City sued over limits on photography (article from today's (NJ) Bergen Record)

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Bob, Jan 11, 2006.

  1. Bob

    Jer Guest


    I have no problem allowing anyone to bring a box cutter on board a
    plane. I already know they won't be hurting anyone with it.
     
    Jer, Jan 20, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. Bob

    Eric B. Guest

    Umm, more ad hominem? LOL

    Do I need to explain 'ad hominem' to you? Perhaps I had better...

    Suggesting that someone is under 30 is not a personal attack but an
    observation, or in my case a guess. There is nothing inherently wrong with
    being under 30. And I qualified it by suggesting that the poster was too
    young to grasp the full effect of his beliefs. OTOH calling someone "truly
    stupid. and likely defective beyond repair" is an ad hominem attack.

    I can do personal attacks but I choose not to. The sad thing is when I try
    to discuss things with people it almost *always* ends up with name calling.
    Can no one articulate their opinion and defend it without resorting to
    personal attacks? Sad...
    Where are you getting these thoughts from?

    Eric B.
     
    Eric B., Jan 20, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. Bob

    Eric B. Guest

    Never mind there Rambo. I see that you 'have issues' now.

    Eric B.
     
    Eric B., Jan 20, 2006
  4. Bob

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    "Coward" isn't a name, it's an accusation.
     
    Jeremy Nixon, Jan 20, 2006
  5. Bob

    cjcampbell Guest

    Possibly.

    Just how helpless do you think the American public needs to be before
    it is safe from terrorists? And why just airplanes?

    Maybe we should confiscate all the sharp objects that people carry on
    buses. Maybe we should not allow people to carry box cutter knives into
    shopping malls. Would you like that?

    Perhaps the only way to really be safe from terrorists is to lock
    everyone up, stark naked, in little compartments and have specially
    cleared government agents spoon them properly prepared, governmentally
    approved balanced nutrients for the rest of their lives.

    If we make America any safer, someone is liable to walk in and take
    over the whole country using nothing but a spoon.
     
    cjcampbell, Jan 20, 2006
  6. Bob

    eawckyegcy Guest

    Eric B. adds more evidence to the fact he is a dimwit:
    Listen, shithead, yours was a classic ad hominem: you can't answer
    your opponent, so you start bickering about his red hair or something.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
    You simply do not get it at all. When I said those things, it wasn't
    because I was trying to evade your argument: I was making a claim
    which is, fortunately for me, backed up by the evidence from your own
    idiot mouth. That you find the truth insulting or objectionable is
    your problem, not mine.
     
    eawckyegcy, Jan 20, 2006
  7. Bob

    ASAAR Guest

    You are definitely under 30. Probably under 20. Come back to this
    conversation when you have some life experience.

    Not an attack btw, merely an observation, grasshopper.
     
    ASAAR, Jan 20, 2006
  8. Bob

    Eric B. Guest

    See? There is where you lose the argument. No need for me to read further.
    :eek:)

    Eric B.
     
    Eric B., Jan 20, 2006
  9. Bob

    Eric B. Guest

    No I won't like it, but that is how I see it. As I previously said I
    believe we will more than likely end up with security like Israel has.
    Making a prediction doesn't make me like it. I will not take up arms against
    my own government if they pass such laws. From the responses I am getting it
    seems a couple of you might. Good thing Google is watching. Big Usenet
    brother. :D
    Uhh, that makes no sense.
    The police will be carrying SMGs so that is unlikely.

    Eric B.
     
    Eric B., Jan 20, 2006
  10. Bob

    Eric B. Guest

    An accusation with no evidence is just name calling. You have no evidence
    that I am a coward but for my predictions that security will continue to
    tighten in America (and worldwide) as terrorist attacks increase, and that
    more freedoms will be taken away.

    BTW you have *never* been allowed to take a box cutter onto an airplane. I
    just threw that out there to see if anyone was awake. Apparently not. :p

    Eric B.
     
    Eric B., Jan 20, 2006
  11. Per cjcampbell:
    Ever since... I've been saying "FedEx the baggage and fly naked - it's the only
    way."

    Seriously, though, I can see N reasons for attacking a passenger airplane:
    -----------------------------------------------------------------
    1) To make the headlines by bringing it down.

    2) To use it as a missile by crashing it into something as in 9/11.

    3) To use it as leverage for some sort of ransom/political demand.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------

    In the context of confiscating passenger property, #1 seems virtually moot
    because the air cargo beneath the passengers is not checked and it's just too
    easy to put some sort of explosive device into air cargo if somebody just wants
    to bring a plane down.


    It doesn't seem like #2 is ever going to happen again until somebody figures out
    how to render passengers/crew dead or unconscious yet survive themselves. How
    long after 9/11 did it take the passengers on the plane headed for DC to catch
    on? 20 minutes? 45 minutes? It's just not doable on an airplane full of
    conscious passengers. It was a one-time trick that depended on the public and
    government not thinking in terms of suicide attackers. On a near-empty plane,
    maybe they could kill all the passengers without losing control... but how many
    planes are flying near-empty today?

    It seems almost certain that the plane would go down as the passengers attempt
    to overcome the hijackers.


    #3 isn't going to happen because, to the passengers, it will be
    indistinguishable from #2 and they will do what the passengers on the DC-bound
    flight did.



    Some wacko puts a bomb in his shoe and now we all have to walk through the
    previous 1,000 passengers foot fungi and planar wart sheddings in stocking feet.
    Geeze, what's gonna happen after the first Bra Bomber?

    Personally, if I had to worry about something air-transport-wise, I'd worry
    somebody trying to make the headlines via an air cargo bomb on a passenger plane
    or doing a 9/11 with one of the FedEx/UPS/whatever cargo flights.


    Maybe I'm just a basically rotten person, but I can think of enough reasonably
    simple ways to destroy property/kill people/disrupt a local economy in an open
    society that it makes me wonder if the terrorist threat isn't substantially
    inflated - and that's thinking in terms of a terrorist that wants to get out of
    it unscathed.... I can't even imagine the possibilities for somebody gullible
    enough to be willing to die in the attack.

    OTOH, maybe I don't understand their motives.... which I think is not out of the
    question...
     
    (PeteCresswell), Jan 20, 2006
  12. Bob

    eawckyegcy Guest

    Eric B. babbles on again:
    Think kissing your glorious leaders ass will save you? HA HA HA. Are
    _you_ in for a surprise!
     
    eawckyegcy, Jan 20, 2006
  13. Bob

    eawckyegcy Guest

    Eric B. blathers:
    Yes, so when I call you a "shithead", and point to instances of your
    lack of reasoning capability, I am not calling you names, but simply
    speaking the truth. But you start crying anyways, and refuse to read
    the terrible things. Boo hoo!
    You suckle at the anus of your unerring leader, and offer disgusting,
    anti-American apologetics for his acts. This is an operational meaning
    of "coward", sir shithead.
     
    eawckyegcy, Jan 20, 2006
  14. Bob

    Eric B. Guest

    You post that and say *I* am blathering? LOL

    Thanks for the laugh, I needed it.

    Eric B.
     
    Eric B., Jan 20, 2006
  15. Bob

    Eric B. Guest

    All of it is nonsense in the long run. Ultimately we cannot stop a
    determined person that is willing to give his life for his cause, only deter
    them.
    It is preventable provided there are enough courageous people onboard that
    aircraft. And remember the other two planes hit their targets.
    Once again I remind you the first two planes hit their targets. The people
    knew the plane was hijacked. They just didn't know they were headed towards
    a skyscraper.
    I'll sign up for an airport screener job? :D
    There are so many scenarios that we cannot even begin to deal with them.
    Still, I see taking away our freedoms as the end result, because it is one
    of the few responses the government has at it's disposal domestically
    speaking. Look how fast the Patriot Act went through. They did it when
    everyone was still angry and shell shocked. It will happen the same way
    again. Patriot Act II is probably in a desk somewhere just waiting for
    another attack to happen.
    I can understand them, I just cannot relate to them.

    Eric B.
     
    Eric B., Jan 20, 2006
  16. Per Eric B.:
    Yes, but my assumption is that they were still under the impression that they
    were "just" being skyjacked and they didn't catch on until it was too late.
    First time for anybody... but now there is a public consciousness.
     
    (PeteCresswell), Jan 21, 2006
  17. Bob

    Eric B. Guest

    Yeah, but I wonder if future hijackers were to announce they *were not*
    steering into a skyscraper and just wanted a ransom if passengers would buy
    it. Personally I don't think our enemies will use planes ever again anyway.
    Too obvious. It is astounding what people will believe if they really want
    to.

    If the government were to try to take away too many freedoms it could end up
    starting a civil war. Which side would you pick if that were to happen? They
    have already made it really difficult for legal gun owners. I know it's a
    cliché but when you outlaw guns only outlaws will have them.

    Eric B.
     
    Eric B., Jan 21, 2006
  18. Bob

    cjcampbell Guest

    You really don't know much about Israeli security, do you? Israel lets
    people carry box cutter knives into malls, even if you would not. After
    all, how would people buy box cutter knives? Not that Israeli security
    has been particularly effective in stopping either hijackings or
    suicide bombers. Certainly no more so than pre-9/11 American security.
    I have heard the claims that there have been no hijackings of Israeli
    planes, etc. They are ignorant, if not outright lies. Even a cursory
    search will reveal that Israeli society and transportation is no more
    secure than that of America or Europe, and it is possibly considerably
    less secure in some areas.
    I missed have missed the post where someone suggested taking up arms
    against the government. I would not do that, nor would I advocate it. I
    do not even support the idea of civil disobedience or any other act of
    lawbreaking.
    Neither do you.
    Ah, yes. Where do the police come from? In case you have forgotten, the
    police come from the same community the rest of us do. They went to the
    same schools, eat the same food, drive the same cars, live in the same
    houses, have the same IQs (scary, that), read the same newspapers, etc.
    Their kids go to the same schools as our kids. They have barbecues in
    their back yards and go to the same churches as their neighbors do.
    Because they have to live in the community and get along with everyone
    else, police are not going to stray very far from the standards of the
    communities where they live. After all, they have to trust the butcher
    and the green-grocer and the pilot just as much as the rest of us do.
    They will not violate that trust lightly.

    They are not magical beings endowed with super powers that make them
    any more reliable than anyone else. They are a reflection of society,
    with all of its strengths and imperfections. So why are police allowed
    to carry SMGs and other people are not? There is no evidence whatsoever
    that the police are any more law-abiding than the rest of the
    population. All training does is it makes them deadlier with the SMGs
    they carry.

    And, after all, if you are really into training as a cure-all, why not
    train whoever wants to be trained and let them carry whatever weapon
    they want?

    In other words, what rational reason do you have to believe that you
    are any more secure on an airplane with an armed sky marshal than you
    would be with me sitting next to you? I submit that there is none.

    Come to that, why does the American government (and I am speaking of
    both major parties here) trust the most brutal regimes more than it
    does its own people? We sell the latest military technology to all
    kinds thugs in other countries, but we don't trust our own people with
    it? That strikes me as surrreal, especially when a lot of those bullets
    sold to foreign governments wind up with the names of American citizens
    on them.
     
    cjcampbell, Jan 24, 2006
  19. Bob

    cjcampbell Guest

    As a pilot I would agree with you. It is not just a matter of
    passengers acting to prevent a hijacking.

    Before 9/11 the airlines had a well-known policy of complying with
    whatever demands a hijacker made. They left it to local security
    forces to deal with aircraft that had been hijacked, but basically
    pilots were ordered to simply do what the hijackers wanted.

    Since 9/11 that is no longer the case. Pilots are now determined to
    resist giving up control of the aircraft to anyone, even if that means
    bringing down the aircraft and killing everyone on board. Hijackers and
    terrorists can no longer use hostages as a means of enforcing
    compliance. After all, if the pilot believes that the little girl with
    the knife to her throat is going to die anyway, what reason has he to
    comply with the demands of her captor? Indeed, he is likely to do
    anything in a last-ditch effort to free the hostage and save the
    aircraft, figuring that even if he fails the situation will not be any
    worse than it was before.

    The pilot has control of the aircraft and is undoubtedly far more
    familiar with it than even the most highly trained terrorist. Never
    again will a pilot allow his throat to be cut in hopes that at least he
    might be preserving the lives of his passengers.

    9/11 was the last time that an airliner will be successfully hijacked,
    at least until complacency and stupidity conspire once again to create
    an opportunity.

    It is worth noting that the US Air Force has never had one of its
    planes successfully hijacked. USAF has always had a policy of
    resistance to hijackers and terrorism. Not that there have been no
    attempts to hijack Air Force planes; to the contrary, some few attempts
    to steal a plane have even left the ground. But no stolen USAF plane
    will ever reach its destination. USAF pilots are keenly aware that if
    they even begin to taxi with a hijacker on board that they are likely
    to be a sniper's target. (Thank heavens the tires are a bigger target.)

    There was a time, many years ago, when all pilots were required to be
    armed. In one of the most bizarre stories of political history, the
    notoriously anti-gun Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein introduced
    legislation requiring pilots to carry handguns after 9/11. It was
    opposed by the supposedly gun loving Bush administration and
    Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta. Go figure. Eventually the Bush
    administration did come up with a plan for pilots to voluntarily carry
    weapons, but attached such extreme burdens of training and security to
    it that very few pilots even bothered to apply.

    I am old enough to remember when people routinely carried guns on
    airplanes. Hunters would put their rifles in the overhead storage bins.
    And you know what? Hijackings were no more common then than they are
    now. Shootings on airplanes were no more common then than they are now.
    In fact, they were probably less common. I remember when schoolkids on
    the junior high and high school rifle teams carried their weapons on
    the school bus every day. No one shot up school buses or started
    shooting everyone at random a la Columbine. It was not until guns were
    banned at school that we started getting incidents like Columbine.

    Ah, but this is a different world, now. And whose fault is that? Could
    it be the fault of the same knotheaded politicians who thought that
    banning guns would cure the troubles of the world? After all, who else
    should get the credit for making society what it is today? They are
    certainly eagler to take the credit for anything good that happens. Why
    should they not also take the blame for the harm they do?
     
    cjcampbell, Jan 24, 2006
  20. Bob

    Eric B. Guest

    <Snip>

    Nobody is addressing the likelihood that these things will happen, only the
    logic thereof.

    I maintain that America will have more security and less personal freedoms
    in the wake of new terrorist attacks. Do you disagree with that or not?

    Eric B.
     
    Eric B., Jan 24, 2006
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.