var json_comments = new Array("
\"user-pic\"
Miraluka
December 27, 2009 7:57 PM
Moderate | Flag for review

Are these rules just for international flights coming IN to the US?

[Disclaimer] I didn't read any of the appended links because I'm lazy.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
supercereal
December 27, 2009 8:11 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

From what I can gather, yes -- it's only for in-bound international flights. The TSA is woefully ass-backwards and purely reactionary. Instead of being intelligent, proactive, and helpful, all they apparently can do is ban/check for things that a single person tried and failed at using maliciously.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Rachacha
December 27, 2009 9:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

So what happens when a terrorist tries to make explosive pants/shirt ala Mythbusters http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MythBusters_(2006_season)#Exploding_Pants will they ban all clothing on a flight and require all travelers to go nude?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
hoofoot
December 28, 2009 1:57 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

It's only a matter of time before we're forced to change into special flight uniforms at the airport and leave our clothing in checked baggage. And God help you if the airline loses your luggage...

Reply
\"user-pic\"
gStein_*|bringing starpipe back|*
December 28, 2009 12:02 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

i thought southwest already made their flights clothing-optional (or was southwest the one that instituted the \"no slutty clothing\" rule?)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Aresef
December 28, 2009 1:26 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I believe that was actually Hooters Air that made clothing optional.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
kateblack
December 28, 2009 8:00 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Hooters Air actually mandated that passengers wear 2 pairs of control top pantyhose, booty shorts and a push-up bra.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mianne
December 28, 2009 8:57 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I bet the male passengers (IE probably 98% of Hooters Air customers) really appreciate that.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
kateblack
December 28, 2009 10:34 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

While many men do enjoy crossdressing, but I doubt it's that high of a percentage.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
TCama
December 27, 2009 9:02 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Examples: shoes, conventional bomb materials, metals, liquids, Arab-sounding names ...

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!)
December 27, 2009 7:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Yeah, that electronic ban will last two weeks, tops, as business travellers having to check laptops revolt.

Reply
8 replies
\"user-pic\"
G99
December 28, 2009 8:19 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

That and international tourists. It will last even less time once the CVB's of the big tourist towns start talking to their politicians about how the new bans are hurting their business.

The electronics are screened already. How about for the time being just prevent people from using them for the last hour?

And on the potty breaks? Better hope they don't have a pregnant woman or baby on board. One of them will have to go during that very long period and I doubt any airline wants to clean up that kind of mess.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Sumtron5000
December 28, 2009 8:12 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Not to mention the fact that many of the laptops will \"mysteriously disappear.\" I would be PISSED if I had to check something that expensive.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
jesusofcool
December 28, 2009 11:30 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Absolutely. I would never ever check my laptop or my camera.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
redrolla
December 28, 2009 7:22 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Completely agree. I've seen what a checked laptop (sales people who didn't follow company policy) looks like and it's not pretty. I'd FedEx it long before I'd let an airline put my laptop in the cargo hold.

These rules show just how stupid the TSA is.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
silver-spork
December 28, 2009 10:04 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I'd avoid international FedEx. They've \"inspected\" (i.e. completely destroyed) the laptops of a couple of my coworkers.

If this rule stays intact, the vast majority of international travel to/from the U.S. at my company will cease.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
redrolla
December 28, 2009 12:20 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I may have to travel internationally next month for work. If the pat-down & laptop rules are still there, I will refuse and can see many of my co-workers doing the same.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Aresef
December 27, 2009 10:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Also, trans-pacific passengers. Unless the in-flight system is balls-to-the-wall awesome, good luck prying my iPod from my cold, dead terrorist fingers.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
jamar0303
December 28, 2009 10:15 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Some airlines like UA are apparently disabling their inflight entertainment because of the flight-tracking feature in response to another new TSA rule. So none of that either. Air Canada is about to see a heck of a lot more business as people transit through Canada instead.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Shadowfire
December 27, 2009 8:08 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

And as claims for damaged laptops shoot through the roof...

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
chatnoir80
December 27, 2009 8:02 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Is the last hour of the flight the golden hour for terrorist?

Reply
5 replies
\"user-pic\"
gStein_*|bringing starpipe back|*
December 27, 2009 11:59 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

on 9/11, the flights were hijacked relatively early on in the flight (earlier = less fuel burned = more fuel = maximum carnage)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
TouchMyMonkey
December 28, 2009 10:01 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

And before the plane leaves the continent from which it took off. They want wreckage somewhere on land where people can see it. They don't want the aircraft to just disappear in the middle of the ocean. It's less dramatic that way.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
RandomHookup
December 28, 2009 4:25 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Yet others have theorized that having the planes disappear over the ocean leaves little evidence and no chance to determine the cause/culprit.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
TCama
December 27, 2009 9:04 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The TSA only tries to stop security breaches that have happened before, not to prevent any from happening in the future. If a terrorist tries to attack during the middle half-hour of a flight, there will be restrictions on what passengers can do during the middle half-hour of flights.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ophmarketing
December 27, 2009 8:22 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Nope. That just happened to be when the last guy tried it. Apparently, terrorists will be unable to simply do whatever it is they were going to do 90 minutes before the flight lands.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
SG-Cleve
December 27, 2009 9:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

There have been three attempts. All have waited until the international flight was over U.S. territory. They want the explosion and crash to happen here because they want to show that they can get us \"at home\".

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ktetch
December 28, 2009 8:13 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

They don't need to 'get us at home' - the TSA has a monopoly on terrorism at home

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Raketkirurg
December 27, 2009 10:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Oh, the \"getting\" has already been accomplished.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
zigziggityzoo
December 27, 2009 8:02 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

If I have to check my laptop/Digital SLR, I won't fly. They treat my clothes bad enough.

Reply
6 replies
\"user-pic\"
rockasocky
December 28, 2009 10:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I was getting upset about the electronics thing because I'm flying into the US tomorrow. But after looking around at the available information, it looks like you just can't USE your electronics in the cabin. Or, at least, it seems to vary depending on the airlines and which country you're coming from.

That being said, I will be very pissed off if I have to check in my computers and various electronic gadgets.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
DoubleEcho
December 28, 2009 11:56 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Oh, I would LOVE for them to \"lose\" my laptop. I'd CompuTrace that sonofabitch, and the next time it hits the Internet I'd get to listen to the TSA agent's explanation of why my laptop was found by the police in his living room.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
kateblack
December 27, 2009 8:13 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Oh, they wouldn't treat your laptop badly. The TSA employees couldn't get a good resale value on your electronics if they roughed them up.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Con Seanne-BZZZZZZZZZZZZ
December 27, 2009 8:13 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Hard-sided mortar shell box, heavy duty key lock like you would use in a storage facility. Toss in a gun and you're good to go!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
IphtashuFitz
December 27, 2009 10:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Only problem with that is that the lock has to be TSA approved so that they can unlock it with one of their master keys. If you use a non-TSA-approved lock it means you're a terrorist and hiding something dangerous in your luggage so they'll be sure to break it open with a sledgehammer and remove anything incriminating and keep the rest for themselves.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
fs2k2isfun
December 27, 2009 11:17 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Actually, when traveling with a gun, you are required to NOT use a TSA approved lock. I traveled with my gun for the first time this weekend, and it only delayed me about 60 seconds at each check in. I had to watch as the TSA screed my bag, they unlocked it with me standing there, inspected the form I had to fill out (signature, date, and flight number(s)) locked it, gave me my keys, and that was that.

Henceforth, whenever I have to check a bag, my gun will be in it.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
December 28, 2009 1:00 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

A starter pistol has the same effect, without any worries of complications, FYI.
(Not that guns aren't fine in these situations, but sometimes you don't want the burden of responsibility that carting around a gun brings)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
FooSchnickens - Full of SCAR
December 27, 2009 8:29 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Hell, I bring all my camera equipment in a small pelican roller onto the plane with me, I'm not about to trust it to those cretins underneath the airport regardless of how well it's packed in there.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Myotheralt
December 27, 2009 10:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

If you pack a gun, even a little starter cap pistol, it must be declared. The benefit of this it that your bag would be inspected immediately and then sealed in your presence. If that seal is broken, then you have a pretty damn good claim with TSA and the baggage crew.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Inglix_the_Mad
December 28, 2009 2:14 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Someone stole my friend's weapon in transit. Bad choice, he's a fed (without the ability to carry live onto a plane) and did they have some fun with that. You do NOT steal a federal agent's (any federal agency) weapon because they will go through hell (or more appropriately send every baggage handler that might have been within sneezing distance through hell) and it's not all that different for civilian firearms. Illegal weapons are a big deal, even more so if they go missing at an airport. You don't want to know the screen / handle crew went through until they found the party.

How would you like to have 50 Feds sifting through your life bit by bit? Me either.

As far as this goes, what about parents with a ripe baby? I don't think anyone, even the flight crew, wants to hear an infant screaming for an hour OR smelling that either.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
kateblack
December 28, 2009 8:06 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I think if you're packing a ripe baby, you have to use a TSA approved lock.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
December 27, 2009 8:06 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Since the gentleman in question strode on the airplane wearing underwear apparently made of the same material that makes safety matches go FOOOM!, shouldn't we all instead be instructed by the TSA to go commando?
This humble traveller says: \"Give me back my laptop. Keep my underwear!\"

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Norsehawk
December 28, 2009 12:37 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

No, they will just have you change into a TSA approved smock for your flight. At the end of your flight, you might even be lucky enough to be reunited with your underwear if you are lucky. And don't worry, they squirt them with windex every few (hundred) flights to keep them nice and fresh!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
fpage77
December 27, 2009 9:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

They'll say you have to show up in your birthday suit next and then arrest your for indecent exposure.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Hakib
December 27, 2009 8:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Treat the symptom, not the sickness.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Dutchess
December 27, 2009 8:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

This is F**KING insane. No Electronics IN the plan on a return flight to the US.

So I have to sit there for 10 hours without an iPod or portable DVD player etc?

Jesus Christ on the Cross are you kidding me?

Reply
7 replies
\"user-pic\"
joshuadavis
December 27, 2009 8:16 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Such a big problem considering the printing has not yet been invented and you absolutely can not read printed words.

While I understand your annoyance at not being able to use electronics, you'd probably be the first person whining if someone blew up their laptop.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Rhizobium
December 28, 2009 8:22 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

From what has been in the news, many flights into the US require you to not have any personal possessions in your lap for the last hour in the air. Wouldn't that include reading material, crossword puzzles, and other non-electronic entertainment, too?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
FaustianSlip
December 27, 2009 10:51 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

It's not the lack of anything else to do that worries me so much as the prospect of checking my laptop, dSLR, Nintendo DS and other electronics on, say, a thirteen-hour flight to Osaka. Just because you can't use them on the plane doesn't mean you won't need them at your destination, and the idea of letting my various electronics be hurled around (and potentially stolen) by TSA and airline employees is just... no. There's no way they're going to make this stick for any length of time; reports of stolen and broken electronics are going to skyrocket, and good luck explaining to business travelers why all of this is such a good idea.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
sonneillon
December 28, 2009 12:59 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Aren't business travelers a huge part of the airlines profit because they often go last minute and go business or first class? This seems like TSA is putting themselves in a precarious position because the main people who will be annoyed are the ones with the money and influence to get changes made.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
harrier666
December 28, 2009 2:12 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

The business people will still go. They have to. Vacationing public can change plans. And it isn't as if only one airline is instituting new rules. What is going to happen is that more of those on the fringe of being able to afford private jet travel will go that route. At my non-airline-pilot weekend job we are fielding a lot of calls about the price of this kind of travel. Of course, when they are quoted in the 20-30,000's that 13 hours without a laptop for only a grand sounds a bit better.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
sonneillon
December 28, 2009 2:58 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

That was not the point I was making. The point I was making is that the people with the money have influence. Nobody gives a crap about the rights of passengers flying coach. They would have us in hospital scrubs and caged like cattle if they thought they could. Now the super wealthy have their own jets, but influential business people do not and they are the ones you gotta avoid annoying because they are the ones who have house reps and senators on their facebook friends.

Although after reading the TSA site it seems the rules are the last hour of international flights coming to the United States.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
catastrophegirl chooses not to fly
December 27, 2009 8:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

i love to read. i read a lot. i also read fast. i'm on my third book today. a ten hour international flight with only printed reading material or the choice of movies selected for me by the airline [if it's even working/an option] would drive me pretty batty

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Seanumich
December 27, 2009 8:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Maybe for you reading is an option, but I get massive headaches trying to read in anything moving, including a plane, a car or a train. If you want to stop airline terrorism, i could stop it 100 per cent tomorrow. Shut down every airport and airline. Now we are safe from terrorists? Wait... whats that you say, they blew up a train in Madrid. Oh shit, never mind.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
jesusofcool
December 28, 2009 11:35 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Agreed. I love to read but I get terrible nausea if I try to read in confined moving spaces. I have to be trying to look out the window.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
kateblack
December 27, 2009 8:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I LOVE books, but books cannot drown out the sound of an infant screaming next to you.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mianne
December 27, 2009 9:24 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

How well does your car handle on the Atlantic Ocean?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Coles_Law
December 27, 2009 10:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Quite well, but the wipers can't keep up. :)

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
ReverendBrown
December 27, 2009 8:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I was considering taking a flight for a trip in the coming year, but eh, I think I'll just drive for fourteen hours. I'll probably arrive sooner than the plane anyhow.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
solipsistnation
December 28, 2009 11:44 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

And you can pee during the last hour of the trip.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Grrrrrrr, now with two buns made of bacon.
December 27, 2009 8:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Okay, so I just sat through three hours of a four-hour flight computerless, bored out of my skull, and now that extra-grande mocha latte and the two diet Cokes are finally catching up to me somewhere over Chicago. What am I supposed to do? Pee my pants? Seriously?

What are you supposed to do if you can't hold it? Will the aircraft monogrammed bed-pan replace the barf bag?

Reply
8 replies
\"user-pic\"
oneandone
December 29, 2009 10:37 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Restrictions on moving around the cabin 45 min before landing are already standard on flights going into Israel. Not sure when it started, but at least since Feb 2009. All airlines flying into the country (not just El Al) seem pretty serious about enforcing it. I'm not sure what prompted it, but they've been doing it for a while.

They make announcements at the beginning, middle, and near the end of the flight about it - kind of a 'last call'. OTOH, there was an elderly woman next to me who got up to go to the bathroom quite a bit after the last call, and no one tackled her. It's not clear exactly what they're looking for.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
The Cynical Librarian
December 28, 2009 11:48 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Does anyone know what the TSA's policy on public urination is?
Doesn't exist? It will soon.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
kalaratri
December 28, 2009 7:42 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Seriously, they can just go ahead and try to prevent my pregnant ass from using the bathroom.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
EdnaLegume
December 27, 2009 8:30 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I'm only speculating, but I would imagine you'd go before the last hour of the flight... I don't know about your bladder, but mine gives me some heads up on the fluid level and comfort zone I'm in.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Lorelei714
December 28, 2009 4:36 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Easy to say ... you're not diabetic and sometimes have to go every 30 min.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Grrrrrrr, now with two buns made of bacon.
December 28, 2009 12:32 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Except I'm on a diuretics for high blood pressure. I also have IBS, which tends to flare up when I'm stressed and anxious...like say..when I'm on an airplane.

Trust me, this is *not* a winning combination and it will keep me from being able to fly.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
AngryK9
December 27, 2009 10:54 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I guess it's nice to not have medical conditions...

Reply
\"user-pic\"
heldc
December 27, 2009 9:42 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

If I drank a bunch of liquid in a relatively short period of time (half an hour or so) I sometimes go from 'I don't need no stinking bathroom' to 'get out of my way or clean smelly liquid off the floor' in 5 to 15 minutes. I'm with the previous commenter. What are they going to do for those who absolutely can't hold it? Arrest them?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
kateblack
December 28, 2009 8:18 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

This. It's also easy to avoid emergencies when you're on your own schedule, eating and drinking from familiar sources. Eating strange new foods (like when you're travelling) can change things.

I carry a bottle of water with me everywhere, but since that's not allowed on a plane, I'm likely to buy one past the gate, chug it and then the inevitable happens...

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Paladin_11
December 27, 2009 11:20 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Send chaperones with you. A new duty the flight attendants and your fellow passengers will love.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Grrrrrrr, now with two buns made of bacon.
December 28, 2009 12:37 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I say, appoint a TSA member to each flight as a \"lavatory escort.\" They can do double duty by making sure you're not making the exploding kind of boom-boom when your supposed to be just making the other kind of boom-boom. Plus, when you're finished, they can search your...um....\"leavings\" to make sure you didn't smuggle explosives aboard in your colon. I mean, hey, after all, they like to search peoples personal things so much, and it doesn't get much more personal than that.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
zigziggityzoo
December 27, 2009 8:15 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

We seriously should just go all in here. TSA-Approved G-Strings and Pasties. No more messing around. In addition to the standard wanding, pat down, and metal-detector, add a Squat & Cough to the procedure list.

Once on board the plane, just do what comes naturally.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Seanumich
December 27, 2009 8:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Well if you watch the NFL, all men over 4o gotta go gotta go gotta go right now. This mat help flomax sales

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Ihaveasmartpuppy
December 27, 2009 8:16 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

As someone who lives directly under the flight path of the jet that could have blown up on Christmas day (exactly when it would have blown), I say either stop flying or fly naked with nothing. I'm a bit freaked out. And I hate flying anyway.

Reply
12 replies
\"user-pic\"
trujunglist
December 28, 2009 2:26 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

you'll be fine, my friend. the chances of you dying from a plane crash, let alone a plane hitting you because it crashed, is nearly impossible. the chance that you'll die of a heart condition or a car accident? much more likely! have you ever flown into San Diego? now there's something to worry about!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
kalaratri
December 28, 2009 7:52 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Cry me a river. I lived about 3 miles from the Pentagon (and thus not that far from Reagan International either) for 3 years after September 11th. You know, one of the places that actually was attacked? I grew up on Long Island and some of my friends' parents did not come home on 9/11/01. I refuse to live in fear, otherwise I'm giving the terrorists what they want.

Shit can happen at any time and you are far more likely to suffer from a mundane accident in your own home than from a terrorist attack.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
LastError
December 28, 2009 5:32 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I work near a major airport. One of the main runway flightpaths is right over my office. On landings, the planes go over so low I can see the passengers in the windows. They aren't so close on takeoffs but still right over the building.

This is kind of neat when I fly in or out and go right over where I work. But I digress.

The point is that all it would take to wipe out my office is one pilot twitching on landing. One slip of the wheel and that plane is into my building and there'd be no survivors. Hundreds of planes go over my building every day, one every 30 seconds or so. It usually scares the crap out of new hires but they get used to it because the rest of us take it in stride. We don't panic. We don't cower in fear every time we hear a jet go over. We carry on. We do our jobs.

Why? Because if one were to ever crash into our building, none of us would hear it. We'd all be dead instantly. So there's no point in worrying about it.

The religious people in the office are also of the opinion that God already knows when someone is going to die so it's predetermined, and thus not worth worrying about.

Me? I look at the planes and try to tell which kind they are. Or just by the sound. It's fun. And of course, I wave at the passengers. Maybe it freaks them out to have someone on the ground waving. Dunno.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Dracoster
December 28, 2009 2:16 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

You do realize that when a plane blows up, it doesn't just stop and fall down? It actually continues forward in an arc. Stop watching cartoons and go work on your basic physics, and let the rest of us have our inflight entertainment.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Ihaveasmartpuppy
December 28, 2009 8:13 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Really? It doesn't just fall out of the sky onto my house? Thank you for enlightening me. Yes, I know basic physics.

Honestly, there are a lot of people crying here about not being able to use electronics in flight...what on earth did people do before there were ipods and netbooks? They survived just fine, and maybe even better off for it. I'll say it too, cry me a river.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
jamar0303
December 28, 2009 10:41 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

You apparently missed the \"nothing on your lap\" bit.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
chowder
December 28, 2009 9:22 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Before iPods they used CD players, before that Walk-man tape and before that they used an abacus for entertainment...that is until the Federal Government realized the abacus could be used as a deadly weapon.

I wonder if they make Chuck Norris check himself in as baggage....makes ya think...doesn't it...

Reply
\"user-pic\"
darklighter
December 27, 2009 9:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

It's people like you that give us stupid TSA regulations that waste taxpayer money, inconvenience travelers, and do nothing to increase security. I don't care if you feel safe; I care about being safe, and meaningless security theater like this doesn't accomplish that.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mianne
December 28, 2009 9:16 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

After all, this was a man who was recently added onto a terrorism watch list, who had obtained PETN (something you don't simply purchase at the local drug store) and went through security screening presumably both in Lagos and Amsterdam, yet while my wheelchair bound husband gets the \"puffer test\" for explosives EVERY time get goes through airport security, no red flags were raised here? So that man attempts to set off his explosives, and is tackled by passengers jumping out of their seats, in much the same way as they did against the infamous \"shoe bomber.\"

So our intelligence system and security screening both failed, yet the passengers succeeded yet again, having learned the PROPER lessons from 9/11. So do we try to figure out how to speed up intelligence analysis? Find out how this man slipped explosives past security? Nooooo,. we impose even more ridiculous and draconian measures on the public at large who again are largely to thank for averted what could have been another tragedy.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
redrolla
December 28, 2009 12:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Don't forget that his father was so worried that he went to the US Embassy to warn us this guy may try some thing and no one looked into it. Vague details or not, when a father is so worried about what his son will do he goes to the embassy of another country, you look into it!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
failurate
December 28, 2009 2:22 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I can't find the article to link, but some official was quoted as saying something along the lines of they allow certain terrorist linked people to travel so that they can watch them, see where they go, who they meet, and.... what they do!
That might be the dumbest strategy I have ever heard. They need to quit playing Spy vs Spy and do their damn jobs.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Esquire99
December 27, 2009 10:28 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

+ 1. Security Theater is right; most of it is in place to make the stupid/ignorant/uninformed FEEL safe.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
duskglow
December 27, 2009 9:10 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I live directly under the flight path of John Wayne/Santa Ana airport. A plane came rumbling over about 30 seconds ago. So I feel that I am qualified in saying \"man up\".

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Aresef
December 27, 2009 10:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

What would John Wayne do, after all? He'd bust some heads right about now.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Seanumich
December 27, 2009 8:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

You have better odds of winning the lotto than that happening.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
dougp26364
December 27, 2009 8:18 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Nothing like the irrational knee jerk reaction of the TSA rather than thinking things through and preventing stupid stuff like this before it happens. These changes won't make us any more secure. They'll just make us all a little more uncomfortable.

As has been said before me, if I have to check my expensive camera equipment and other electronics, you can write me off as an airline passenger. Looks like the terrorist will win should the feds allow them to bring down the airline industry even if they can't bring down an airliner.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
BridgetPentheus
December 28, 2009 12:38 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Will someone explain to the TS that making all these rules and regulations, scare people, make it a pain to fly and the 'TERRORISTS' WIN. The odds have always been you're more likely to die in a car accident than on a plane. So let's ban driving because what if a terrorist at a gas station puts a bomb in car as I'm crossing the GWB. Really it's ridiculous. I want to fly with my blanket (I freeze on planes and know that my laptop, camera and phone are securely with ME. Really do you want to say to the boss well the airline lost my luggage and since they wouldn't let me carry it on I can't do this million dollar presentation? Really give me back the 1980s when my dad would have to take out his knife when we went through security, got it back, my mom could bring enough food and snacks for me and on my own little kids suitcase I could put my own lock. Unfortunately (or really fortunately) we're moving to Europe and until they can invent a boat that can get you over in a day you're kind of stuck without a choice and they know it.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
yzerman
December 27, 2009 8:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I travel international for my job once or twice a year and this checking electronics on inbound flights into the US is going to piss ALOT of people off.

Even with in-flight entertainment, and long ass flights as it can be sometimes, the lack of iPods, Laptops, Crackberrys, iPhones, would drive people nuts. The time I want to pee or brush my teeth is about a hour before landing sometimes.

I just don't see this going well.

Don't they just have a chemical testing device that could get around all of this?

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
MSUHitman
December 28, 2009 11:34 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I was watching ABC News last night and an in-bound United flight from London into the US shut down the entire in-flight entertainment systems in the seats because they told the passengers, \"We can't let you use anything that has maps on it.\"

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
CaptZ
December 27, 2009 8:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The terrorist won long ago.......now they are laughing their collective asses off.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Noadi
December 27, 2009 8:28 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I had been planning a trip to Vegas in July. Unless these rules go away before them, I'm not going. I have a medical condition and if I can't use the bathroom when I need to go it's not possible for me to travel.

Not to mention the increased risk of DVT this rule will cause on very long flights. It could actually lead to deaths and for no good reason.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Wombatish
December 27, 2009 10:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Unless you live outside the US this is only International flights coming into the US atm. I heard it would be Domestic flights as well starting next year, but that's just chatter afaik

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Grrrrrrr, now with two buns made of bacon.
December 27, 2009 8:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Likewise, as I am the lucky recipient of IBS. Not to mention I'm on diuretics. No bathroom, no flying, no fooling!

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
bgeek
December 27, 2009 8:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Thank you government.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
339point4
December 27, 2009 8:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I don't even fly and the TSA's flight security rules still affect me: the tighter and more inconvenient they get, the more people take the train. The more people who take the train, the further in advance I need to book my Amtrak tickets.

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
PresidentBeeblebrox
December 27, 2009 8:44 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Amtrak's biggest problem right now is lack of capacity due to lack of equipment and heavy demand. They have a huge backlog of old coaches and sleepers to be renovated; some stimulus money has gone to doing so, but they can't renovate them fast enough.

We need to get serious about passenger rail in this country. The air traffic control system is breaking down, the airlines are a mess, and security screening is turning into a massive joke. Outside of the Northeast Corridor, our passenger rail system is pathetic. Amtrak does the best with what they have, but it could be so, so much better...

Reply
\"user-pic\"
INsano
December 28, 2009 4:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I was really hoping that Obama was going to take passenger rail on as a priority when he came in looking to create jobs. Think if we built out that system instead of pissing it away in Asia. We'd create massive amounts of jobs both entry-level and advanced, reduce dependency on foreign energy sources, clean up our air...

Then he gave the entire U.S. rail system 8 billion dollars in his stimulus plan. The Big Two auto companies that we bailed out got close to 50 billion.

Priorities noted.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
DoctorMD
December 28, 2009 3:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Wait we have trains? Not in the western US.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Coles_Law
December 27, 2009 10:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Even in the corridor, it's bad. Last time I rode the Lake Shore Limited, it was 6 hours late. My friend caught the next day's train, which was twenty-two hours late.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
silver-spork
December 28, 2009 10:10 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Lake Shore Limited shouldn't even bother to print a schedule. My favorite trip was a Syracuse to Chicago. Scheduled: 13 hours. Actual: 21 hours.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
FaustianSlip
December 27, 2009 11:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I believe you mean \"The Late for Sure Limited.\" Though I wouldn't classify that as a \"corridor\" train, given that it has to get to the East Coast from Chicago. It's a long haul, which is part of how it manages to accumulate such massive delays.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Smiley
December 27, 2009 8:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

This is a no win. This will force me to speak to the person next to me.

And the no getting up part - aren't there laws against that? Seriously if I have to \"go\" I wont' be \"allowed\" to? What if I have a permission slip and I raise my hand?

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!)
December 28, 2009 12:09 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

After 9/11 (and maybe still, I don't know), you couldn't go for the last 30 minutes or so coming into D.C., which is a relatively reasonable restriction, since D.C. is obviously a prime terror target and anything unusual within 30 flying minutes of the city is probably worrisome.

First, they warned you, something along the lines of, \"In 10 minutes we will be turning on the fasten seatbelt sign as we enter the restricted airspace around Washington D.C. At that time you will no longer be allowed to use the restroom.\" (and maybe not use electronics? I forget.)

If you did, in fact, really badly have to pee during that last 30 minutes, they would escort you, but they don't advertise it, and as far as I could tell, it was up to the judgment of the flight attendants whether or not they let you.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
jonworld
December 28, 2009 12:59 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Don't they usually turn on the fasten seatbelt sign about 30 minutes before landing anyway? So, it wouldn't really matter.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Aresef
December 27, 2009 10:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Reportedly, on one Korean Air flight, they could only go with a crew escort in the last hour. No joke.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Elphaba
December 28, 2009 12:42 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I once broke the stay in your seat rule while sitting on the tarmac waiting for a gate so we could get off. I REALLY had to go. I purposely went to the back of the plane bathroom, so no one could accuse me of charging the cockpit. The flight attendant told me I had to go back to my seat. I told him I had a medical condition (my bladder was bursting!) and if I went to my seat I would wet myself. As he didn't get up from his seat, I just went in the bathroom and relieved myself. He knocked the whole time telling me to get out. I finished and exited, and was directed to the back row and told to remain there. I did. I was greeted by LAX police who lectured me about obeying the flight crew. I told them I was being honest when I gave him the option of either using the toilet, or I would wet myself. They let me go.

All of this could have been avoided had a gate been available for us. We had been waiting for 45 minutes. Had I gotten off the plane when scheduled, this would not have been a problem.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
PresidentBeeblebrox
December 27, 2009 8:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Here we go again. Since the Shoe Bomber resulted in everyone having to take their shoes off for screening, will the Pants Bomber cause us to have to drop trou for the TSA?

This is complete bull. I've always preferred to drive or take Amtrak instead of flying whenever humanly possible; this simply confirms my choice. To get to anywhere within 750 miles from where I live on the East Coast, I'd rather pay more to take an Amtrak sleeper - I get to lie down flat to sleep, have a couple of great meals on the way, deal with non-surly staff (Amtrak's sleeper and diner staff are tops in my book), AND not have to deal with TSA madness.

Amtrak is not feasible for all trips, but at this point I'd rather hitchhike or walk than fly.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
David in Brasil
December 28, 2009 7:00 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Try getting a sleeper car in TX. I did once, and was so nasty, and such a bad experience, that I'd never try that again. Amtrak may be fine for those on the East Coast, but the rest of the US just pays for it without receiving any of the benefits.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
lishevita
December 28, 2009 5:14 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

You know, this makes me wonder if the terrorist handlers made him a \"pants bomber\" on purpose because of the hilarity of it. I mean, Bruce Schneier said ages ago that if the shoe bomber had been a pants bomber, the security regulations would have been different. Maybe they were sitting over there in Yemen giggling their heads off at the idea that they were going to win either way. Either they were going to blow up a plane or else they were going to get us to make ever more stupid security rules.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
LBD \"Nytetrayn\"
December 28, 2009 2:52 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Wait, you get a sleeper car on the East Coast? My wife and I go from Toronto to Baltimore once every year, but the things are never available. It would be nice to have, particularly after the 6 hour layover in NYC.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
danideahl
December 27, 2009 8:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Just came back from Mexico yesterday and had someone pat down and wave a metal detector over each person entering the plane. It took 90 minutes for everyone to get seated and some of the security measures seemed frivolous (example, I had my BARE feet scanned by the metal detector after I took my sandals off). Once on, the pilot explained the new rules - seated an hour before we touched down and nothing on our laps at that time as well. The stewardesses seemed a little bemused by the new rules, as were many of the passengers. Will that hour rule really make a difference?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Squidgy McChuckle
December 27, 2009 8:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Ok, I haven't checked the links yet so there may be exceptions for my situation, but...

I apologize in advance for those of you who will be sharing the flight from Tokyo to Houston with me, my husband and our kids--8, 6, 4 and 1. No electronics for the bigger kids, and no bathroom for the last hour? I can guarantee you I'll be changing a diaper in my lap and someone's going to pee in a seat.

And I thought the asinine shoes-off rule was bad.

Off to read the links and then book travel on a steamship.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
biggeek
December 27, 2009 8:44 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I love how the bozos who come up with these stupid 1 hour before landing rules think it is going to magically keep a terrorist from blowing up the plane during the rest of the flight.

Reply
9 replies
\"user-pic\"
_hi_
December 28, 2009 12:24 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Because as I and many other have stated before the rules are not for the people breaking the laws it's to keep all the others in control and take more of their rights away. The new Patriot Act is being voted on so they needed a situation to give them the leverage to keep spying on Americans etc.. Done. And Done.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Grrrrrrr, now with two buns made of bacon.
December 28, 2009 12:43 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Careful scientific analysis has shown that a terrorist will exactly duplicate the moves of the last well-publicized one. So, if someone tries to blow up a plane by making an explosive device in the bathroom and then stuffing it down their pants and lighting it beneath a blanket during the last hour of the flight, it's obvious that all future terrorists will follow that exact same technique, even down to the timing.

/sarcasm

Reply
\"user-pic\"
varro
December 27, 2009 10:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

It's amazing how the people who whine and cry about the slightest restriction on gun ownership because \"criminals won't follow the law\" will be gung-ho about the TSA and their petty security theater.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
jonworld
December 28, 2009 1:04 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Umm...I'm an anti-gun control republican who you seem to be describing and I absolutely despise the TSA's rules.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Elphaba
December 28, 2009 2:51 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Ditto. Love the Second Amendment, hate security theater.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
MyTQuinn
December 27, 2009 9:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

My guess is that the restriction on the last hour of a flight is to limit the chances of an incident happening in US air space.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
fs2k2isfun
December 27, 2009 11:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

While this might work for flights into NYC, Boston, Detroit, and Seattle, most other cities are over an hour inland. Its security theater and the TSA goons flexing their muscles in a reactionary power trip.

I pray these asinine restrictions won't last.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
PresidentBeeblebrox
December 27, 2009 8:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Indeed. Pan Am 103 blew up 30 minutes into the flight, for example.

You know, other countries do this so much better. Leaving from Turkey, you get a thorough patdown and are questioned. In the UK, a very polite chap comes up to you while you're in the ticket line who seems to be engaging you in a pleasant conversation about your travels, but as it turns out it's actually a security pre-screening. It's thorough and probing, but courteous and asks the right questions. They do something similar in Israel. In all of these countries, if you react oddly to questions which a law-abiding flyer would have no trouble answering, they take you to another room and then give you the anal probing that TSA gives everyone.

This type of screening makes so much more sense than TSA's one-size-fits-all, make-granny-take-off-her-prosthetic-limb, confiscate-your-cuticle-scissors method.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
RandomZero
December 28, 2009 10:03 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

The kicker? The US already does the same as the UK, in some circumstances. A friend of mine apparently shares a name with a high-profile mobster in New York, and has family there. Last time he flew out of NYC, he wound up sitting next to a \"passenger\" who asked an aweful lot of snoopy questions in a casual conversation, and seemed to disappear magically upon arrival at our (single exit point, single baggage area, really no legit places for passengers to vanish to) airport. Actual security, as opposed to security theatre, except it was used in entirely the wrong case (Last I checked, no crime syndicate was really about hijacking planes.)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
thisistobehelpful
December 27, 2009 10:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I was bawling my eye out when I left London so I got pulled aside for screening. The lady was very nice to me. I even had one of those 3D body scans but had no idea what it was at the time. Courtesy goes a long way.

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Bob306
December 27, 2009 8:51 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Now that the TSA is being run like a correctional facility, let's examine how well the prison-approach works in, you know, actual prisons:

1. Preventing weapons from entering the facility? Jails use strip searches, allow very few personal possessions, and severely limit a person's movement and activities. So no weapons, right? Of course there are -- a person dedicated to bringing in a weapon will find a way to do so.

2. Preventing violence with the weapons that have inevitably been smuggled in? Jails monitor inmates constantly, restrict movement, and shoot to kill if necessary. So there is violence? Of course there is -- inmates either commit violence during the few opportunities for free movement (which cannot really be completely taken away except in the most Super-Max prisons) or circumvent the rules to gain unauthorized freedom.

So will the TSA's \"treat 'em like prisoners\" plan work? Of course it won't work -- this guy didn't exploit a weakness in the pre-existing regulations. He exploited the failure of the TSA to do its job. In response, rather than fixing the problem the TSA institutes draconian new restrictions that appear (for all I can tell) to be punishment against people who dare to still fly. (Which maybe deflects the obvious question -- why didn't the TSA do its job? -- but otherwise is very unlikely to stop anyone from committing terrorism.)

So these are useless, kneejerk reactions. But we also have to ask whether these new regulations are more than just useless -- I think they will actually harm security. First, by adding more, harsher, and harder to enforce regulations against people who fly, it becomes harder to enforce the whole package. By adding yet more steps, every step must be completed faster and by a more over-worked work force.

Second, it destroys the legitimacy of the regulations. When everyone sees regulations as farce, you lose the best security of all -- the faith and cooperation of the people involved. I've yet to see anyone who sees this as anything other than useless, bureaucratic farce.

This is pure security theater, designed to protect the butts of TSA agents who screwed up. It harms real security, makes people miserable, and won't make anyone safer. We should convince Congress to get a freakin' grip -- or else just refuse to go along with the whole charade.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Esquire99
December 27, 2009 10:32 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

While I agree with the bulk of what you've said, I'm not sure the \"TSA\" screwed up here. The flight originated in Amsterdam, and was screened, presumably, by the Amsterdam equivalent of the TSA. Why did THAT agency not catch this?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
_hi_
December 28, 2009 12:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Flight 253 passenger: Sharp-dressed man aided terror suspect Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab onto plane without passport


http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2009/12/flight_253_passenger_says_at_l.html

Reply
\"user-pic\"
_hi_
December 28, 2009 12:46 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Update to this is here: Dutch police investigating report of accomplice in Northwest Flight 253 terror plot

Of course the 'accomplice' probably won't ever be found.

http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2009/12/report_dutch_police_investigat.html

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
TPK
December 27, 2009 8:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Has nobody else noticed the grand folly of these new \"security\" rules? How did the heroic passenger foil the attempt to blow up the plane? He jumped up, dived across a couple rows of seats, and tackled the terrorist!

What is now against the rules? Getting out of your seat within an hour of landing! Law-abiding citizens, the ones who are not the terrorists, tend to obey the rules. These new rules effectively guarantee that the next attempt will succeed, because the passengers, even the heroic ones, will have to wait until they are certain they are in a life-or-death situation before they decide to risk the wrath of the FBI upon landing.

That gives the next terrorist additional time to start what can probably not be stopped in order to take the plane out of the sky.

That's some high class noggin-juice flowing there I'll tell you.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
failurate
December 28, 2009 3:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

It's like the TSA is run by the same people who run the cowardly state of Wisconsin.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
HogwartsProfessor
December 28, 2009 10:36 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Screw that. If someone were trying to blow up my plane, the last thing I would be worried about is the FBI.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
varro
December 27, 2009 10:51 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

You win an Internet.

Todd Beamer would have been branded a terrorist under the new regulations.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
LastError
December 27, 2009 8:58 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

What about digital watches? Don't they count as \"electronic\" devices? My analog watch has a quartz crystal and a microprocessor to keep time. It's a digital device.

One of my creditcards has a chip built in to the card. So do my car keys. Both are digital devices. The car's key fob remote even sends out radio signals! OMFG!

What about people with pacemakers, blood pressure controllers, insulin pumps, prosthetic devices with digital systems?

So is that the last hour of a flight the actual last hour (and how are passengers to know, actually) or the hour that turns into two hours if the plane has to circle?

If the plane arrives early but the passengers haven't spent the whole last hour sitting quietly, does the plane HAVE to circle until an hour has elapsed? What if it runs out of fuel trying?

What if some kid breaks loose and runs to the bathroom 20 minutes from landing? Does he get shot or just the parents, or should the Air Force shoot down the plane just to be sure?

Even if nobody gets shot, what happens to the other passengers? Should they be arrested for being in the same place as a known terrorist? We've arrested people for that. Why not arrest the whole plane, flight crew included?

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Rachacha
December 27, 2009 9:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

What happens when the pilots get distracted while discussing the potential merger of airlines and they forget to land the plane?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Razor512
December 27, 2009 8:58 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Pretty soon, airport will be requiring everyone to remove all clothing and any other belongings and wear those hospital gowns, then get dressed after the flight.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
morlo
December 27, 2009 10:02 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Once the terrorists start surgically implanting bombs things will get messy.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
thisistobehelpful
December 27, 2009 10:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

As if people don't already hide things in their asses? See: drug trade.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Razor512
December 27, 2009 9:02 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

the goal of terrorism is in it's name, to create terror.

when 1 or 2 actions they can have an entire country of people in a constant state or terror and paranoia which is the goal.

if they just wanted to kill people they will do it in ways that will not draw as much attention to them self.

the government going crazy over this still only re-enforces the actions of the terrorist.

terrorism is basically any public display of violence.

when I was in high school, a student bought a knife to school and was caught with it, so a few weeks later, they required ID cards to be scanned before entering the school, they added 4 luggage scanners, metal detectors, and hired more guards with guns.

and in tern because of this budget allocation, the school lunch because the cheapest of the cheap food, equipment was no longer upgraded. custodian jobs were cut and many facilities were closed. the lab room was also no longer used for the science class and the school library was also closed. all because 1 student bought a knife to school.

terrorism is designed to change the way people live for the worst. terrorism is able to hurt people both economically and socially and thus degrade the quality of life.
and responses to this stuff only increases their power.

it is like when I used to go on the chris pirillo IRC chat, it was a pretty good community until the admins drove everyone away.

once in a while there will be the occasional spammer; the chat auto kicks if you send messages too fast or if there too long or if you say the same thing 3 times in a row, and if you get kicked a few times, I thing 2, it bans you. but since that limited spamming, users found other ways to spam, they will have like 2-3 people join in and each will spam something offensive until banned, the regulars didn't care much because it only lasted like 20 -30 seconds in most cases and may only happen like once or twice per day, and was usually done by a user who got angry at a moderator for banning them for 20 minutes because they spammed their ebay listing or some other crap

But soon the moderators discovered a feature of irc called -m where only voiced users are allowed to chat, and all normal users are unable to chat, and 96% of the users were normal users. The chat will stat [B]-m[/B] for 1-2 hours at a time when ever the chat was spammed. So the normal users could not chat and the voiced users had no one to talk to so the chat is pretty much at a standstill with the occasional word or 2 between the very few voiced users. because of this power, when ever a user got angry for what ever reason, they would spam the chat and the chat will become moderated for 1-2 hours or longer, basically a denial of service for about 96% of the chat

spam is annoying but no service at all is even more annoying and when a user can stop the service at will, it gives them power. spamming these chats have become a very popular task at 4chan also. every once in a while you will see a post on 4chan telling users to go spam a racial remark on the chat and it will get the chat moderated for like 2 hours and cause most of the active users to sign off leaving only idle users and a few voiced users with nothing to say other than spam the link live.pirillo.com which you usually see at the end of the videos he records (chat is always set to -m while recording)

tldr

terrorism is pretty much any action that can cause a large change that negatively impacts the lives of people

Reply
5 replies
\"user-pic\"
Winteridge2
December 28, 2009 1:59 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Did he bring a knife to school, or did he buy it there?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
MrEvil
December 28, 2009 1:44 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Freaking spot-on dude. By imposing these ever more invasive security restrictions the terrorists have already won.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Razor512
December 28, 2009 4:38 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

usually in the chat in the status area, it will have - then a letter and once the -m appears in the status, only voice users are able to chat, and since there very few, the chat mostly comes to a standstill for a few hours. because this happens when ever the chat is spammed, it has become a target for 4chan and other sites, because of how easy it is to bring a chat with 400-500 people, to a screeching halt just by spamming a few curse words 3 times in a row

if the chat didn't easily get -m'ed the chat would not be such a large target.

people do these kinds of attacks because they get a sizable reaction from it

look at griefing in multiplayer games, the truly memorable ones that end up on youtube with tons of views are the ones with the biggest reactions

example here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUPzN7tp7bQ (very funny and the griefer continues because there getting a reaction from it)

if you search youtube for griefing you will see that the videos with a ton of views are the ones with a large reaction or where a little bit of work, (1 or 2 actions can cause complete chaos and ruin the game for a lot of people)

but the 1 star ones just have griefing with no reactions from other players (they quickly leave because there not getting a reaction and the videos are boring)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Dracoster
January 5, 2010 3:35 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

No, - means remove, + adds. Setting -m means that you remove it. Negative and positive, get it?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Coles_Law
December 27, 2009 10:29 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Well said. I'd heart you if we still had the ability.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
duskglow
December 27, 2009 9:03 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I don't think these rules are going to last. Because if they do... the airline industry might as well fold up now. I know I'm not flying anymore until things go back to how they were, and I do fly every now and then...

I'm sick of the incompeteny idiots that run the TSA. There are some concrete and useful steps they could take to mitigate the risk of terrorists. This ain't it.

But I don't think they're going to last because in about two weeks they're going to review them and find out that all they're doing is pissing people off, and you'll hear \"oh, the risk is much lower now, they're not needed, see how safe we're making you!\". Weapons-grade cluelessness, the lot of them.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Seanumich
December 27, 2009 9:03 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The entire TSA system is the most idiotic system invented.You can take 20 bottles with you, as long as they aren't over 3.4 ounces, but if you take one that is 3.5 ounces they will throw it away. If somebody wants to blow up a plane they will.There is no way to be 100 per cent safe in the world. It is the risk of LIVING. It is the same as the government banning Sudafed sales to stop crystal meth, or banning fertilizer sales to stop Tim McVeigh types. Those who want to try something bad enough will. Take every person killed on 9/11 and you haven't even touched a fraction of those killed in automobile accidents in 2001. In fact, even adding in the air passengers killed on 9/11, there were still fewer fatalities than in 2000. I know evidence is the hardest thing to convince people to see. It is that same stupidity that leads people to blow themselves up in the name of their religion, their government or pride.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
TechnoDestructo
December 27, 2009 10:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

When are they going to ban matches? You can make a bomb out of the heads.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
legwork
December 28, 2009 2:40 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Aye, and they'd better ban Star Trek, too. Anyone who saw tat Gorn episode is a clear and present danger!

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Aeroracere
December 27, 2009 9:08 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

From the TSA website a moment ago:

Q: What additional security measures are being taken for international flights to U.S. destinations?
A: TSA issued a directive for additional security measures to be implemented for last point of departure international flights to the United States. Passengers flying into the United States from abroad can expect to see additional security measures at international airports such as increased gate screening including pat-downs and bag searches. During flight, passengers will be asked to follow flight crew instructions, such as stowing personal items, turning off electronic equipment and remaining seated during certain portions of the flight.
----

Seems to indicate that electronics are allowed in the cabin.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
jaydeflix
December 27, 2009 9:08 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

\"From a consumer point of view, we're particularly concerned about the electronics ban and potential for theft from checked baggage.\"

I'd be more concerned with breakage.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Eastcoast
December 27, 2009 9:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

If this electronic device ban is indeed official the ONLY answer is an complete flying boycott. If the false attempts at security include confiscation of (and inescapable theft) of consumer electronics the entire system has failed & the terrorists have won - game over.

I don't think our boy tried to blowup an ipod on his leg did he? NO, he didn't.

The negligence that let dude get on a flight with whatever naughty stuff he did needs to be punished - not the flying public. Failures in security are exclusively those of public officials, not of the public - who actually apprehended the suspect. The provisions needed to stop this type of attack are ALREADY IN PLACE! The failure of security to enforce the provisions is the issue here. The heads of incompetent officials need to roll when something like this happens.

This is a gravely serious precedent if government is going to start punishing law abiding citizens for its own failings. We can not allow that!

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
djkatscan
December 27, 2009 9:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I didnt see anything in the full text of the Aviation Security Directive about electronic devices. It talked about in flight services, like phone, internet, live TV and such being disabled for the whole flight, but nothing about your checked items. Where is that information?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
thisistobehelpful
December 27, 2009 9:13 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Yeah this will end badly. Guess I'll be going Greyhound or taking Amtrak from now on. Idiots...

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
mianne
December 27, 2009 9:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Yep, just as soon as Amtrak unveils its new NYC-London route!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
thisistobehelpful
December 27, 2009 9:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Also it was very kind of you to say \"potential\" theft.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
egoods
December 27, 2009 9:15 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

As someone who flys for business quite a bit I can tell you, first hand, the TSA is a joke. It has been since it was founded. It's only purpose is to make a few people \"feel\" safer. I'm flying to London in January, and then Australia after that... if they don't allow me to use my laptop during that time, I'm going to go freaking nuts. I think they should be more concerned about all us technologically ADD types who need to have 10 things going at once to keep entertained. The idea of a 20+ hour return flight with no laptop is really making me reconsider my choice of career.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
NickelMD
December 27, 2009 9:15 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I'm flying as I type this (on a domestic flight), and the plane I am in has a broken toilet, a bumpy ride, and a chorus of crying babies. I think they would be more potential for violence if they *didn't* allow people their electronic toys.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Oranges w/ Cheese hates what Christmas has become
December 27, 2009 9:17 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Boyfriend flew Orlando to Detroit this evening and said they even let him take a 20 oz water thru security, and nothing else appeared to be new. Spirit Air.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
christoj879
December 27, 2009 9:18 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Really if they want to be safe they'd better not let you get up at all. The closer to the beginning of the flight, the more fuel on board = a bigger and longer explosion/burn.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Fred E.
December 27, 2009 9:18 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

So if a female terrorist hides an incendiary device in her bra, passengers will no longer be able to wear bras?

I'm just waiting for someone to do the explosives up the rectum thing, then everybody will have to get x-rayed or a rectal exam.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
dannod
December 27, 2009 9:22 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I think I would prefer a requirement that all passengers be put in a state of suspended animation for the duration of the flight. Not only would this prevent terrorism, but could you imagine how fast thoughts flights would feel if you were out cold? Sign me up!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
kmw2
December 27, 2009 9:22 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Dance, little TSA puppets, dance! Oh wait, this is winning the war on terrism, that's right.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
STrRedWolf
December 27, 2009 9:25 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

TOO MUCH CONFUSION!!!

The TSA isn't telling us what changes are for domestic flights and what are for internationals. Additional screenings for domestic flights? Sit there and be bored for a coast-to-coast trip? Come on, separate it all out so we're not panicing when we come up to the gate and get hauled away by the TSA for something they didn't tell us about!

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
TechnoDestructo
December 27, 2009 9:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

So this only applies to flights to the US?

You know, flying between countries other than the US is actually pretty pleasant, particularly in airports with no flights to or from the US.

It's facts like this that make me want to emigrate and never return.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
varro
December 27, 2009 10:56 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I can see a carrier flying from Tokyo or Beijing to Vancouver, BC, then with an Amtrak connection to Seattle or Portland.

Trans-Pacific flight without having to deal with TSA. Goodbye, Seattle international traffic...

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Tamar Weinberg
December 27, 2009 9:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I think this is pretty shortsighted. If you're a parent flying with a baby, you know that you should always feed the baby with bottle (or breast) when the plane takes off and when it lands to prevent a screaming kid (due to ears popping) in the cabin. Does this mean parents can't feed their infants?

You know, if the TSA did their job and acted upon the tip from the man's father -- he reported that his son was affiliated with extremist groups several years prior but nobody actually added him to the no-fly list -- we might not have ever faced this issue.

Secondly, does security on the ground not know how to do its job? Why penalize millions of fliers? The fault lies in the TSA and the government who should have acted and done more thorough security checks.

I already hate flying and the only comfort I had was in the fact that I had my own music to listen to and my iPod apps. Now I have nothing. I guess I won't be flying anytime soon. I don't have faith in the TSA anyway.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Bog
December 27, 2009 9:46 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

\"No potty breaks...\" Uh, No. Not unless the airline is ready for people to pee and poop in front of their seats. If I have to \"go\" I will. I am one of those people who get food poisoning at the drop of a hat. If I eat airline food and it is \"off\" in any way I will likely get sick. Not a time you want to restrict me from the bathroom.

Besides - this punishing everyone for the actions of a few has to stop. We all know who are 99.999999% most likely to cause an incident.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
richtergasse
December 27, 2009 9:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Seriously guys? Twitter rumors -> headline? \"Next time you fly\" - for what percentage of your readers is that an inbound flight into the US?

You can be - and usually are - so much better than that.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
DrWebster
December 27, 2009 9:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

These rules, as others have said before me, are truly stupid.

However, if I read this correctly, they'll expire on Wednesday:

http://www.elliott.org/blog/full-text-of-sd-1544-09-06-authorizing-pat-downs-physical-inspection/

\"EXPIRATION: 0200Z on December 30, 2009\"

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
Coles_Law
December 27, 2009 10:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Good catch. Regrettably buried on page 2, but good catch nonetheless.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
TheSpatulaOfLove
December 27, 2009 10:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Only to be followed with ever more preposterous rules on 1/1/10 that will never expire.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Tamar Weinberg
December 27, 2009 11:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I fear that the irrationality will continue in some form or another. But if this is temporary, that's great. I'm surprised nobody emphasized the expiration date.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
davere
December 27, 2009 9:56 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Do you know those stories that have been posted here in the past about people having to go poop like RIGHT NOW or else? Yeah, that's me. I gotta fly overseas and back in a month.

These new rules are useless, don't prevent anything, and they are going to cause all sort of problems.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
varro
December 27, 2009 10:59 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Fortunately, there is a Rocky Mountain Chocolate Factory in MSP for your pooping needs.

Republican Senators can use the bathrooms there for wide-stance action!

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Digo
December 27, 2009 10:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Yeah, I've recently had a hard drive, which I had to check because security made me, stolen when flying American Airlines. It's the second time I've had something stolen with American Airlines.

They refuse to reimburse me the $90 for what was stolen, their excuse was that I should not have checked it (even after explaining that I was forced to check it). This is after they had lost my luggage for two days then delivered it to me at almost midnight on a work day.

The worst part is they didn't even care that things were stolen. They better start caring though before one of these criminals stealing things decides to put something in instead.

So basically American Airlines threw away about 15 years of customer loyalty because of $90. Good job customer relations team.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
MooseOfReason
December 27, 2009 10:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

No restroom break the last hour of the flight is pretty draconian.

There are scanners that sense for explosives, right?

I guess it isn't up to us to install them, though, since the flight originated in Amsterdam.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Fred E.
December 27, 2009 10:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

In other countries where the official security and screening is insufficient, airline employees do a separate screening. For instance, in Bogota at El Dorado, American Airlines employees screen bags for flights in the gate before boarding.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
pinkbunnyslippers
December 27, 2009 10:11 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I don't think someone's Twitter post is a sufficient news source from which we should be drawing information -- not enough to get our panties in a wad about at least.

The no-electronics rule, if found to be plausible will not last too long - the airlines might as well just pack it in and call it a day now.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Aeroracere
December 27, 2009 10:16 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Yeah, I think there may have been a little too little time spent figuring out whether this was in fact true or not. Now we can all calm down and restart the complaining about not being able to use our cell phones mid-flight :P

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
hamstergraphics
December 27, 2009 10:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Came back from Dominican Republic on Saturday...
Pat down was in effect for all.. same as if you'd go for secondary screening... wand all over, shoes off...
No mention of no electronics, though the in-flight entertainment system was not turned on... not even for the safety briefing... I flew with laptop, no issues.
One hour rule in effect.. not really a big deal. We were given a heads up 10 mins before so people could take care of business.. Really the last hour is normally preparing for the decent anyway... seatbelt signs are normally on by 30 mins to landing.. not a big deal.
Our flight was delayed by 590 minutes (sounds better than 10 hours). but not just because of the new procedures...
Get out and travel....

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
hamstergraphics
December 27, 2009 10:24 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Came back from Dominican Republic on Saturday...
Pat down was in effect for all.. same as if you'd go for secondary screening... wand all over, shoes off...
No mention of no electronics, though the in-flight entertainment system was not turned on... not even for the safety briefing... I flew with laptop, no issues.
One hour rule in effect.. not really a big deal. We were given a heads up 10 mins before so people could take care of business.. Really the last hour is normally preparing for the decent anyway... seatbelt signs are normally on by 30 mins to landing.. not a big deal.
Our flight was delayed by 590 minutes... but not just because of the new procedures...
Oh, and we were traveling with a 13 month old.. went on with formula, more than 4 ounces...
Get out and travel....

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
dantsea
December 27, 2009 10:24 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

This is going to be hell on the people who hear \"Please fasten your seatbelt, return your tray to the upright position and remain seated,\" as \"RUN! RUN AS FAST AS YOU CAN TO THE BATHROOM! DO IT NOW!\" on most of the flights I've been on.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
lemortede
December 27, 2009 10:26 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

WOW, thats pretty stupid.
Guess Ill just pee in my seat if I have to go.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
narq
December 27, 2009 10:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

What are you most afraid of?
A: Terrorists on a plane
B: Car accident on the way to the airport
C: 9 hour flight with no entertainment
D: Tons of sudden new restrictions/rules with broken/missing/confiscated checked items

I won't fly until things go back the way they were.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
spamtasticus
December 27, 2009 11:04 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

My post on the TSA blog:

I commute to Canada for business almost weekly. I have a few questions:

1). What exactly does limiting us to one carryon accomplish from a security point of view?

2). How does limiting movement one hour before landing heighten security? If someone has a bomb or device they simply fetch them one our and one minute before landing.

3). How does having nothing on our laps help us from a security point of view? What keeps someone from storing an IED under their laps, besides their leg, in the magazine pocket in front of them, in their shirt, in their pants, etc. etc.

4). If screening will be so thorough including manual searches and invasive pat-downs why are the one hour and no items on laps rules even necessary?

5). What do mothers with infant children do when they can no longer have their child on their lap.

6). If items on laps are such a risk as to warrant the entire flying public besides mothers with babies to go item-less will terrorists merely need to bring a baby to circumvent the whole measure. (relevance of this question subject to answer to previous question)

7). Will they check our rectal and vaginal cavities during pat down? If not, how is a pat dow even effective?

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
montusama
December 27, 2009 11:18 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Guess I'll be crossing the pond old-school then.

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
schiff
December 27, 2009 11:29 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

America -- Where individuals are guilty until proven innocent... oh how I love my country!

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Heresy Of Truth
December 27, 2009 11:51 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

No getting up on the last hour of the flight, even for bathroom breaks? What about folks with Chron's, IBS, Graves, or any other disease that causes spontaneous, uncontrollable need to have a bowel movement? How is it possible to prevent people from access to a bathroom?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Heresy Of Truth
December 27, 2009 11:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

No getting up on the last hour of the flight, even for bathroom breaks? What about folks with Chron's, IBS, Graves, or any other disease that causes spontaneous, uncontrollable need to have a bowel movement? How is it possible to prevent people from access to a bathroom?

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
yevarechecha
December 28, 2009 12:25 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Really. The possibility that a passenger may expose others to bacteria-laden, toxic biohazards by pissing on themselves, crapping the seat, or vomiting everywhere because they cannot access the restroom presents far more of an immediate danger than some hypothetical terrorist.

The TSA has got to stop simply reacting to things. Do they not realize how stupid and ineffective this all is? The terrorists have already won here by keeping us in fear of some unnamed shadowy threat all the time and causing us to completely alter how we do things to the point of making ourselves miserable. Congrats, guys.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Jesse in Japan
December 27, 2009 11:58 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I flew on Christmas Day (Tokyo-Minneapolis and then Minneapolis-Kansas City) with a laptop case on me at all times and was not patted down or told not to bring my electronics on the plane. I was told to turn my iPod off during take-off, though.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
mmmsoap
December 28, 2009 12:00 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

There was a very interesting article (I found via Digg) that touches on this problem. Every passenger is (supposedly) now going to be subject to a patdown, but the patdowns aren't conducted in a way to find actual unsafe items. Case in point -- this guy got stuff past security with stuff in his underwear.

I fail to see how the new policies will actually help security.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Razor512
December 28, 2009 2:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

they don't it just makes it seem like more is being done to improve security when in reality we are no safer than we were before 9/11

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
donovanr
December 28, 2009 12:07 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Seeing that terrorists can stuff metal-free explosives up their asses (as in a recent attack on a royal in Saudi Arabia) the only way to stop them is to profile and not let them on board. If the people being profiled don't like it they can be grouped together on flights. If you are of vaguely arabic looks and fit a few other profiles (young, male, just went to Yemen) then you all get to fly together. This not only keeps my laptop in my lap but means that the occasional crazy who gets on with a bomb in his ass would not get to kill any infidels thus means he might not bother. It also makes the caterers on the flights jobs easier as all the food would be halal for certain flights and none on others.
What I find odd in this whole thing is why couldn't they find (sniff, detect, etc) this bomb using traditional techniques? Don't they have dogs and machines for this? The guy was probably leaving a trail of chemicals everywhere he walked. I suspect the TSA is going overboard to make it look like they are doing something about this as opposed to taking the blame for not detecting this using the tools they already have. Some court needs to have the balls to say enough and give us back our liberties. Somehow the US lets people buy a truck load of guns but won't let people take a bottle of water on a plane? The US needs to acknowledge who their real enemy is and focus on them. Otherwise people will reduce their travel to the US and people in the US will have their stress levels go up. Neither seem to be terrible things alone but the US will still have to compete with countries that still have a free exchange of people with the world and a more relaxed productive group of people.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Sumtron5000
December 28, 2009 1:03 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I know I'll regret biting the lure, but you've never heard of a caucasian terrorist??? Edcuate yourself. I could look it up for you, but I'm going to profile you and assume that facts will not change your mind.

How lucky you are have been born white.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
donovanr
December 28, 2009 12:09 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Seeing that terrorists can stuff metal-free explosives up their asses (as in a recent attack on a royal in Saudi Arabia) the only way to stop them is to profile and not let them on board. If the people being profiled don't like it they can be grouped together on flights. If you are of vaguely arabic looks and fit a few other profiles (young, male, just went to Yemen) then you all get to fly together. This not only keeps my laptop in my lap but means that the occasional crazy who gets on with a bomb in his ass would not get to kill any infidels thus means he might not bother. It also makes the caterers on the flights jobs easier as all the food would be halal for certain flights and none on others.
What I find odd in this whole thing is why couldn't they find (sniff, detect, etc) this bomb using traditional techniques? Don't they have dogs and machines for this? The guy was probably leaving a trail of chemicals everywhere he walked. I suspect the TSA is going overboard to make it look like they are doing something about this as opposed to taking the blame for not detecting this using the tools they already have. Some court needs to have the balls to say enough and give us back our liberties. Somehow the US lets people buy a truck load of guns but won't let people take a bottle of water on a plane? The US needs to acknowledge who their real enemy is and focus on them. Otherwise people will reduce their travel to the US and people in the US will have their stress levels go up. Neither seem to be terrible things alone but the US will still have to compete with countries that still have a free exchange of people with the world and a more relaxed productive group of people.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
outlulz
December 28, 2009 1:48 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

The flight didn't originate in the US. He went through screening in Nigera. The TSA had nothing to do with screening for that flight.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
MMD
December 28, 2009 1:44 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Good thing you're not a racist!

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
brettbittner
December 28, 2009 12:09 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

This is all security theater. The more hassle that TSA puts us through, the safer we will feel. That means we are less likely to object to each encroachment they make.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
lonestarbl
December 28, 2009 12:12 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I have 2 business flights in the next 10 days... will let you know how that goes. I typically travel with an iPod and a Laptop... good god this may suck

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
LastError
December 28, 2009 5:25 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Here's what I had in my carry-on bag on my last international trip:
Laptop plus spare battery, wireless data card and external antenna, digital camera, three thumb drives, iPod with earphones, portable GPS, cellphone/PDA, two-way radio walkie talkie, a Bluetooth headset and a Bluetooth mouse. And probably something else I am forgetting.

And assorted chargers to power all that junk, much of it coiled up. It probably looks horrible on the xray machine. Dunno. It barely got a glance from TSA or customs.

The only scary moment was when they asked if I was bringing in any food and I admitted I had a box of candy in my suitcase. I thought I was gonna get strip searched. But nah. They didn't care.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
cookmefud
December 28, 2009 12:22 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

yay, we're all safe now!

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
LVSinner
December 28, 2009 1:23 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Time to buy some stock in adult diapers

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Aresef
December 28, 2009 1:37 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

And leave the soiled diapers on your seat in protest.

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
dieselmachine
December 28, 2009 1:49 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

This is amazing, imagine how many laptops TSA steals already, even with people knowing they are thieves, thus taking their expensive equipment onboard.

You will have absolutely no way to protect your belongings. A 100% chance that I will not have any way to protect my belongings from TSA agents who are probably 5% willing to steal them, seems like shitty odds compared to the astronomically small chance that a terrorist tries to kill me.

Holy shit, this is tragic. So much evil is going to stem from this very incident. Maybe that's what the terrorists planned the whole time? Knowing America is so consumed by capitalism and greed that simply forcing peoples' laptops into a position of theft everytime they fly is a strategic move which only works because the TSA has absolutely no sort of monitoring system to hold people accountable.

A decisive move in the great chess game known as \"the way on terrorism\". With some firecrackers (think of the hardware and training costs!), a guy just fucked an entire country of people. Amazing.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
StarVapor
December 28, 2009 2:04 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

So now the baggage crews will get to pick and choose pretty much any laptop they want.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
LatherRinseRepeat
December 28, 2009 2:10 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

This is ridiculous. I can foresee air travel declining in the near future. It's just not worth the hassle for some people.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Jason
December 28, 2009 2:19 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

My wife and two kids and I just flew into the states from new Zealand and definitely experienced the new security. However the officers and security people at the airport were very kid and patient with the two kids.

My wife even forgot to remove some lotion from her purse and the first security agent we saw simply asked it to put it in a baggie. He then let us know that everyone was being hand patted and out luggage would be hand searched a second time at the gate so we would want to get there with plenty of time to spare.

We made our way to the gate where there was a long queue of people waiting to go through secondary screening. They split our family up ( son and I on the left to be searched by men, wife and daughter on the right to be searched by women).

The man who searched us was very nice and asked if I knew why these measures were in place. I told him I had heard about the incident earlier in the week. He thn searched my son and myself, explaining what he was doing with every step so neither of us would worry. We then moved on to the baggage search where they methodically went through our bags, taking out everything and then putting it back one pocket at a time.

They even checked our computers, my wife had totirn hers on to prove it worked but both of us were allowed to have them on board, no worries. I saw many people using their laptops during the flight as well.

As we took off the crew let us know about the new security rules ahead of time so we could prepare. The also served the breakfast meal early so we would have time to use the restroom after breakfast with enough time to spare.

An hour before landing we had to put away anything that covered our laps, so unfortunately no blankets on our kids.. But they didn't make us put down our books or toys, so the kids didn't really notice.

All in all... Not too bad. Air New Zealand did a great job I think.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Wolfbird
December 28, 2009 2:54 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

You know, I think they new goal of \"terrorism\" is not to actually kill anyone, but to just watch and laugh at Americans while they trip over each other in utter fear of their own shadows. With all these new regulations it's a given that it will hurt the airline industry. Your economy is messed up enough as it is, this certainly won't help.

Then there's all this hooey about increased security in schools that Razor512 was talking about, which resulted in the library, science department and school food services taking heavy hits (effectively making school even more of a place to hang out between 8am and 3pm and less a place of learning).

I'm quite sure there are more examples of paranoia at work, I'm just too tired to list them.

Cripple the US through fear tactics; it seems to be working so far! A nation on its knees cannot fight back during your silly religious holy war.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Wrathernaut
December 28, 2009 3:07 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

If I agree to ankle and wrist-locks, can I at least have them at the home-row position?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
wonderkitty82
December 28, 2009 3:09 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I flew over to Germany on Dec 23rd. I'm flying back the30th. I am just lucky I didn't pack my computer or my SLR. I would not be paying extra to check the camera, but I'll be back with my review of the circus.
Oh, and I flew a Delta/NW flight, too. God help me.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
veronykah
December 28, 2009 3:14 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Glad I made the 14 hour trip to Thailand last spring. An entire flight from Asia with NO electronic devices? No thanks.
As for having to check them?
When we returned from Bangkok, my friend realized he had put his iPhone in his checked bag. Do you think that iPhone was still in his checked bag upon receipt at LAX?
Not so much.
He was quite pissed, and we all laughed at him for putting it there in the first place.
Are they kidding with this?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
wonderkitty82
December 28, 2009 3:19 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

For those that don't click links-
I haven't read anything about not checking electronics, you just can't use them. Which still sucks. I also read that a plane's position will not be announced, but if the crew doesn't alert us that we have one last shot to use the bathroom, I foresee a very bad incident happening. The biggest peeve is possibly only one carry-on. I flew over here on the 23rd with 2, and I will refuse to pay to check an additional bag I didn't have to check on the way over here.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Bill610
December 28, 2009 3:52 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Why are people saying that the new rules requiring passengers to stay in their seats will simply force the terrorists to act sooner? I always thought that hijacking or blowing up a plane was also against the rules. Why would terrorists be more inclined to follow a rule about not moving around in the final hour of a flight than one about not bringing explosives on board?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Bill610
December 28, 2009 3:59 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Are we finally getting close to the point where a political candidate could seriously oppose this nonsense and have a reasonable level of support? I would tend to back someone who said, \"Life is full of risks. The government can't protect you from every possible danger, and it shouldn't even be trying. When people fly, or drive, or just sit on the sofa, there's a chance they'll be killed. The only difference between getting hit by a bus or blown up by a terrorist is that the terrorist wants us to engage in these knee-jerk responses that de-humanize us and destroy the freedoms that they supposedly hate us for. So we're not going to do that any more, because it's against the principles that Americans hold sacred.\"

Could you finally vote for someone like that, or is it going to take door-to-door cavity searches before we finally wake up?

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
lishevita
December 28, 2009 5:03 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Here's the solution for all your international flight needs... Drive, take a bus, or take a train to Canada. Fly from there.

OK, granted, that's not a great solution for everyone in the country, but if you are in the North, it's actually a very good one. Canadian security is far more sane than US security.

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
RighteousG
December 28, 2009 7:10 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Okay people. Who has the Jump to Conclusion mat? I mean really, I have not heard any report so far that states you can't take your computers on international flights. Hmm, maybe someone could call and ask?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
David in Brasil
December 28, 2009 7:11 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

It's only a matter of time until a ter'ist is going to use an explosive device incorporated into breast implants. The guy last week had only 50 grams of explosive - that's nothing compared to the several hundred grams of uninspected gel material in breast implants. Think of the possibilities. (and don't you think that al-Quaeda has considered this?) When that happens, then preboarding inspections are going to get interesting.

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
ConsumerWolf
December 28, 2009 8:04 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Can we have an airline just for non-bedwetters in which we're allowed to just get on the plane and go? All this for two FAILED plots that did absolutely nothing? Ridiculous.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Sumtron5000
December 28, 2009 8:11 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I'm flying to Jamaica on Jan 11th, so I can let you all know how it goes. I'm assuming no electronic devices means no ipods?

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
ConsumerWolf
December 28, 2009 8:28 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Dude, just cancel the trip. Is it worth the price of your dignity?

Reply
","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
nachtwulf
December 28, 2009 8:34 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Its simple. Instead of searching, patting down and confiscation of anything remotely capable of allowing you to enjoy the flight you pay extremely inflated fees for, I propose the following implementations:

When you go on a flight, the TSA will issue you a disposable-paper \"flight suit\" and \"booties,\" recyclable \"privacy\" mask (aka eye-mask) and headphones. In each seat will be a media center with: Phone, Video Player with first run movies and recent TV show episodes, Audio Player with access to feed sites for most styles of music, and an Internet/Computer access system equipped with \"ON-The-Go\" capabilities, several games, and a flip out keyboard and mouse/trackball. You will also be give toiletries and such.

Al of this is paid for not by the customers, but by the TSA budget that will no longer be paying for all the other services, and supplemented by the appropriate companies such as sleep-ware companies, music companies, movies, etc.

Think about it, as smarmy as it seems... I think they'd actually save money and gain customers.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
xspook
December 28, 2009 9:06 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

These are the most ignorant rules I've ever seen. Just because the moron coincidentally tried to blow up the plane during the last hour of the multi-leg flight, we are now all restricted in what we do -- in the last hour of the flight.

What if he had done it in the first hour, the middle hour, etc, etc. Why not restrict what we do when on approach to Detroit? STUPID STUPID STUPID

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Boatski
December 28, 2009 9:16 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Sorry to say it, but the only way I see something changing with this is if there's another plane hijacked in the US.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
dancing_bear
December 28, 2009 9:50 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Glad I like it in my car.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
John B
December 28, 2009 9:56 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

No electronic devices on flights to the USA in the cabin?

Not on all airlines and not from all airports.
The restrictions on IFE are also being wound back. I mean, no moving map, but you can look out of your window and see where you are...?

That said, this is a typical knee-jerk TSA reaction that does nothing to increase safetey and is counterproductive in even GIVING the perception of increased safety, because it's so transparently flakey

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
TouchMyMonkey
December 28, 2009 9:57 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

What? No iPods? How am I supposed to pass the next nine friggin' hours? I guess the next terrorist will hide his bomb inside a Stephen King novel, and we'll have to give up reading on flights as well, that is, reading of anything else other than those inane in-flight magazines. I was fortunate last time because the airline had provided a few decent on-demand movies that I haven't already seen fifty times (and aren't mind-destroyingly syrupy chick flicks), but I suspect those won't be complimentary next time as other avenues of ennui relief are proscribed. I guess I could order two or three double rum and Cokes, and pass the nine hours in an alcoholic stupor, but what about the kids? Will someone please think of the children?

Yes, the terrorists just won yet again. I am sure one of their goals, if you haven't figured this out already, is to make flying an even bigger PITA than it is already. Actually blowing up planes is an added bonus to them; it's the long-term effect of their attempts at doing so that they're really after. As a matter of fact, failing to actually blow up the plane is an even better result for the forces of terror, since now the authorities have a suspect, and the media has a mugshot and a narrative to put on high rotation until the start of baseball season.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
solipsistnation
December 29, 2009 10:30 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

You could give the children rum and cokes too. With less body weight, they'd be cheap drunks.

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
cmdr.sass
December 28, 2009 10:14 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

It would be smarter to hand out guns on every flight.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
ConsumerWolf
December 28, 2009 10:43 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

yeah, cause guns have never caused any problems.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
cmdr.sass
December 28, 2009 2:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I guess I need to include /s for the slow kids.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
DainBramaged
December 28, 2009 10:22 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Per the TSA website electronics ARE allowed in-cabin on flights coming into the US.
From the TSA website (http://www.tsa.gov/press/happenings/dec25_guidance.shtm):
Q: What additional security measures are being taken for international flights to U.S. destinations?
A: TSA issued a directive for additional security measures to be implemented for last point of departure international flights to the United States. Passengers flying into the United States from abroad can expect to see additional security measures at international airports such as increased gate screening including pat-downs and bag searches. During flight, passengers will be asked to follow flight crew instructions, such as stowing personal items, turning off electronic equipment and remaining seated during certain portions of the flight.
Notice the part about \"turning off electronic equipment\", i.e. iPods, Laptops, DVD players all fit this category. Plus the turning off has always been a rule especially during the last part of the flight.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Zombie
December 28, 2009 10:29 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

What amazes me is how reactionary we are to events like this. We put measures in place to prevent something that has already happened, instead of proactively thinking about what could. What's to prevent an event from occurring an hour and 5 minutes prior to landing? Why would laptops be the only thing that could be used, ie. watches, jewelry, etc. could be suspect too. Its the typical band aid approach. Let's face it, weather we like it or not, modern travel comes with its risks and inconveniences.

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
blarger
December 28, 2009 11:07 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

If the terrorists start flying in packs of 8 or more, they can essentially now block out an entire section of the plane so they wouldn't have to get up to assemble their bombs. TSA rules averted again.

The overreaction of our government since 2001 (which unsurprisingly continues into this new administration) is only signaling to the terrorists that they are winning, because we are changing the way we live.

But it's happening on the terrorists' side as well. Poor slobs like this Abdulmutallab fellow--who come from privilege--are being seduced by ideologies that say that hitting back at this 800-pound gorilla government by killing a few hundred people at a time are good for the cause.

Citizens are the pawns of the state, and the stateless groups who have political grievances against said state. There are no winners in a battle of ideologies.

Same old story.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
MSUHitman
December 28, 2009 11:31 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

The editor of Kotaku is coming back into the US today from Australia and he said he was still allowed to have electronics in the cabin in-flight.
http://kotaku.com/5435015/terror-at-30000-feet-game+free-transcontinental-flights

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
solipsistnation
December 28, 2009 11:41 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Heck with the electronics. What about traveling with children? No carryon during the last hour of the flight means, let me see... No diaper change (as if you could do it in your seat anyway if you can't get up), no snacks or bottles, no toys for babies, and so on. And how about pregnant women flying? No peeing for an hour? Hope the airlines are prepared to steam-clean their seats regularly.

It's absurd, especially considering it won't help anyway.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Buckus
December 28, 2009 11:55 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I'm waiting until we're all restrained Hannibal Lecter-style for all flights. Only then will I feel truly safe. I think they will also be serving fava beans and a nice wine.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
gparlett
December 28, 2009 12:15 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

This is why I make my own airlines at home.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Span_Wolf
December 28, 2009 12:15 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I am currently visiting family in Spain and I have about 5 grand in electronics in my briefcase. If they ask me to check it, I´ll ask to be arrested sooner than let go of that bag. I pretty much have one of two options in that situation, either A. having everything out of it stolen, or B. having all my sensitive and fragile devices shattered to shit. You know airline policies don´t cover electronics, I wonder if that´s going to change because the new rules coupled with electronics not being covered does not sound right. Hell if my stuff was destroyed after these new rules were instituted I´d sue the airline anyway, I don´t care what they say about what is and isn´t covered, doesn´t make it right.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
_hi_
December 28, 2009 12:17 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

All this security and Fox News is allowed to show how to make a bomb on live tv while discussing this story. Yes. That is what they did the other day of course they do it all the time. Some retard was on there listing out the ingredients and the tools needed and proceded to tell in detail how to make a bomb. Then he goes.. this is all available on .... (insert web search page here). Thanks Fox news for teaching terrorism to the kids. Can we sue Fox News for all of America please? Who's in?

What upsets me is the 'sharp dressed man' who one of the people on the plane said let this guy onboard with NO passport. he claimed he was a refugee from sudan or somewhere. I beleive if you question this guy you will know whats really going on. I haven't seen the news talk about that yet.. of course this guy is free to roam around.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
pantheonoutcast
December 28, 2009 12:20 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Which makes more sense? Banning all electronic items and personal belongings on one's lap on international flights to the US because one random person may be a terrorist

OR

Banning all people who may be terrorists from flying to the US?

Isn't there anyone left in this fading republic of ours (besides myself, that is), that is willing to stand up and say, \"Hey, John Smith with his laptop and iPod will not, statistically be a terrorist, but Abdul Mohammed, statistically, may possibly be. So let's ban him.\"

These new rules make about as much sense as current (liberal) gun laws. Banning law-abiding citizens from possessing certain objects will prevent zero crimes. Zero. Criminals, on the other hand (and in this case, terrorists) do not follow the laws of society in the first place, and as such, will ignore all directives and policies an continue to be criminals and terrorists.

Here's an idea - let's ban the people behind the attacks. Enough already with the feel-good, touchy-feely PC nonsense. Let's put an end to this idea that people will be \"offended\" if their particular race / color / religion / etc, is singled out. Here's the plan:

1) If you are not currently carrying a US passport, then you must adhere to the rules outlined at the beginning of this article. No ifs, ands or buts.

2) If you are currently carrying a US passport, and you are of Middle Eastern decent, or have a name like Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab (the name of the recent Nigerian terrorist), you must also adhere to the rules outlined above, as well as additional screenings and background checks.

3) If, as in the case of Richard Reid, you are in fact an American citizen, and do have a Western name, but look like a crazy, unwashed, lunatic (http://frontpage.americandaughter.com/wp-images/richard_reid.jpg), then you are not allowed on the plane at all.

Yeah, you know what, a few people might be offended. I offer this retort: So what? I'm pretty offended that we, as a nation, bend over backwards for a tiny majority and their \"feelings.\" I'm offended that as a law-abiding citizen, I am prohibited from working / entertaining myself during a return flight back home to my country because a handful of lunatic extremists want to kill us.

And after all, who will be offended? 0.6% of the nation. That's 1.8 million. Boo Hoo. Let 'em walk. The other 298 million citizens will be able to fly (and live) unimpeded simply because it is a statistical improbability that they are radical Islamic terrorists.

Because that's who is trying to blow up planes, Ladies, and Gentlemen, in case you forgot. It's not Susie Homemaker with her Kindle. It's not James T. Businessman with his Blackberry. It's Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab with any means he and his radical agenda deems necessary.

Ban HIM. Leave my iPod alone.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
El_Red
December 28, 2009 12:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I'm not traveling to USA by plain. This is worst than security checks in USSR.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
jayde_drag0n
December 28, 2009 1:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

*in best robot voice* I will sit in my seat. I will not make noise. I will keep my hands in my lap.I will not move for 20 hours sitting tall ans staring straight forward. No humans allowed on flights. Just drones

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
pantheonoutcast
December 28, 2009 2:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Except then, you would be an electronic device, and not allowed in the cabin, either. To the cargo hold with you! :)

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Winteridge2
December 28, 2009 1:56 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I know this will sound discriminatory and even racist, but why not concentrate extra security on Arabic males entering on international flights? There have not been too many terrorist cases of 80-year-old grandmas or mothers with babies. Have there?

Reply
","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
u1itn0w2day
December 28, 2009 2:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The potty police are coming . The potty police are coming .

It will be like having to sign up for a hall pass in jr high just to use the restroom while letting mother nature take it's course . The physical conditions and limitations of airplane are not compatible with all extraneous proceedures that will kill/finish off the airline industry .

They think they have problems with stranded on the runway/in the plane passengers now wait til these draconian measures are enforced to the letter .


Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
cj4
December 28, 2009 2:46 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I flew back from Australia yesterday (the 27th) with my four year old daughter. We went through extra security at the gate, including a pat down and a full search of our carry on bags, i.e., removal of everything in the bags.

The final hour of flight measures were strictly enforced. All blankets were collected (but not pillows), nothing was allowed in your lap, and no one was allowed up in the final hour of flight. They even made me unwind my sleeping daughter from her blanket and pack away all of the stuffed animals she sleeps with (but did not make me wake her up, fortunately).

That said, there were no restrictions on electronics. I had a laptop, dvd player, video camera, digital camera, blackberry and iPod touch and no one said a word. Same with liquids purchased after the normal security screening - no problem.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Jennifer
December 28, 2009 3:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Did you say \"potential for theft from checked baggage\"? It is about to be full-throttle, open season for theft at the airport. Good luck getting any thing to your final destination that you want. There is TOO much theft and denial of responsibility at the airport.
The airlines and TSA already make up rules as they go so be prepared for arbitrary and capricious rules for a while.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
duncanblackthorne
December 28, 2009 3:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Good job, terrorists: Apparently, you have won.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
LostTurntable
December 28, 2009 4:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The \"no potty breaks\" rule is bullshit. if that's going to be a rule then don't fine/arrest me when I whip it out and piss in an empty water bottle.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
joetan
December 28, 2009 5:13 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Sounds like a good way to get some extended genital manipulation before taking a trip! Ummmm yeah you can pat me down...oh yeah you need to get in there real good now.....yyyyeeeeaahh that's it. Find that WMD! A little more to the left and it might go off!

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
theredheadsaid
December 28, 2009 6:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I can see the advertising: We at CrazyPants airlines are giving bathroom control back to YOU the traveler by integrating toilet seats into your plane seats. When you have to go, simply pull the \"Easy Pee\" tab forward to open up the seat cushion hole and do your business! Quiet b'dai wash system cleans you up on the backside! Safe, easy, and completely conforming to TSA regulations! Isn't loss of dignity worth the slim chance that restricting bathroom access will catch the .000000001% of terrorists who arm their bombs in the bathroom in the last hour of flight?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Ronin Democrat
December 28, 2009 9:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Oh I can't wait for the surprise left for stewardesses when little johnny has to potty

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
jwissick
December 29, 2009 1:51 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Who made these rules? The baggage thieves??

Reply
","","","");