tyrius.

There could be, but when airports are evacuated and planes are diverted news agencies pick that up and report it. I vaguely remember a few airport evactuations - Newark for leaving a secure door open, another one where a "non-passenger" entered through the exit, a couple for mysterious packages. Even if all of these are included the risks are still incredibly small. 29,000 passenger flights per day is a lot of flights!!! If the plot is stopped prior to the airport then the airport security did not enter into that instance and it is not counted.

That was poor word choice on my part. Instead of private I should have written commerical passenger jet. Even at major airports you can fly on a private plane or executive jet with much more lenient security checks.

Home made noodles!

Warrantless searches have been categorized into the "unreasonable" part of "unreasonable search and seizures" within the 4th amendment yet automobile searches do not require warrants. In some cases ie: drunk driver check points, police are allowed to stop drivers without even probable cause, all in the name of safety. And yet, I see nothing in your post that includes the police being able to randomly search people without PROBABLE CAUSE. I never said anything about warrants and you only answered one SMALL part of my questions. Why not answer the rest? It's really a simple question and a simple statement. Are police officers allowed to randomly search you (physically search your body) for no other reason than you chose to drive on a public roadway?

Does this apply to only thinng that you don't care about? What happens if people decide that saving lives are more important than anyone owning a gun? Would you "not mind" that? What if people decide that saving lives are more important than your personal privacy and any government official should be allowed access to your home whenever they see fit to search whatever they would like? What if the government decides that boating is too risky and decides to ban all outboards larger than 10 hp? The list can continue forever. All of those would also save lives. Shall we start writing our Congresspeople?

I agree 100%. I don't really have a big problem with the body scanners, with a few small changes then I wouldn't have any problem with them at all. I, for one, see no reason why we should x-ray radiation technology when radio wave technology exists. Using x-ray radiation the chance of a machine malfunction is introduced and that malfunction may significantly affect the health of a large number of people who use that machine. Also, there really is no reason why the body image needs to be shown. The only things that need to be shown are items that are carried on the body and their relative location. I do however have a HUGE problem with the current enhanced pat down procedures and the fact that TSA officials (Pistole) lie about their use. When they specially state that children under 12 will not be subject to the pat downs, then one would expect that to be the case. Actual facts put the lie to that statement though. Well, two guys carrying explosives have boarded a plane of two seperate occassions and no heads have rolled yet, so I don't think I agree with your statement. Agreed 100%.

Really? So everyone who is uncomfortable with getting these new "enhanced" pat downs is simply jumping on the "too much government" bandwagon? No, they aren't and to say so is simply being dismissive without looking into the issue. It's blatantly false. Hillary Clinton has stated that she would do what she could to NOT go through a pat down. That's pretty telling to me. (I'm making no political statement, just using her as an example as she has been quoted on the record)

I won't argue that too much. It is slightly higher. When we're only talking about plane bombings, I'm not sure that I'd believe you. The TSA has used every previous instance as propaganda to increase their reach and trumpet their success. I doubt that they'd let one pass. If airport security found abomb the airport would be evacuated and we'd hear about it. If a plane was diverted because of a bomb threat we'd hear about it. I'd bet that the only way we wouldn't hear about it is if no threat was given, the bomb was not discovered, and it didn't go off. And so are the attempts. There have been what 3 attempts since 9/11? Agreed they changed on 9/11. The security implemented then was not invasive. Annoying, but not invasive. Well, if you want to misinterpret the data then go ahead, but that wasn't what I was saying.

It doesn't matter if you're flying on a private plane or a gov't plane the passenger has to pass through security and that security is mandated by the federal gov't. As such, it is a gov't action. So, the police have the authority to randomly pull you over, order you out of your car, and pat you down (including every inch of your body)? No probable cause is needed to pull you over or to order the search? The truth is they don't have that authority so your analogy is false.

OK, so let's figure it out then. We'll take the number of times that a plane has actually blown up due to someone detonating a bomb on it, and since we're talking about US travel, we need to limit it to instances that it has occurred in the US. Then we'll divide that by the number of commerical passenger flights over a given timeframe. I stated decades but I'll even give you a smaller timeframe if you'd like. 0/whatever number you want = 0. To add a bit more detail, per the NATCA, there are roughly 29,000 commercial flights per day. This gives us 10.5 MILLION flights per year. Let's say we go back to the Lockerbie bombing (US destination, originated in London) in 1988. I'll guess a lower number of total flights due to there being less in prior years. That gives us 1/150,000,000 = 0.000000667% of flights that have been brought down by a bomb. Is that not basically zero? The risk of anyone even attempting to bomb the plane you are on is ridiculously small. So small that it shouldn't even be considered by the person taking the flight. Emotionally we all fear these high profile events (shark attacks, plane crashes, etc) when looked at rationally the risk is neglible to miniscule.

Which was in direct response to M Starr's quote of "risk of some maniac blowing up your plane". It was included in your response to me. So, bringing up things other than blowing up a plane is changing the subject and/or changing what I said.

Last I checked, my kid took the bus straight to school. Haven't seen him board a plane to get to school yet. And since he hasn't you're changing the subject for some unknown reason.

My DVR should've recorded it. I'll have to check tonight.

I don't think anyone cares about the metal detectors. We're talking about the new stuff. The new body scanners (take everything out of your pockets, face the side, hold your arms above your head type of scanners) and NEW pat down procedures (these changed on 11/1/10 to include shall we say "sensitive" areas). Metal detectors are fine and are not invasive. THIS is invasive. The TSA said it shouldn't have happened, but it did. Is the line of prudence really outside of the underwear vs inside it? All quotes taken from this article http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/tsa-responds-passenger-outrages-underwear-search-happen/story?id=12208932 There are many more instances of this happening.

A scanner that emits radiation? Not the healthiest choice for young children. If only it provided this so called layer of security. The security is an illusion and always one step behind. So, my choices are to expose my kids to radiation and having their "nude" images viewed by strangers OR having them touched inappropriately by different strangers? And I have to make this choice so you (the collective you not you personally) can enjoy an illusion that the TSA will catch every single instance of someone trying to bring down a plane? Why should I have to endure a KNOWN harm so that you can be saved from an EXTRAORDINARILY UNLIKELY risk? Should we ban guns to protect people from the unlikely event that an accidental discharge will result in someone's death? No we shouldn't because that wouldn't be commensurate with the risk involved. Which is the same as the above discussion.

And yet they don't use random "enhanced" pat downs or body scanners. Strange isn't it? http://www.vancouversun.com/travel/Full+body+scanners+waste+money+Israeli+expert+says/2941610/story.html Actually the topic is not about the actual act of flying at all, it is about the new security measures that have been put into effect as of 11/1/10.

Please don't be apathetic about this issue. You may not care that your rights are being violated, but many other people do. Particularly parents of young children who are being forced to go through these scanners and/or "enhanced" pat downs. What are we supposed to say to our children who ask why this stranger is allowed to touch them in places where no one but their doctor should?

Agreed 100%. I have to fly for work and have been through the body scanners twice now. I may just start opting out for the "fun" of it. I don't know that I could imagine a worse job. Getting to "feel up" random members of your own sex all day sounds particularly exciting. And you get all that fun for ridiculously low pay. SWEET!!! I've written all of my congressmen regarding this issue and would urge everyone else to do the same.

This is the world that we've lived in for decades. The risk of it actually happening is so small as to be basically zero. Also, the TSA is a joke. Their security is designed to make it appear that their doing something when in actuality they provide little security at all. As an example, my wife has a metal rod in her tibia (broke it falling of the ice) and she's been through the airport METAL detectors 4 times and the metal rod was never detected. This isn't a small bit of metal either.

Takes a lot to hurt my feelings and trust me this didn't do it. I'm well aware that people weight their fish. What strikes me as odd are those "scale police" who emphatically state that what the poster says that their scale showed is incorrect. You can not accurately judge a fish's weight on the internet so what's the point of calling people out, of being the "scale police"?

I think that the people who believe that they can tell the weight of a fish based upon a little picture posted on an internet forum don't really know what they're talking about. If you're not asking what the weight was (like in the first pic) then what's the point of acting all self righteous and basically calling the OP a liar? The "scale police" what a joke! The problem with digital scales is that as the batteries lose juice they change. If you still have the same batteries in it go get a 5 lb bag of sugar/flour and weigh that. If your scale says 5 lbs then it's pretty accurate at that weight. A digital scale may be accurate at 2 lbs and off at 5 lbs.

Probably the former as the bass would likely be bigger/healthier. This is assuming that it is actually selective harvest that is occurring. I like bass fishing, but it doesn't bother me to see people keep them. These fish aren't gods, they're just fish.

Bass taste just fine. As a kid we'd go bluegill fishing to keep fish to eat and if we caught a bass we kept it and ate it too. Sounds to me like you don't know what you're talking about. If you've never eaten one then how can you know that they are not the best tasting fish?

why not just do 4/2 lol or even better What is X ? x2+3x+9=19 x2+3x+9=19, x2+3x-10=0, (x+5)(x-2)=0; x={-5, 2} I didn't know we could have -5 submissions and 2 submissions at the same time... Actually, its only 2. If you replace X with -5, it does not equal 19, so therefor, its only 2. Hmm, x2+3x+9=19 (-5)(-5) + 3(-5) + 9 = 19 25 - 15 + 9 = 19 10 + 9 = 19 19 = 19

Didn't fall asleep?!?!?!?! If that's any indication as to how things have done for the past few years is it any wonder that the Cowboys have consistently dissappointed? Further proof that Phillips is not head coach material.