheticals. For example, one of the questions asked is "did you pack your own suitcase?" They aren't going to search your suitcase because of your race. That would be bad. It is bad not because of touchy feely reasons but rather because it isn't optimally effective. They search based on a far more sophisticated probabilistic threat model based on real w…
They absolutely search your suitcase purely based on race/appearance. Given how often I've sat in the interrogation rooms with EU passport holders with an arab background, and they really only came over to visit the beach. How you justify racial profiling, only show that you are completely clueless to what it's like being racially profiled ALL the time.
That's great that they came over to visit the beach but nobody can look into your soul and know that and sometimes people who are not so nice don't just come over to visit the beach. This presents a challenging problem.
It sounds like you are under the impression that people are being inconvenienced simply out of spite or due to the discretion of some unfriendly TSA-type airport employee - nope. Understandable why you would perceive things as such but the reality is very different, there is quite a lot going on, before you even board the plane, that you don't see. Places where it really matters, like Israel, cannot afford to engage in security theatre, it is all derived by logic.
How it works as is explained in great detail in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Y1kJpHBn50
Appeals to emotion mean nothing to me. I get that it feels bad and don't particularly care as being blown up feels worse, promise. If after watching that you have pragmatic improvements to suggest I am all ears. It completely addresses your point, in fact it even explains how this approach probably doesn't scale to larger airports/other-countries.
Re: UK airport scraps 100ml liquid rule with new scanners
#249Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You can easily blow up an airplane with a liter of the right liquid Yeah... The thing is that you can't. Not easily. You can't do much with a liter of some liquid that won't happen by chance on the way to the airport. And you can't change the liquid a lot while on the plane. You can barely fit seated there.
My understanding is that there is some form of reasoning behind the 100mL limitation. Sufficiently easy to procure liquids can blow up a plan when they are in a container bigger than 100mL (300mL, 1L, I don’t know what the findings were). Now, what I do know is that pouring liquids together in a largers plastic bag is very easy, you can do that inside a backpack. I had to do this multiple times due to leaky milk bott…
Where does the popular idea that you can simply mix things into explosives come from?
You can't make a strong explosive in a portable plastic bag. If you get the chemistry right, you will just burn yourself and maybe your neighbor. You won't even lose fingers, that requires better conditions. AFAIK, that's exactly what happened to the original liquid bomber, that was caught after he burned himself mixing things on the bathroom. In much more stable conditions than a bag, but still not nearly stable enough.
The guy that tried to carry solid explosives on his underwear was also caught only after he burned himself, because that's also not a practical way to carry them. As did the guy that tried to carry them on his shoes.
There are some very robust reasons why all those plots are doomed to failure, but those are the ones the US focus on (and basically impose on the rest of the world), while there are many perfectly viable vulnerabilities to exploit that nobody wants to close because they would impose more restrictions on the passengers. And that nobody is exploiting because it requires knowing what to do, and people that know what to do aren't normally prone to killing random strangers.
Re: UK airport scraps 100ml liquid rule with new scanners
#250Earlier quoted context omitted.
My understanding is that there is some form of reasoning behind the 100mL limitation. Sufficiently easy to procure liquids can blow up a plan when they are in a container bigger than 100mL (300mL, 1L, I don’t know what the findings were). Now, what I do know is that pouring liquids together in a largers plastic bag is very easy, you can do that inside a backpack. I had to do this multiple times due to leaky milk bott…
Where does the popular idea that you can simply mix things into explosives come from? You can't make a strong explosive in a portable plastic bag. If you get the chemistry right, you will just burn yourself and maybe your neighbor. You won't even lose fingers, that requires better conditions. AFAIK, that's exactly what happened to the original liquid bomber, that was caught after he burned himself mixing things on th…
Are you saying that even with 1L it’s not possible?
Well, then the rule is even more stupid than I thought =)