Friday, 04 January, 2008

1. By Bisbonian. Comment posted 04-Jan-2008 @01:16pm:

   In another post, about initials, I mentioned the scope of the TSA. What I really meant was it's parent organization, the DHS. Case in point.
2. By Bisbonian. Comment posted 04-Jan-2008 @01:17pm:

   By the way, I HAVE been shot at by an anti-aircraft missile...but not in the US. It was not heat seaking, but radar guided. Fortunately the radar was broken.
3. By . Comment posted 04-Jan-2008 @01:25pm:

   Obama on signing money
   “Mr. Obama, can you sign this for me?” a man at the food court said, pushing a dollar bill at the Illinois senator.
   
   “I can’t sign dollar bills,” Obama told him. “It’s against the law, and I’ve got all these federal officials here. They’d arrest me. I’d sign something else though, if you can find a piece of paper.”
   
   I think you should divert the immense legal resources of the J-walk juggernaut to investigate this.
4. By Sheldon. Comment posted 04-Jan-2008 @01:25pm:

   Now if only homeland security could work on a defense ray to keep the flight attendants from bashing me in the elbow or knee with the snack carts...
5. By Mean Jean. Comment posted 04-Jan-2008 @01:38pm:

   I went to the Bureau of Engraving and Printing website and found out that Obama is right.
   
   http://www.moneyfactory.gov/document.cfm/18/104
6. By . Comment posted 04-Jan-2008 @02:36pm:

   Well....I kinda sorta have to go along with this project.
   
   It's one of those things that, Ford forbid, it happens and many people die, everyone will be asking why nothing was done to prevent its happening.
   
   The technology is already there to fly the jammers, but it is also there to bring down aircraft with a shoulder mounted device.
7. By Foaming Solvent. Comment posted 04-Jan-2008 @02:41pm:

   @ Reginald and Mean Jean: As it says on the page Mean Jean links to, it is only illegal to mark currency if it is done "with intent to render such item(s) unfit to be reissued." You can write all you want on currency as long as you aren't obscuring the value, serial number, etc.. It is a myth that you may not write on currency.
   
   But to the point of the post, commercial jets HAVE been attacked by shoulder-launched missiles elsewhere in the world. (The whole Rwandan genocide was sparked when an airplane carrying the Rwandan and Burundian presidents was thus shot down.) And with the state of our border, it would be quite easy to smuggle such a missile into the US. If a US passenger jet were to be shot down with a heat-seeking missile, Mr J-Walk would be among the first to critique our government for not protecting us from the threat.
8. By . Comment posted 04-Jan-2008 @03:32pm:

   If a US passenger jet were to be shot down with a heat-seeking missile, Mr J-Walk would be among the first to critique our government for not protecting us from the threat.
   
   Thanks for putting words into my mouth. However, they are the wrong words. An anti-missile system in a passenger plane is absurd. It's just another fear tactic that will result in higher fares.
9. By . Comment posted 04-Jan-2008 @04:18pm:

   You have to figure out the cost-benefit ratio. How much will it cost to fit these gizmos to passenger planes, to train people to operate them and to maintain them? What are the chances of such an attack occurring and what are the costs of such an attack being successful? And what is the opportunity cost- what else could you have spent the money on that might be better value?
10. By . Comment posted 04-Jan-2008 @04:42pm:

    Well, who knows? Maybe they're going to start transporting nuclear warheads across the country on commercial aircraft next, since they got caught doing it with military bombers a few months ago and there was hell to pay for it.
    
    Stupid waste of money and - more importantly - resources. Wonder who got the contract to build these things and install them on commercial aircraft, and who the lobbyist was for the contract.
11. By . Comment posted 04-Jan-2008 @04:44pm:

    I'm not sure that I'm very proud to admit it these days, but I work for a company that is associated with these devices. Here's my 2 cents:
    
    1.The anti-missiles already exist, and they work, as 'beta' models.
    
    2. No operator is involved. You can't trust a human to be able to respond as quickly as would be needed in a low altitude attack. Milliseconds would make the difference.
    
    3.Maintenance: These devices are not any more sophisticated than most of the electronics that are already on commercial airplanes
    
    4. The units are much smaller than one might think, since all they need to do is impact the incoming missile. No explosives are needed (nor should they be, given that they will be hanging on a commercial aircraft)
    
    5. As to cost, that's probably a US Gummit secret. But, given that this project would not be a whole new technology ("Star Wars" comes to mind), the costs should be 'relatively' reasonable. 2 days worth of 'Iraqi Freedom" maybe?
12. By Kashmarek. Comment posted 04-Jan-2008 @05:28pm:

    It seems like doing this and TELLING everyone gives incentive to shoot down the un-shootable target. Almost war games but for real.
    
    Do it but don't tell anyone. Otherwise it is just security theater.
13. By Doug. Comment posted 04-Jan-2008 @06:42pm:

    It should greatly reduce bird strikes.
14. By Indigo Kid. Comment posted 04-Jan-2008 @07:14pm:

    If someone should try to missile an airliner:
    
    We don't want to be in the position of saying we don't have the technology.
    
    If the missile shoots down the airliner with the technology installed, we simply begin an investigation until we find someone to blame.
    
    And we should remember that airliner's are quite easy to shoot down with a missle. Remember a number of years back when a US fighter pilot shot down an Arab airliner and we saw the videos of the 300 bodies floating in the ocean?
15. By Gustave De Windt. Comment posted 04-Jan-2008 @08:58pm:

    And we should remember that airliner's are quite easy to shoot down with a missle. Remember a number of years back when a US fighter pilot shot down an Arab airliner and we saw the videos of the 300 bodies floating in the ocean?

    
    MANPADS are a far cry from the Standard missile used by AEGIS cruisers. The former have been used against civilian aircraft over the years, but only with mixed success.
16. By PoohPoohBear. Comment posted 04-Jan-2008 @10:04pm:

    What will they think of next? Air to Air missiles on skyscrapers...
17. By Snag. Comment posted 05-Jan-2008 @04:16am:

    I'm a bit ambivalent about this one. Maybe it deserves a try ? It makes more sense than groping bra-wires and confiscating raspberry pies at the boarding counter.
18. By KeithS. Comment posted 05-Jan-2008 @04:37am:

    *Nasty* terrorists!
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655
19. By Bisbonian. Comment posted 05-Jan-2008 @06:48am:

    "Now if only homeland security could work on a defense ray to keep the flight attendants from bashing me in the elbow or knee with the snack carts..."
    
    Maybe you could keep them out of the aisle. ;)
    
    "Wonder who got the contract to build these things and install them on commercial aircraft, and who the lobbyist was for the contract."
    
    Jim. "...I work for a company that is associated with these devices. Here's my 2 cents:
    
    1.The anti-missiles already exist, and they work, as 'beta' models."
    
    That means they were tested under exacting and controlled conditions, and they worked, some of the time. Personally, as your pilot, I think maybe you'd rather there weren't machines up in the sky automatically shooting lazers at other things up in the sky (like my eyes). Check into the studies done on (not so) temporary blindness in pilots hit by light show type lazers.
20. By Lorence. Comment posted 05-Jan-2008 @07:51am:

    Mean Jean, and Reginald Selkirk,
    RE: Signing a dollar bill
    
    The juggernaut is at work...
    
    Mean Jean,, both of you and Senator Obama are incorrect. The section of code you cite from the BEP is indeed aimed at the defacement of US currency, but the key portion of the bill that is frequently ignored is the section that reads:
    
    with intent to render such item(s) unfit to be reissued
    (emphasis added)
    
    I (and thousands of others) frequently and purposely mark up bills with specific messages. See http://www.WheresGeorge.com.
    
    Our intent is not to make the unfit for circulation, but rather to have them circulate as much as possible so that those finding the bills will enter them intot he WG database so se can follow where they go. There is a friendly competition that goes on at various levels. the site is also used by many teachers to teach gepgraphy, probability, etc. And it's fun.
21. By Lorence. Comment posted 05-Jan-2008 @07:56am:

    sorry, that should be "Geography", not "gepgraphy" (and obviously, not spelling...).
    
    We can see where a bill we enter goes (somewhat) and where bills we find have been (sorta).
    
    Oh, and it's completely free to play along, an added bonus.
22. By Mean Jean. Comment posted 05-Jan-2008 @09:47am:

    LorenceI don't think I'm wrong. You forgot to consider that by signing a bill a celebrity or famous person has rendered that bill useless as money and made it a collector's item.
    
    We play "Where's George".
23. By Lorence. Comment posted 06-Jan-2008 @10:13pm:

    While I agree that someone may prefer not to spend an "autographed" piece of currency, it is technically still fit for circulation and not in violation of Title 18. If another person were to acquire the bill and wish to spend it, they are perfectly free to do so as it is still legal tender, signature or no. Just because currency may have value above its face value doesn't render it unfit for circulation. That is why I still always check my change for coins - I found two silver dimes just last month, worth more than their ten cent face value just their bullion value. I saved them in my "collection", but I could have spent them just the same. Under the law, the same holds true for paper currency. It still has the value on it's face, regardless of any other extrinsic value it may have, whether that extrinsic value be due to rarity or some other factor, such as a signature.

Original content © 2009, John Walkenbach