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

Terminal Cornucopia

terminalcornucopia.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 109 posts

Re: Terminal Cornucopia

#91

Post by silencio »

altrego99 wrote: post #85
Amadou wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least they didn't make you drink your own breast milk. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-08-08-breast...

Interesting. The woman already had the milk bottled. What's the harm in drinking some of it to prove that it isn't any dangerous compound? I thought liquids from outside weren't allowed in the planes, ideally they shouldn't have allowed her in with it at all, though, but that's a different point. > did she fail to see the connection to stopping terrorism The connection is that she could have been a terrorist, and a c…

Why is making her drink breast milk incredibly stupid? Because TSA already have equipment to test liquids for explosives without having passengers sample their own liquids.

Not to mention, breast milk has always been counted as medication, although the rule to not make passengers sample their own liquid is probably new since that incident.

Liquids from outside are allowed on planes depending on how you bring it in. My dad travels with juice/gel exceeding 3oz (with a note from his doctor). I've gotten a Costco-sized bottle of contact lens solution past TSA (so if you want to know how to sneak in some vodka...) One winter I was traveling a couple times a month with some terrible bronchitis+sinusitis issues and I had a gallon sized bag full of cough syrups and inhalers. Whatever. The only two things I remember TSA specifically tested from my bags from, at this point, hundreds of flights, is one mega sized bottle of purple drank (if you split liquid meds into a bunch of smaller but still bigger than 3oz bottles they don't seem to care) and one bottle of shampoo.

Banning people from bringing liquids on board and halfheartedly enforcing the 3oz rule when they can be circumvented so easily even with TSA approval (see TSA precheck!) is so incredibly dumb it baffles my mind.

Oooh ooh bonus points: I put something like 10 quarts worth of homemade jam in my checked luggage on one flight and TSA didn't even look at them (and good thing too, because they were all canned and I would have flipped out if the seals were broken). I wonder what you could do with 10 quarts worth of jam-consistency material in a bag. BTW hey TSA I'm not a terrorist, just someone that doesn't like you very much for making me deal with those terrible massages every time I try to get on a flight.

Re: Terminal Cornucopia

#92

Post by christianmann »

silencio wrote: post #91
altrego99 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting. The woman already had the milk bottled. What's the harm in drinking some of it to prove that it isn't any dangerous compound? I thought liquids from outside weren't allowed in the planes, ideally they shouldn't have allowed her in with it at all, though, but that's a different point. > did she fail to see the connection to stopping terrorism The connection is that she could have been a terrorist, and a c…

Why is making her drink breast milk incredibly stupid? Because TSA already have equipment to test liquids for explosives without having passengers sample their own liquids. Not to mention, breast milk has always been counted as medication, although the rule to not make passengers sample their own liquid is probably new since that incident. Liquids from outside are allowed on planes depending on how you bring it in. M…

> so if you want to know how to sneak in some vodka...

You can just take it in <100ml bottles inside a quart bag. Although you might get in trouble if it's labeled as alcohol.

Re: Terminal Cornucopia

#94

Post by hkmurakami »

D9u wrote: post #44
daniel-cussen wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Onto any aircraft?

My experience is that many Private Aircraft terminals, such as private jets, private helicopters, etc, don't screen passengers, or their luggage, the way the public is searched in "Commercial Aircraft" pre-flight screening. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/01/private-... http://www.generalaviationnews.com/2011/01/is-ga-a-menace/ The above links discuss the matter further.

This is correct. An exec at a large firm mentioned (who was speaking at a recruiting event) this lack of screening proudly as a "great perk" of flying on the corporate jet between their offices.

Re: Terminal Cornucopia

#95

Post by pavel_lishin »

vanderZwan wrote: post #87
treefort wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's actually sitting right here beside my desk. completely functional. ;)

So I was wondering, did you ever watch the two Russian "Brat" movies? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kk3Gey9SCWQ

I want to watch both of these, but my Russian language (and more importantly, slang) is so poor that I'm afraid I'd miss a lot of it :/

Re: Terminal Cornucopia

#96

Post by pavel_lishin »

josephlord wrote: post #79
malandrew wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taking over a plane with box cutters was mostly show as well. It only worked in 2001 because people went along with terrorist theater. If any would be terrorists tried the same tactic from 2001 today they would be mauled in the cockpit. Prior to 2001, passengers assumed they would be hostages and would come out unharmed if they cooperate. Now they assume they are potential collateral damage. That's a huge difference.…

> If any would be terrorists tried the same tactic from 2001 today they would be mauled in the cockpit. Prior to 2001, passengers assumed they would be hostages and would come out unharmed if they cooperate. Now they assume they are potential collateral damage. That's a huge difference. How good are the new secure cockpit doors? If responsible for securing planes I would be worried about a surprise attack getting thr…

If I remember correctly, the doors are closed and locked long before the plane even taxis out onto the runway.

There isn't much you can do with a plane on the ground, and the chances of taking off in one in a post-9/11 world is basically zero.

Re: Terminal Cornucopia

#97

Post by cstejerean »

josephlord wrote: post #79
malandrew wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taking over a plane with box cutters was mostly show as well. It only worked in 2001 because people went along with terrorist theater. If any would be terrorists tried the same tactic from 2001 today they would be mauled in the cockpit. Prior to 2001, passengers assumed they would be hostages and would come out unharmed if they cooperate. Now they assume they are potential collateral damage. That's a huge difference.…

> If any would be terrorists tried the same tactic from 2001 today they would be mauled in the cockpit. Prior to 2001, passengers assumed they would be hostages and would come out unharmed if they cooperate. Now they assume they are potential collateral damage. That's a huge difference. How good are the new secure cockpit doors? If responsible for securing planes I would be worried about a surprise attack getting thr…

That would be hard to pull off. The cockpit door is rarely open during flight, and when the cockpit door needs to open, the flight attendants barricade the front of the plane using the food service carts locked diagonally across the isle. The door itself is only open for a few seconds, and the barrier is enough to shut it quickly if anyone even attempts to move towards the front.

Re: Terminal Cornucopia

#98

Post by scintill76 »

joshdance wrote: post #18

I don't know how effective any of these techniques would be to a terrorist, however cool and ingeniously constructed the weapons were. The whole security TSA thing is mostly a show anyways.

True, but it only underscores the point that confiscating, e.g., nail clippers* is stupid when one can build _grenades_ in the airport. Sure, maybe you still can't take down a plane or kill a lot of people with a "fraggucino", but you can do a lot more damage than you can with nail clippers!

*Edit: Nail clippers may be permitted now. This point may still apply to scissors greater than 4 inches in length, or screwdrivers greater than 7 inches. http://www.tsa.gov/traveler-information/prohibited-items

Re: Terminal Cornucopia

#99

Post by darklajid »

x0054 wrote: post #74

Forget about AA batteries, think about all the laptop batteries. All you need is 4-5 laptop batteries, and you can have a serious bomb going. And how easy would it be to carry that into the airport? Take 2 laptops with you, 2 backups, a cell phone, 3 backup batteries. No one will even blink an eye.

You're late: http://xkcd.com/651/

Re: Terminal Cornucopia

#100

Post by mikeash »

altrego99 wrote: post #85
Amadou wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least they didn't make you drink your own breast milk. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-08-08-breast...

Interesting. The woman already had the milk bottled. What's the harm in drinking some of it to prove that it isn't any dangerous compound? I thought liquids from outside weren't allowed in the planes, ideally they shouldn't have allowed her in with it at all, though, but that's a different point. > did she fail to see the connection to stopping terrorism The connection is that she could have been a terrorist, and a c…

Maybe she, like many of us, simply did not see a point to "stopping terrorism" through airport security checkpoints. All they achieve is inconveniencing passengers and creating extremely attractive targets by concentrating large numbers of civilians.
Post reply on HN