CYCLINGFORUM.COM - Where Cyclists Talk Tech --- Return To Home

 

    Register FAQ'sSearchProfileLog In / Log Out

 

****

cyclingforum.com ****

HOMECLUBS | SPONSORS | FEATURESPHOTO GALLERYTTF DONORS | SHOP FOR GEAR

Return to CyclingForum Home Page CYCLING TECH TALK FORUM
          View posts since last visit

New airport security chamber courtesy of El Al
 

Author Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
Sparky
Joined: 08 Dec 2003
Posts: 17941
Location: Portland, OR

1/19/13 2:32 PM

New airport security chamber courtesy of El Al

Saw this and thought I'd share.

<img src="http://coupekiss.host-ed.me/images/ttf/El_Al-Security.jpg" /img>

 Reply to topic    

pete hausner
Joined: 08 Dec 2003
Posts: 1547
Location: Outer Beantown

1/19/13 4:17 PM

LOL...

Perfect Malthusian application of technology...

 Reply to topic    

ErikS
Joined: 19 May 2005
Posts: 8335
Location: Slowing boiling over in the steamy south, Global Warming is real

1/19/13 4:22 PM

That is a scanner.

I really doubt that such tech exists but if it does, buy a crap ton of them.

 Reply to topic     Send e-mail

dddd
Joined: 11 Jan 2004
Posts: 3310
Location: NorCal

1/19/13 6:55 PM

I say if you want to know what the future experience will be like in US airports, just look at today's Israeli airports.
Still recalling the RNC chairman saying "we're all Israeli's now".

 Reply to topic    

Brian Nystrom
Joined: 26 Jan 2004
Posts: 4722
Location: Nashua, NH

1/20/13 10:28 AM

This is obviously someone's...

...tongue-in-cheek post, but it's quite amusing nonetheless. It would certainly be poetic justice.

 Reply to topic    

dddd
Joined: 11 Jan 2004
Posts: 3310
Location: NorCal

1/20/13 8:10 PM

Anyone checked out the details of the Obama Inaugural?

So far I think I heard the news voice say they've only copped to having thus spent 160 mil (160 bil wouldn't have completely surprised me:-O but they're bringing poison gas detectors, military helicopters and everything else one might need for any "good" self-fulfilling prophecy of doom.
Somehow it reminds me of the peak of those humongus spectacles that were so well documented seemingly whenever Hitler gave a public speech.
I'm wondering if those in charge learnt anything from the way the USSR got spent into ruin, and if they did, then they're trying for a repeat of that?

 Reply to topic    

KerryIrons
Joined: 12 Jan 2004
Posts: 3073
Location: Midland, MI

1/21/13 7:45 PM

Hitler & Stalin

Hitler & Stalin? Really? Are you invoking Godwin's Law?

And just so you don't get confused, a large fraction of the total cost is covered by donations. What would you suggest to cut down on the cost of security, crowd control, traffic, etc. for 800,000 people?

 Reply to topic    

dddd
Joined: 11 Jan 2004
Posts: 3310
Location: NorCal

1/21/13 7:54 PM

I was thinking more like why do they have to accomodate 800,000 people to witness(?) the inauguration?
If this was a protest, how do we expect that a similar crowd might be accomodated?

I would bet that the security expenses weren't donations in this case, rather we all payed for it, in forcibly-borrowed, interest-bearing debt, when perhaps the political party or the TV networks should have. It was their gig imo.

A lot of hidden cost come to mind as well, having been present for the 1976 bicentennial spactacular in NYC. A boost to some local commerce entities though, so maybe there should have been an auction put up for all the cities to bid on?

Oh, and Stalin, good point. They having those big military marches with all the heavy missile armaments on each year's calendar, even as their economy was going under. But the two entities I mentioned seemed somehow more professionally made for film/TV.

I think my comparison was apt given that someone was paying for all of those grand presentations in war-impoverished Germany, and it wasn't all being payed for by war spoils, but by who?

 Reply to topic    

Sparky
Joined: 08 Dec 2003
Posts: 17941
Location: Portland, OR

1/21/13 8:39 PM

"having been present for the 1976 bicentennial spectacular in NYC"


Me Too, 19 years old. I bought 8 cases of beer and iced overnight, backpacked trips all day and sold for a buck for a ice cold can of beer. Ran home, repeated for hours, got cloudy, started drinking
inventory.

18 was the drinking age back then in NJ...


Lived right here:

<img src="http://coupekiss.host-ed.me/images/ttf/camps.JPG" /img>

 Reply to topic    

daddy-o
Joined: 12 Apr 2004
Posts: 3307
Location: Springfield

1/21/13 9:28 PM

Hoo boy, Hitler put on humongus spectacles like these?

 Reply to topic     Send e-mail

dddd
Joined: 11 Jan 2004
Posts: 3310
Location: NorCal

1/21/13 9:55 PM

Beer vendor's dilemma:

Never drink your own product!
I bet you were glad the cops were too busy to police the vendors.
My brother used to sell stuff like that all the time. They would threaten him with a night in Riker's Island Compter.

Dem are some expensive spectacles!

 Reply to topic    

KerryIrons
Joined: 12 Jan 2004
Posts: 3073
Location: Midland, MI

1/22/13 7:29 PM

Too many citizens?


quote:
why do they have to accomodate 800,000 people


So what's your plan dddd? Would you ban citizens from attending the inauguration? NOW we're talking Hitler and Stalin.

 Reply to topic    

April
Joined: 13 Dec 2003
Posts: 6592
Location: Westchester/NYC

1/22/13 7:44 PM


quote:
Dem are some expensive spectacles!

Reagan and the Bushes didn't do that?

Let's say Obama didn't do his job and the economy is in the dump and the Republican win the next election. Do you think they would have a smaller inargural?

Haha!!! So funny the logic!

 Reply to topic     Send e-mail

dddd
Joined: 11 Jan 2004
Posts: 3310
Location: NorCal

1/23/13 3:40 AM

I'm not criticizing the inaugural because it's the Obama administration.
I'm questioning the wisdom of planning for such an expenditure at a time when the country is beyond broke, when spending means having to pay back a LOT more than was spent.
It's a ricipe for certain economic disaster, so where's the sense of urgency about that as compared to the ruckus about banning a certain type of weapon?
Economic stability IS national security, something that this country's leadership seems to have long forgotten.

 Reply to topic    

dddd
Joined: 11 Jan 2004
Posts: 3310
Location: NorCal

1/23/13 3:53 AM

"So what's your plan dddd? Would you ban citizens from attending the inauguration? NOW we're talking Hitler and Stalin."

You wouldn't have to ban citizens from attending.
The 800,000 people came because the city was set up like an entertainment venue so as to attract those crowds.
Take away some of the loudspeakers and video screens and who would bother to pack themselves into the city?
But to do that, you have to come back to the question of "who's gig was this?". Make them pay for the security. Or, just let folks watch it in the comfort and safety of their livingrooms instead of spending other people's money (and making future generations pay for it many times over).

 Reply to topic    

April
Joined: 13 Dec 2003
Posts: 6592
Location: Westchester/NYC

1/23/13 10:57 AM


quote:
I'm questioning the wisdom of planning for such an expenditure at a time when the country is beyond broke, when spending means having to pay back a LOT more than was spent.
It's a ricipe for certain economic disaster, so where's the sense of urgency about that as compared to the ruckus about banning a certain type of weapon?

That's where we differ in opinion.

I don't believe there's a huge urgency to either issue.

The national debt is large but in percentage of GDP not that different from other times. It's partly inflation that pushes the debt NUMBER past the ceiling. Hence the need to raise the ceiling. A number.

Nor is the weapon ban "urgent". Even if some sort of limits are adopted, it will take time to show any effect.

Doesn't mean we shouldn't tackle both. But I don't believe there's any short term urgency. Both issues needs a long term fix rather than short term, temporary grandstanding such as stopping the inaugural ceremony.

 Reply to topic     Send e-mail

dddd
Joined: 11 Jan 2004
Posts: 3310
Location: NorCal

1/23/13 12:40 PM

I pretty much agree with you (but for the spiraling, interest-bearing debt).

I suspect that one partial alternative to broader weapons reg's will eventually involve technology.
Not of the sort that allows someone to shut off your gun, but perhaps some kind of non-lethal weapon that a larger portion of the population could be trusted to carry, which could stop an armed assailant. The military supposedly already has such weapons, but these haven't been developed for civilian carry. A blinding "flashlight" device is but one example, and there are various levels of pepper sprays now with varying range.
I am not advocating such a weapon, as I have not seen it, but to the extent that law-makers embraced such a possibility in place of gun bans, it might clarify their true intentions. In this regard though, I am not holding my breath.

And, any technology that obsolete's current guns would seem to shift the real-time (on the ground/street) "power balance" toward those with the new technology, not just to those with the greater fire-power.

As for the debt, countries and trade bourses are rejecting dollars because of the inflation and because of concerns over pay-back.
The day will come when more creditors accept their fate that they will never get payed off, and the mechanics of it seem to suggest that while defaults could occur, the US citizen's debts to the banks would not just go away, the banks in effect could swindle foreign credit-holders hugely without you or I seeing any of the spoils. In effect, this is already happening vis a vis inflation, hence the increased problems obtaining credit that are imminent.
One can see that the pressure to maintain the existing cash-flow order, and thus social order in their own countries (i.e. China), is artificially sustaining the flow of credit. Note I said flow, as in net flow (not as in healthy, periodic back-and-forth exchange).

I would be extremely wary of those who are starting to use "% of GDP" as an argumentive substitute for "% of the tax base".
This is a dangerous trend that I believe will prove to be a very visible step in our country's history.
I have seen this argument pop up recently, hearing Tavis Smiley give a soft-ball interview to arch-neoconservative Ben Stein, the latter first presenting his "% of GDP" argument WRT military spending, then following this with his theory of how this (greatly-increased military spending) will help the nation's poor people. Tavis didn't even flinch, but played his lap-dog role perfectly as if the argument actually made practical sense. I thought to myself, the Public Television exec's must think we viewers have had too much to drink.

 Reply to topic    

daddy-o
Joined: 12 Apr 2004
Posts: 3307
Location: Springfield

1/23/13 7:59 PM

I'm surprised no group shows how much some government expenditure will cost - like the credit card-minimum-payment term and final total.

Think of the debt as numerator of a fraction, percent of GDP for one example.
In the nineties we grew the denominator and the numerator shrunk as a consequence.
We need growth.
Stimulus
The banks are holding trillions of taxpayer bailout dollars waiting to see where the economy will head.
What is the safest vehicle to hold those dollars?
US Treasury Bonds

Remember, the USA is floating the world with its debt. It is relying on our stability. Look at Europe, they need somewhere to catch their financial breath. A financial world without US debt would be radically different and not necessarily better for business.

But there is definitely such a thing as too much national debt. And I for one would prefer to avoid finding out how much is too much. Among other things that will lead to war.

 Reply to topic     Send e-mail

KerryIrons
Joined: 12 Jan 2004
Posts: 3073
Location: Midland, MI

1/23/13 8:03 PM

Basis

dddd apparently you are not familiar with economics. When I tooke economics in grad school back in the early 70s all of the discussions were in the context of % of GDP (they used GNP back in those days).

Regarding the value of the dollar you are on very thin ice. It has gone up and down over the decades and will do so in the future. The one thing we know is that it is ALWAYS too low if you are an importer and too high if you are an exporter. Right now the US Dollar is considered one of the most stable currencies on the planet.

Regards the debt there is no question we need to get a grip on it but you need to keep in persective that while government expenditures are a little above normal right now because so many people are getting unemployment, food stamps, etc. due to high unemployment what is really out of whack is government intake. Adjusted for inflation per capita total federal taxes are down 21% since 2000. As a percent of GDP we are taxing at historically low levels. It hasn't been this low since the end of the Great Depression.

 Reply to topic    


Return to CyclingForum Home Page CYCLING TECH TALK FORUM
           View New Threads Since My Last Visit VIEW THREADS SINCE MY LAST VISIT
           Start a New Thread

 Display posts from previous:   


  
Last Thread | Next Thread  >  

  
  

 


If you enjoy this site, please consider pledging your support

cyclingforum.com - where cyclists talk tech
Cycling TTF Rides Throughout The World

Cyclingforum is powered by SYNCRONICITY.NET in Denver, Colorado -

Powered by phpBB: Copyright 2006 phpBB Group | Custom phpCF Template by Syncronicity