Not valid outside American's border

Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message
...

Still, the reaction could have been worse; US airline security is nowhere
near as intrusive as, say, El Al.

Nor as effective.

I love flying. I hate the whole preboard, fit into a cattle car, etc
experience.

At least with Southwest you get what they promise.. cattle car conditions,
package of nuts and a silly sounding flight attendant. They don't promise
any more than they deliever.



I fly on business coast to coast once a month. Security is not that
great a hassle once
you get used to it. Take yor shoes off, remove metal from you person,
take off your
jacket and remove your notebook computer from its bag and you have no
problem.
It's amusing to see first time or infrequent flyers getting mad at
something that is
for their own good.

Southwest is great. At the end of a recent coast to coast flight, the
pilot said over the
speaker, just as we touched down, "We made it!"

On the old Bob Newhart show, his wife Emily was afraid of flying. He
suggested that
they fly to Hawaii. Her response was, "It will be worth it, if we make
it."

Rusty

Russell Wallace wrote:
Dave O'Neill wrote:
The lack of analysis on how robust the market is in the event of
vehicle failures concerns me.

It's enormously hard to predict, because it's based on psychological
matters. Who would have predicted NASA would have responded to the loss
of seven lives a few years ago by shutting down their manned space
program for an indefinite period of time while still paying the full
cost each year, even though there's a way they could fly safely? Who
would have predicted there'd be a steady stream of tourists climbing
Mount Everest even though a significant fraction of them die in the
process and the rest suffer permanent brain damage? Not me, on either
count. I really have no idea how the space tourism market would react to
a vehicle failure.

This comparison is used rather a lot but I think it's a deeply flawed
one. If, for example, the cost of climbing Everest also had to cover
the costs of all transport from the Western world, development of
highly specialist accomodations, evacuation systems and a bunch of
other systems that were either there or generally existed in one form
or another, it wouldn't be economical for the few thousands who do it.

They are all experienced climbers with good experience of climbing in
many conditions whom will almost certainly attended funerals of
friends. I'm not a climber myself, but of my circle of University
friends at least 2 have been killed in climbing accidents over the last
20 years and that's not all that uncommon within the climbing culture.

For space tourism to attract the size of market it will need to
bootstrap the development of space it will need a much larger pool
which I am concerned will want/expect something more like taking a
commercial pleasure flight.

Dave

Mike Lorrey wrote:
Personally, given that the FAA confiscation of American's 2nd amendment
rights on aircraft are THE cause of the 9/11 hijackings, I'd be happy
if the airlines gave us cattle car conditions with a choice of free
peanuts, or free frangible ammo. America is in danger because the
safety ninnies have gotten us away from the militia model of national
defense.

I think it's actually the Warsaw Regulations on international air
travel that codified the gun issues? (Might be wrong there) - I can't
think of a single place I've been which doesn't do it. They have
separate gun check in desks for internal flights in South Africa which
I found interesting.

I'm not convinced by the argument that armed passengers would have
necessarily prevented the 9-11 attacks either.

Dave

Rusty wrote:
Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message
...

Still, the reaction could have been worse; US airline security is nowhere
near as intrusive as, say, El Al.

Nor as effective.

I love flying. I hate the whole preboard, fit into a cattle car, etc
experience.

At least with Southwest you get what they promise.. cattle car conditions,
package of nuts and a silly sounding flight attendant. They don't promise
any more than they deliever.



I fly on business coast to coast once a month. Security is not that
great a hassle once
you get used to it. Take yor shoes off, remove metal from you person,
take off your
jacket and remove your notebook computer from its bag and you have no
problem.
It's amusing to see first time or infrequent flyers getting mad at
something that is
for their own good.

It drives me nuts when people aren't ready. I recently went travelling
around the US with another manager from the UK. I explained to him to
have his jacket off, shoes off and laptop out of his bag. The security
people asked for laptops out. He left it in and then got the full
search.

Strangely the worst airport for this I've seen in the last 3 years is
Frankfurt where there are 3 security checks between check in and
boarding.

Southwest is great. At the end of a recent coast to coast flight, the
pilot said over the
speaker, just as we touched down, "We made it!"

I've been on flights where people clapped when we touched down. I
always wonder what they know that I didn't.

I also flew back from Seattle a few months ago sitting next to a Boeing
engineer. He admitted to me after take off that he didn't believe that
"these things" would fly until the gear was up and the flaps were in.

Dave

"Rusty" wrote in message
ups.com...
I fly on business coast to coast once a month. Security is not that
great a hassle once
you get used to it. Take yor shoes off, remove metal from you person,
take off your
jacket and remove your notebook computer from its bag and you have no
problem.
It's amusing to see first time or infrequent flyers getting mad at
something that is
for their own good.

See and I call taht a hassle.

Let's see, take shoes off for what? So they can image them. Guess what,
next time it won't be a shoe bomb. This is simply a reactionary tactic
easily bypassed.

Taking my computer out of the bag? Only once has it been swabbed. Other
times they've ignored it, had me turn it on or done other useless things.

Remove metal from me sure. Useful. But I probably still have several
"weapons" on me that they can't detect.

None of these are all that useful. THAT'S why they're a hassle. If there
was a great deal of evidence that they actually helped or could prevent
future attacks I'd be more supportive.



Southwest is great. At the end of a recent coast to coast flight, the
pilot said over the
speaker, just as we touched down, "We made it!"


Like I say, Southwest is selling me a ground beef and at least not calling
it filet mignon.


On the old Bob Newhart show, his wife Emily was afraid of flying. He
suggested that
they fly to Hawaii. Her response was, "It will be worth it, if we make
it."

Rusty

Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:

Let's see, take shoes off for what? So they can image them. Guess what,
next time it won't be a shoe bomb. This is simply a reactionary tactic
easily bypassed.


Would C4 actually turn up on the xray screens as any different from the
regular shoe sole filler?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4589072.stm
Space tourists must be screened to ensure they are not terrorists,
according to proposed regulations from the US Federal Aviation
Administration.
The FAA also suggests space tourism companies check the global
"no-fly" list, from the US Homeland Security Department, to exclude
potential terrorists.

This is absurd, letting *anyone* fly, so long as they are not on a
no-fly list. Is this the way security at military bases is done,
anybody can walk right in the gate and in the door of any building and
in the door of any top-secret room, so long as they aren't recognized
as a known terrorist?

The right way is to not let anyone fly until and unless they become a
known person in the allow-fly system. Person shows up at gate, presents
ID, ID is public-key-encrypted and sent to FBI/CIA/DHS computer where
it's decrypted and a lookup is done. If valid allow-fly record is
found, photo of that person is public-key-encrypted and sent back to
airport, where it's decrypted and presented for security guard to check
against actual face of person. If guard OKs it, new photo of person
actually there is public-key-encrypted and sent back to database where
it's logged and an ACK is public-key-encrypted and sent back to
airport, flashing green light next to both archive-photo and new-photo
of that person, whereupon the guard does one last check that both
pictures match, and presses button to open gate to let that one person
enter.

It's the responsibility of the person to make sure, before showing at
the spaceport, that they are on the allow-fly list. When booking the
flight, the person must present ID such as social security number or
alien registration number to airline, at which the airline can check if
that person is on the allow-fly list and advise the perosn of that
fact. If airline says they aren't on allow-fly list, they need to make
a trip to their local police department to get registered. If they show
up at the spaceport without first getting on the allow-fly list, their
departure will be delayed, and they are likely to miss their flight.

In a case of identical twins who are indistinguishable by photo, extra
verification of person in addition to photo would need to be done, a
minor extra hassle for those few who are identical twins and look
identical even as adults.

wrote:

In a case of identical twins who are indistinguishable by photo, extra
verification of person in addition to photo would need to be done, a
minor extra hassle for those few who are identical twins and look
identical even as adults.



Yes, but you know the problem here- one is the Evil Twin who has killed
the Good Twin and then stolen their identity.
The Good Twin is of only moderate intelligence, but the Evil Twin is
always a criminal genius and fully capable of pulling this off with ease.

Pat

Pat Flannery wrote:
wrote:

In a case of identical twins who are indistinguishable by photo, extra
verification of person in addition to photo would need to be done, a
minor extra hassle for those few who are identical twins and look
identical even as adults.



Yes, but you know the problem here- one is the Evil Twin who has killed
the Good Twin and then stolen their identity.
The Good Twin is of only moderate intelligence, but the Evil Twin is
always a criminal genius and fully capable of pulling this off with ease.

Yes, but he'll end up having to tell somebody in lots of detail and his
inability to shoot will be his downfall.

Dave

In article , wrote:
The right way is to not let anyone fly until and unless they become a
known person in the allow-fly system. Person shows up at gate, presents
ID, ID is public-key-encrypted and sent to FBI/CIA/DHS computer where
it's decrypted and a lookup is done...

Hint: most of the 9/11 hijackers *had* valid, legitimate ID, in some
cases obtained by bribing the issuers.

No ID scheme that's easy enough for millions of law-abiding passengers to
cope with is going to stop smart terrorists. (Yeah, it might stop dumb
terrorists, but they're not the ones you really worry about.) And the
possibilities for abuse by the government are immense.

The problem with this -- as with so much of the post-9/11 nonsense -- is
not that it's intrusive and annoying, although it is, but that it simply
*doesn't address the problem at all*... but does fit all too well with
various people's hidden agendas.

(Sample: the airlines love mandatory photo ID. It's got nothing to do
with security -- from their viewpoint, the big virtue is that it stops
people from reselling non-refundable tickets! It's far from the only
"security" precaution whose real purpose is to protect someone's right
to exploit you.)
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |