Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

791–800 of 839 posts

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#791

Post by fc417fc802 »

mrguyorama wrote: post #776
fc417fc802 wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not in the context of someone smuggling a weapon through a security checkpoint. At least not unless they're certain that it's small enough not to trigger the detector. That said I will note that it is generally illegal to possess such nonferrous weapons regardless of circumstance.

And it is, again, completely irrelevant. How does a plastic pistol open the cockpit door? It is proof to small calibers. You might shoot someone in the plane and then you will be subdued and ghaddafied with a SkyMall magazine. Not the most effective form of terrorism. Countries that didn't create the TSA also had a reduction in terrorism.

I agree. Such a pistol won't even get you many shots before catastrophically failing.

But upthread it was suggested that metal detectors are sufficient to stop weapons and a discussion of 3D printed guns followed. Nonmetallic weapons (and other tools) of all sorts are possible, 3D printed or otherwise.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#792

Post by WalterBright »

Zak wrote: post #766
WalterBright wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Airliners are also pretty robust against damage. Although they are not designed to resist explosions, everything is redundant. This robustness is why fighters in WW2 used cannons for guns. Poking a hole in the side won't do anything.

The USA mostly used .50 caliber machine guns, usually with a mix of ammunition including incendiary bullets so that a hole in a fuel tank meant a large fire. Fighters from the other major combatants usually had 20mm autocannons in addition to smaller machine guns.

Allied fighters were also equipped with self-sealing fuel tanks, so a hit doesn't automatically mean it burns. I don't have any stats on it, but they wouldn't have added the self-sealing if it didn't improve the survivability.

The sensitive part for a P-51 was the cooling system. Any hit on that, and you're done.

B-17s famously endured a lot of battle damage. The usual vector of attack on them was head on, and they aimed for the cockpit. (Attacks on fighters usually aimed for the cockpit, too.)

I know that tracers were used in WW1 to set observation balloons (filled with hydrogen) afire. Tracers in WW2 were used so the gunner could direct his aim. I haven't read that they were intended for the fuel tanks, but that could be true.

109's would frequently sneak up from the rear, and if the tail gunner was not paying attention, it was an easy kill. My dad (B17 navigator) said the tail gunners, once they spotted a 109, would fire a few rounds of tracers long before the 109 was in range - just to let the pilot know they were awake and aware. It usually meant the 109 would veer off.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#793

Post by WalterBright »

krisoft wrote: post #715
WalterBright wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same reason used for WA emissions inspections (since suspended). If your tailpipe emitted 99ppm of pollutants, you were good to go. If it emitted 100ppm, you had to get it fixed. Good ole step functions.

I don't get your point about the tailpipe emissions. Of course there is a hard cutoff. What else could there be? Do you want them to gently suggest that you should maybe fix your car above 90ppm, and then rudely suggest from 95ppm? The response they can do is that they either let you use the car or not let you use the car. That is binary. Technically they cannot even do that. All they can do is promise you that if yo…

> What else could there be?

Charge a fee based on the number of ppm's your car emits:

    tax * ppm = fee to renew your tags
Even better would be to look at the odometer reading each year:

    tax * ppm * miles driven last year = fee to renew your tags

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#794

Post by WalterBright »

ghaff wrote: post #649
graemep wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I know if a car I'm in is driving safely. I can ask the driver to calm down or let me off. Do you know that all the other cars on the road that might hit yours are being driven safely? How do you feel about busses and trains? > And have you thought about airplane landing? It's insane. This big clunky metal bird full of literal jet fuel coming in at like 400kmh or whatever, bouncing around on the tarmac as it's desp…

A lot of people (here and elsewhere) don't get how many people are just terrified of flying. I was on a flight many years ago (on admittedly a pretty rough transatlantic flight) when the woman next to me was basically in tears and grabbing my arm. Personally, I don't love being bounced around in a plane but I'm reasonably confident that wings aren't coming off the Boeing jet--whatever the company's other faults. I'm…

I was afraid of flying until I worked at Boeing and acquired an intimate knowledge about how safe they were.

My lead told me they can fix everything but the nut behind the wheel.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#795

Post by ch4s3 »

cyberax wrote: post #716
ch4s3 wrote: post #534

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I could dump loads of academic research on you about this topic, but it seems like you’re unwilling to engage.

I read most of the research on this topic. And it's all basically "overdiagnosing". We had the same story about prostate cancer screening: "overdiagnosing", "people die with prostate cancer but not of prostate cancer", blah blah blah. It turned out that simply adjusting the aggressiveness of follow-up was enough to make prostate cancer result in significantly fewer deaths. From my point of view: MRI is the ONLY tool…

Sure but you have to scale that prostate intervention change across literally everything in every kind of internal medicine. There's just no way to justify the cost of doing this regularly for most people.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#796

Post by cyberax »

ch4s3 wrote: post #795
cyberax wrote: post #716

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read most of the research on this topic. And it's all basically "overdiagnosing". We had the same story about prostate cancer screening: "overdiagnosing", "people die with prostate cancer but not of prostate cancer", blah blah blah. It turned out that simply adjusting the aggressiveness of follow-up was enough to make prostate cancer result in significantly fewer deaths. From my point of view: MRI is the ONLY tool…

Sure but you have to scale that prostate intervention change across literally everything in every kind of internal medicine. There's just no way to justify the cost of doing this regularly for most people.

Just imagine the same argument, but for bloodwork. You're literally saying: "We didn't have to deal with these pesky MRIs before, so go away".

We will need some additional radiologist training, and the primary care doctors will need to learn when to escalate and/or require followup scans. But that's really about it.

MRIs are _cheap_ these days. The true cost of a scan is around $1000, including the radiologist's reading. They don't have to be reserved as a tool of the last resort.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#797

Post by Zak »

WalterBright wrote: post #792
Zak wrote: post #766

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The USA mostly used .50 caliber machine guns, usually with a mix of ammunition including incendiary bullets so that a hole in a fuel tank meant a large fire. Fighters from the other major combatants usually had 20mm autocannons in addition to smaller machine guns.

Allied fighters were also equipped with self-sealing fuel tanks, so a hit doesn't automatically mean it burns. I don't have any stats on it, but they wouldn't have added the self-sealing if it didn't improve the survivability. The sensitive part for a P-51 was the cooling system. Any hit on that, and you're done. B-17s famously endured a lot of battle damage. The usual vector of attack on them was head on, and they a…

Incendiary ammunition is distinct from tracer, though some projectiles have both functions, and tracers have a chance of causing a fire. Incendiary projectiles usually ignite or explode after impact.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incendiary_ammunition

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#798

Post by SapporoChris »

jonhohle wrote: post #678
SapporoChris wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the 90's USA was sensible. I was flying with a thermos of hot coffee in my carry on. As soon as they took out the thermos and felt the heat radiating from the lid the agent said, "I don't think they would heat it", smiled and passed me thru. Now when I fly I have to be careful. When they ask purpose of visit I say sightseeing. I used to say tourist, but with my accent that once caused alarm when the agent thought…

There were no liquids rules in the 90s.

Correct, that is why I was able to fly with a thermos of coffee. However, they did screen carry on items.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#799

Post by ch4s3 »

cyberax wrote: post #796
ch4s3 wrote: post #795

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure but you have to scale that prostate intervention change across literally everything in every kind of internal medicine. There's just no way to justify the cost of doing this regularly for most people.

Just imagine the same argument, but for bloodwork. You're literally saying: "We didn't have to deal with these pesky MRIs before, so go away". We will need some additional radiologist training, and the primary care doctors will need to learn when to escalate and/or require followup scans. But that's really about it. MRIs are _cheap_ these days. The true cost of a scan is around $1000, including the radiologist's read…

I can make the same argument. Functional “medicine” quacks order loads of unnecessary blood tests with no diagnostic power to sell you supplements. I actually know someone who was was injured by one of those “supplements” after such a blood test.

No I’m saying for most people there’s more noise than signal and iatrogenesis is real. Pretending it’s not is foolish.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#800

Post by ares623 »

alistairSH wrote: post #661
Waterluvian wrote: post #617

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sounds like my experiences in Toronto. It’s less adversarial than the experiences I've had in the U.S. My experiences were basically a form of, “Hey we saw something that caught our attention and might be an issue. Let's work through addressing this." One case it was a handful of 3.5" galvanized nails. "Whoops. Okay, so, this bag used to be my makeshift toolbag. My other one ripped and I had to get one last minu…

Meanwhile, the TSA looks at me like I'm, at best an annoyance, and at worst a criminal, when I ask them to inspect my camera kit manually (film, not digital). And that inspection consists of swabbing 35mm film canisters - like, the shell of a 35mm roll is going to tell them anything useful?!?! It's a complete sham.

I think for film specifically it might be for drugs? Seems like a very convenient way to smuggle contraband. You can’t open it to inspect it, you can’t xray it either otherwise it will ruin the film.
Post reply on HN