Regarding potential bomb threats--things to be thankful the government hasn't thought of yet (because if they did, air travel would even less enjoyable and more restrictive):
1) that people might hide hazardous materials in their underwear
2) that plastiqus could be molded into the shape of dentures. The fuse could be disguised as floss.
3) that a few tubes of toothpaste would likely hold enough c4 to blow out the side of an airplane.
4) that 100mL of a ricin solution, looking like water, would be enough, if properly distributed, to kill an entire planeful of people.
5) that x-rays are high energy electromagnetic radiation and thus could probably, with some research, be used to trigger explosives in carry-on luggage--why blow up the plane when you can take apart the airport with almost as many people clustered in the same area?
6) that shoe laces can be deadly weapons
7) that a toothbrush with a sharpened handle could be as deadly in stabbing as a knife.
8) or a pen/pencil
9) that not all solid explosives are x-ray dense or require a fuse
Hmmm, maybe I shouldn't have written this blog, I'm starting to scare myself. Surely, if the government thought of even some of the things mentioned above, they would ban public air travel altogether.
Monday, October 15, 2007
What's with strict weight restrictions on airplanes?
Okay, we all know the short answer to this one...money! If you're over, the airline gets to charge you huge and very unreasonable handling fees. So why does no one complain? Europe is getting horrible for this. My last trip to England saw a strict adherence to 10kg carry-on. Even 1kg over and it was 'sorry, you must check that bag or empty it some.' What's the deal with that? I mean, I realize there has to be some weight restrictions for the sake of the airplane capacity and fuel costs etc, but such a strict adherence is completely unreasonable--the individual weights of people vary by more than that.
Think of this: if 50kg Slim Jim gets aboard with his 11kg bag and is forced to check it, while 120kg Big Bob is fine with his 9kg carry-on !? Now, not only is the total weight of Jim+carry-on far less than Bob but, if they are both packing only clothes and personal items for the same length trip then Bob's checked baggage will quite likely be heavier than Jim's also because all his clothes will be larger. So I repeat....where's the common sense?
Perhaps you're willing to argue that they have to be strict because they consider the average passenger weight, which may not change from trip to trip. Even still, I don't believe 1kg here or there will matter much, and will probably even out in the end also. Not only that but, if they are calculating for the average weight that bodes bad for somebody because in the west, the average passenger weight is going up. So either they are going to be spending more money than they calculated for fuel, or they will be cutting our luggage weight allowances even further. Regardless, somehow you know it's always us, the passengers, who are going to pay.
Think of this: if 50kg Slim Jim gets aboard with his 11kg bag and is forced to check it, while 120kg Big Bob is fine with his 9kg carry-on !? Now, not only is the total weight of Jim+carry-on far less than Bob but, if they are both packing only clothes and personal items for the same length trip then Bob's checked baggage will quite likely be heavier than Jim's also because all his clothes will be larger. So I repeat....where's the common sense?
Perhaps you're willing to argue that they have to be strict because they consider the average passenger weight, which may not change from trip to trip. Even still, I don't believe 1kg here or there will matter much, and will probably even out in the end also. Not only that but, if they are calculating for the average weight that bodes bad for somebody because in the west, the average passenger weight is going up. So either they are going to be spending more money than they calculated for fuel, or they will be cutting our luggage weight allowances even further. Regardless, somehow you know it's always us, the passengers, who are going to pay.
Those airline baggies revisited
A funny thought occured to me recently. Next time I travel I'll have to check it out to see if I'm right (and if so, the reaction). As I remember it, from my last flight (less than a week ago) the baggies are restricted as follows: they are limited in size to about 10 or 15 cm a side and to containing no more than 1 L. You can also not have bottle any larger than 100 mL. The amount of liquid in the bottle doesn't matter, only the bottle size -- as I witnessed as the woman in front of me had to throw out 50 mL of contact cleaner because it was in a 250 mL bottle. Incidentally, it doesn't actually matter if the bag can seal as long as it is of the type that should be able to. This was my own personal experience as my resealable bag had a very well-used sticky strip that was no longer very sticky. In fact, the bottles kept falling out of the bag while I was in line. But no one in security cared about that.
Anyway, the funny thing I thought of was this: I don't recall seeing anywhere a statement to the effect that the liquid must actually be in the bottles. Only that you can only have 1L total and no larger than 100mL bottles. I'm seriously tempted to check this out next time and if I'm right I might do the following...bring into the line a bag with several 100mL bottles inside--> and carry a 500mL water bottle. When they stop me, insisting I leave the water bottle, instead, I empty it into the bag and seal the bag. Thus obeying the letter of the law, if not the intent.
Failing that, it might be interesting to bring a 500 mL bottle of frozen water through security, arguing that it's not liquid and so should be except from the restrictions (of course, all they have to do is delay me long enough and it would be liquid). Hmm, I could be taking a long time to go through security the next time--even longer than on my last trip (45 minutes needlessly repacking my carry-on before we even got to the x-ray).
Anyway, the funny thing I thought of was this: I don't recall seeing anywhere a statement to the effect that the liquid must actually be in the bottles. Only that you can only have 1L total and no larger than 100mL bottles. I'm seriously tempted to check this out next time and if I'm right I might do the following...bring into the line a bag with several 100mL bottles inside--> and carry a 500mL water bottle. When they stop me, insisting I leave the water bottle, instead, I empty it into the bag and seal the bag. Thus obeying the letter of the law, if not the intent.
Failing that, it might be interesting to bring a 500 mL bottle of frozen water through security, arguing that it's not liquid and so should be except from the restrictions (of course, all they have to do is delay me long enough and it would be liquid). Hmm, I could be taking a long time to go through security the next time--even longer than on my last trip (45 minutes needlessly repacking my carry-on before we even got to the x-ray).
Funny thought of the day
Imagine what we'd have to go through at airport security if they ever found someone trying to smuggle explosives aboard in their underwear!
Saturday, October 6, 2007
Marion Jones, regret over....being caught.
Yeah, this type of story never fails to make me madder than....well...almost as mad as I get when thinking about the RIAA lawsuits. Yet another track athlete, sprinter, has admitted using, and lying about using, steroids. Big freakin' surprise. It's not even surprising that she blames her coach or that the period she admits to using is...you guessed it...exactly AFTER her 5 medal win at the Olympics.
Oh no, your honor, I never used them before I won my 5 medals. That was all my own skill.
Sure. So, what happened, you got worse after using them?
But really, does anyone find this the least bit surprising anymore? I saw one quote on a talk-back page suggesting that for every 1 track athlete caught using steroids, 5 go undetected. At least in the 100m sprint I feel that statement is hopelessly naive. Personally, if there are any Olympic finalists of the 100m sprint that aren't using steroids I'd be incredibly surprised.
Take the men's 100m world records: almost for every sub-9.85 record that stands, there is another that has been disallowed because of steroid use ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Record_progression_100_m_men ). This stretches back to the days of the now infamous Ben Johnson. Furthermore, if you graph this data, you see a smooth trend (allowing for the outlier of 1956 that was probably delayed due to WWII) showing that the times were decreasing but were reaching an asymptote of about 9.9s (suggesting this to be the maximum possible for unaided humans)--from about 1968 through to the mid 80's the rate of decrease had almost flattened.
Enter improved synthetic chemistry and big money. Since the mid 80's the downward trend reasserted itself. In other fields, such a break in the trend is considered a 'paradigm shift'. It happens, for example, when studying the develop of computer technology every time a fundamentally new technology is developed. And what it suggests is that something fundamental happened to the sport in the 80's. My guess: steroids.
So, the only surprise in this recent bout of discoveries is that the athletes are American. What I mean is, those of us non-American have long believed the top US track athletes were using steroids, however, the surprise is that they were finally caught. Not that the US Olympic system wanted to catch them, the signs have been there for a long time. No, they were caught from the inside with the anonymous release of information on the production of designer steroids at a San Francisco lab a few years ago. The US sport organizations had no option. To save face, they had to sacrifice the scapegoats.
Your mission, should you accept, is to bring glory to your country by winning the Olympics any way you can. Should you be caught using illicit substances, we will disavow any knowledge of it.
Anyway, in a sport like the 100m, I truly believe no modern champion is drug free. It's no longer possible. Steroids give such an edge to competitors in certain events that one must use them to compete at the world-class level. And the chemists will always be ahead of the detection methods (hey, chemists/biochemists make the detection methods).
So you know what I'd like to see? A steroid Olympics. Let's see what the human body is truly capable of when boosted to the maximum. What's that, you say, it would send a negative and dangerous signal to the young, hopeful athletes. How so? It would be the most honest Olympics since they were held in ancient Greece (maybe even more so). And besides, the drug-warped bodies of retired champions would serve as a very obvious sign to new athletes of the consequences of the path they were taking. And if steroids are invented that don't cause bodily harm? Then I say, bring on the 8 second 100m sprint!
Oh no, your honor, I never used them before I won my 5 medals. That was all my own skill.
Sure. So, what happened, you got worse after using them?
But really, does anyone find this the least bit surprising anymore? I saw one quote on a talk-back page suggesting that for every 1 track athlete caught using steroids, 5 go undetected. At least in the 100m sprint I feel that statement is hopelessly naive. Personally, if there are any Olympic finalists of the 100m sprint that aren't using steroids I'd be incredibly surprised.
Take the men's 100m world records: almost for every sub-9.85 record that stands, there is another that has been disallowed because of steroid use ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Record_progression_100_m_men ). This stretches back to the days of the now infamous Ben Johnson. Furthermore, if you graph this data, you see a smooth trend (allowing for the outlier of 1956 that was probably delayed due to WWII) showing that the times were decreasing but were reaching an asymptote of about 9.9s (suggesting this to be the maximum possible for unaided humans)--from about 1968 through to the mid 80's the rate of decrease had almost flattened.
Enter improved synthetic chemistry and big money. Since the mid 80's the downward trend reasserted itself. In other fields, such a break in the trend is considered a 'paradigm shift'. It happens, for example, when studying the develop of computer technology every time a fundamentally new technology is developed. And what it suggests is that something fundamental happened to the sport in the 80's. My guess: steroids.
So, the only surprise in this recent bout of discoveries is that the athletes are American. What I mean is, those of us non-American have long believed the top US track athletes were using steroids, however, the surprise is that they were finally caught. Not that the US Olympic system wanted to catch them, the signs have been there for a long time. No, they were caught from the inside with the anonymous release of information on the production of designer steroids at a San Francisco lab a few years ago. The US sport organizations had no option. To save face, they had to sacrifice the scapegoats.
Your mission, should you accept, is to bring glory to your country by winning the Olympics any way you can. Should you be caught using illicit substances, we will disavow any knowledge of it.
Anyway, in a sport like the 100m, I truly believe no modern champion is drug free. It's no longer possible. Steroids give such an edge to competitors in certain events that one must use them to compete at the world-class level. And the chemists will always be ahead of the detection methods (hey, chemists/biochemists make the detection methods).
So you know what I'd like to see? A steroid Olympics. Let's see what the human body is truly capable of when boosted to the maximum. What's that, you say, it would send a negative and dangerous signal to the young, hopeful athletes. How so? It would be the most honest Olympics since they were held in ancient Greece (maybe even more so). And besides, the drug-warped bodies of retired champions would serve as a very obvious sign to new athletes of the consequences of the path they were taking. And if steroids are invented that don't cause bodily harm? Then I say, bring on the 8 second 100m sprint!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)