From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jan 7 13:46:52 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F6ED16A4CE for ; Wed, 7 Jan 2004 13:46:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.blarg.net (floyd.blarg.net [206.124.128.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 577E843D45 for ; Wed, 7 Jan 2004 13:46:46 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from abowhill@blarg.net) Received: from kosmos.my.net (12-230-212-176.client.attbi.com [12.230.212.176]) by mail.blarg.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A663C38254 for ; Wed, 7 Jan 2004 13:44:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from kosmos.my.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by kosmos.my.net (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i07Lj8LP068886 for ; Wed, 7 Jan 2004 13:45:08 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from kosmos@kosmos.my.net) Received: (from kosmos@localhost) by kosmos.my.net (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i07Lj7QU068885 for freebsd-chat@freebsd.org; Wed, 7 Jan 2004 13:45:07 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from kosmos) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 13:45:07 -0800 From: Allan Bowhill To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20040107214507.GE67808@kosmos.my.net> Mail-Followup-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org References: <20040106202408.GC63867@kosmos.my.net> <20040106233751.A32387-100000@haldjas.folklore.ee> <20040107001001.GA65133@kosmos.my.net> <3FFB56CE.3030109@iconoplex.co.uk> <20040107025601.GC65133@kosmos.my.net> <3FFC0066.4090704@iconoplex.co.uk> <20040107185229.GA67808@kosmos.my.net> <3FFC6902.5010603@iconoplex.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="0QFb0wBpEddLcDHQ" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3FFC6902.5010603@iconoplex.co.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-URL: http://www.blarg.net/~abowhill/ Subject: Re: Personal patches X-BeenThere: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Non technical items related to the community List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 21:46:52 -0000 --0QFb0wBpEddLcDHQ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 0, Paul Robinson wrote: :>Actually, the "preferred method" is to highjack U.S. jets fully-loaded :>with fuel that leave U.S. airports bound for other destinations in the :>U.S. The fact they are loaded with fuel is what makes them a bomb rather :>than a projectile, which is why it's the "preferred method". : :You are out of date, which suggests you don't really know what is going=20 :on. Yes, that is how 9/11 was conducted. I don't pretend to have inside information into current the plans of terrorists. I can only go on what I read in the papers, and hear on the radio and TV. Online Brit papers and broadcasts included. On the other hand, if you have inside information about what the=20 terrorists are plotting next, don't hold back... :However, British Airways and Air France has been cancelling flights left= =20 :right and centre over the last couple of weeks. The main reason is that=20 :on a long-haul flight from Heathrow or Paris to LA, the aircraft still=20 :has plenty of fuel when it gets to the US borders - in fact it has about= =20 :the same amount as a flight leaving NYC would have heading to LA. And it= =20 :normally has plenty of US citizens on it to boot. The plan is also to=20 :detonate an explosive on the plane without warning apparently. Explain how a 747 or 777 has more fuel on crossing the borders of the U.S. on it's way to LAX than a 747 or 777 has before taking off from JFK to LAX. My understanding is a large percentage of fuel is used just to get to cruise altitude and speed. Then there is the jet stream to fight in that direction. Then there is the fact (or so I was told by a Bombardier pilot) that sometimes long-haul flights do not have all that much fuel left when they arrive at their destination. But that was a small jet. But I don't think planning all that much different in principle for larger jets. The plan you mention doesn't seem to jibe with the fact that there is plenty of fuel on board on arrival. If there was, why woudn't a terrorist highjack the plane as it approached its destination? The payoff would be to take down buildings, not just blow the plane up. Anyway, if your fuel claims are true, then the simple answer is to ban flights from LAX to European destinations. It's better than=20 trying to finger passengers. :One BA flight was cancelled last week because it was suggested a female=20 :passenger was going to explode a device that she was carrying through=20 :security concealed inside her vagina. I think there might be some FUD=20 :going on here, but the threat now seems to be from EU airlines. Like I=20 :say, we're used to it though, which is why we're not sending over flying= =20 :bombs... Glad to hear that. :>I expect if an international flight was highjacked just before landing :>we would force it to land somewhere else, or simply shoot it down. Not :>a pleasant prospect, but within our right to do so. :> : :No, they'd just explode it without warning. No hijacking required. :So, how exactly does fingerprinting at borders help there then? By the terrorist plans you cited above, it would be your responsibility to identify and screen passengers. You can do this with red tape, index cards, or whatever. If electronic fingerprinting solutions and databases give you the willies, you don't have to use them. --=20 Allan Bowhill abowhill@blarg.net "Not only is this incomprehensible, but the ink is ugly and the paper is from the wrong kind of tree." -- Professor W. --0QFb0wBpEddLcDHQ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE//H3iBC/kSIeFE54RAkJFAKDEUqmRNzEOtEtT26Faylo0taKSgwCgmlc6 H77gWgL2B+fgHXfE1E+UeWw= =nZj/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --0QFb0wBpEddLcDHQ--