It's official -- we've gone insane

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Thomas Veil, Oct 5, 2007.

  1. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #1
    Netscape News

    What?!?!
     
  2. xUKHCx Administrator emeritus

    xUKHCx

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    Location:
    The Kop
    #2
    Well it is a legitamute security concern but it could've been dealt with in a more appropiate mannor.
     
  3. Swarmlord macrumors 6502a

    Swarmlord

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    #3
    Better safe than sorry.

    You may laugh, but terrorists are always testing the limits and weaknesses of our security system. One day it's ashes and the next time it might be some anthrax or something equally lethal.
     
  4. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #4
    Typical GOP scare tactics...... :rolleyes:
     
  5. kainjow Moderator emeritus

    kainjow

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2000
    #5
    Do you work for Fox News? ;) :rolleyes:
     
  6. Swarmlord macrumors 6502a

    Swarmlord

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    #6
    Until it happens and then all the Libs are running around crying about why there wasn't something in place to prevent it and why women, children and minorities were the hardest hit.
     
  7. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #7
    The next logical step is to get rid of all carryon luggage. Followed closely by forcing passengers to wear transparent clothing and submit to full restraints. Only then will we be safe. Only then will the terrorists have lost.
     
  8. TBi macrumors 68030

    TBi

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2005
    Location:
    Ireland
    #8
    OMG what? Are you stupid!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111111111111

    The terrorists will then just resort to eating the bombs or having them otherwise implanted in their bodies.

    The only viable solution is to not let anyone at all on the planes, not even the pilots. Then there is no possible way that someone can sneak a bomb on board. Then everyone can feel safe!

    I can't believe no one else has thought of this. It seems like the ultimate solution to this problem!
     
  9. aquajet macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2005
    Location:
    VA
    #9
    Now hold on just a second. What you're saying makes no sense whatsoever. ;)

    A better idea would be to require all airline passengers to take heavy sedatives upon arrive at the airport. Since they'll be unconscious, the jobs of TSA agents would become much easier, and we wouldn't have to suffer through dreadful lines to enter the gate areas. The airlines could lay off all flight attendants because there's no need to attend to the needs of an unconscious person. And it wouldn't make sense to have first class seating because unconscious people don't really care about comfort. The airlines could replace the oversized first class seats with much smaller seats, crammed more closely together. Drink carts, soda cans, and bags of pretzels would no longer be necessary either.

    This would have two positive effects. First, security would be greatly improved. And second, the operating costs would be greatly reduced, meaning lower prices for passengers. I think it's a win-win situation.
     
  10. adrianblaine macrumors 65816

    adrianblaine

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2006
    Location:
    Pasadena, CA
    #10
    I think you are right. Ban travel all together, and then remake the English language so that we even get rid of words like travel so people won't know what they are missing. Then they need to put monitoring devices in everyone's home and we'll start calling Bush our Big Brother.

    Disaster averted
     
  11. Much Ado macrumors 68000

    Much Ado

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    UK
    #11
    Or just ban people?
     
  12. adrianblaine macrumors 65816

    adrianblaine

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2006
    Location:
    Pasadena, CA
    #12
    I don't know, that seems going a little to far for my taste...
     
  13. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #13
    How about just banning dead people? They're nothing but troublemakers.
     
  14. TBi macrumors 68030

    TBi

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2005
    Location:
    Ireland
    #14
    That sounds good and think of all the space saved. You wouldn't even need chairs, just bunk beds. About 4-5 high and fitting 3-4 people across. Use a forklift to lift them in. You could cram a whole load more people in! Cheaper fairs!

    People won't need that much room because they'll be asleep and not care that the person next to them is too close for comfort. No need to worry about who you are sitting next to because you won't have a clue!

    Also i think that in the interests of safety a sedative gas should constantly be pumped through the cabin to make sure no one gets up.

    For long haul flights you can just give everyone adult diapers.

    Then when the people arrive safe at their destination after waking up in their soiled diapers and covered in their own drool we can put them on TV to show the terrorists that we have beaten them!

    "Viva la liberte!"
     
  15. adrianblaine macrumors 65816

    adrianblaine

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2006
    Location:
    Pasadena, CA
    #15
    I don't know about other people, but they are already banned in my home
     
  16. atszyman macrumors 68020

    atszyman

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Location:
    The Dallas 'burbs
    #16
    Forget the seats altogether. After getting/taking your sedative, you lay down in your "personal relaxation chamber" (or crate). Once the sedative takes hold "authorized chamber relocation assistants" (baggage handlers) would close the crates and stack them on the plane, securing the "passengers" (cargo) with heavy duty "passenger restraints" (cargo nets).

    Can you imagine how many more people you could fit into a plane this way?

    Get rid of the whole idea of carry-on/checked baggage, and put that in a crate compartment which would eliminate lost bags as well and you could open up the baggage hold for more "passengers".
     
  17. TBi macrumors 68030

    TBi

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2005
    Location:
    Ireland
    #17
    This is a great extension to my idea. You can pack the peoples luggage into a seperate compartment of their "personal relaxation chamber".

    You wouldn't even need two types of planes. No need for normal and "cargo" planes. All you'd need is a "universal" plane which would be exactly the same as a cargo plane but with a nicer paint job on the outside!

    I think we are all onto a great idea here. It's great when minds come together and make a simple idea flourish into reality!
     
  18. miniConvert macrumors 68040

    miniConvert

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    Location:
    Kent, UK - the 'Garden of England'.
    #18
    I suppose they're all gathered in one of their super secret caves that the US can't find right now are they, deliberating over this news and hurriedly working on new attack tactics on their plasma screens? What will they design next, exploding sherbet dips?

    Perhaps we should just keep trying to scare people over and over again until we give up our civil liberties en masse. Then we'll all be safe.
     
  19. atszyman macrumors 68020

    atszyman

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Location:
    The Dallas 'burbs
    #19
    You don't need a better paint job on the "passenger" planes. Just get rid of windows in the terminals. The unconscious don't need a view. people would never have to see the plane they were on.

    The only downside is trips with layovers. Now instead of you getting to your destination and your luggage going to Tahiti, you'd end up in Tahiti (but at least you'd have your luggage). This works well for people who end up in nice places, but when one person out of a honeymoon couple ends up in Kansas while the other ends up in Jamaica I can see where people might get peevish...
     
  20. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #20
    How about inspecting every container that enters this country? Better to be safe than sorry?

    Tens of thousands killed on the roads each year. Lower the speed limit? Eliminate roadway travel altogether? Better safe than sorry, right?

    Might want to throw some more requirements in to the building code. Better safe than sorry, despite driving construction costs up, right? While we're at it, let's require continuous onsite inspection of all new construction, not just some types. Better safe than sorry.

    We'll need to repair all the bridges in this country, stat. Better safe than sorry.

    Hospital burn unit bed numbers are in decline to the point that they could not handle a major terrorist attack involving burn victims. We'll need lots more. Better safe than sorry.

    And of course, we better modify our behavior such that global climate change doesn't do all the Bad Nasty stuff they say it will. Because it's better to be safe than sorry, right?

    Better safe than sorry huh? I had no idea you cared so much sir.
     
  21. TBi macrumors 68030

    TBi

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2005
    Location:
    Ireland
    #21
    Peevish? How dare they be peevish! Don't they know how much effort has been put into their safety. They should be glad they are still alive!

    Although in this situation it might be better for the airport authority keep the couple sedated until they are reunited on the next flight!

    Also anyone who is found to have any dangerous substances on them (such as, say, over 150ml of liquid in carry on) should be kept sedated indefinately until their trial!
     
  22. atszyman macrumors 68020

    atszyman

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Location:
    The Dallas 'burbs
    #22
    I had figured that. Most luggage gets lost when being transferred on layovers. It's rare to lose luggage on a direct flight.

    Maybe we need family crates so that even if you get mis-routed at least you're with your luggage and family...

    Doesn't necessarily help the family that ends up in Anchorage when they planned on a tropical vacation, but that's the price you pay for safety...
     
  23. it5five macrumors 65816

    it5five

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Location:
    New York
    #23
    Whoa whoa whoa. Cool it down there mactastic. That sounds like a lot of big-government intervention. You know how much Swarm is opposed to that. Don't want to give him a heart-attack, do you? ;)
     
  24. Much Ado macrumors 68000

    Much Ado

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    UK
    #24
    All this talk of sedating passengers and so on is nonsense.

    It would be much better for our civil liberties simply to have hundreds of 'decoy flights' filled with paper-mache, audio-animatronic passengers, and so in the event of a terrorist incident, the chances are the plane with humans on it will be fine.

    Or just ban improbability.
     
  25. atszyman macrumors 68020

    atszyman

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Location:
    The Dallas 'burbs
    #25
    That only works if they are trying to take out flights they are not on. If the terrorist is on the flight he wants to take out he's guaranteed to be on a human carrying plane...

    Or we could just have every traveling party on their own private jets, and keep the decoys... We'd need a good autopilot system otherwise those intent on taking down planes would keep taking out pilots as well.
     

Share This Page