EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) <[email protected]> wrote:

    > The Reid wrote:
    >
    > > Following up to David Horne, _the_ chancellor of the royal duchy
    > > of city south and deansgate
    > >
    > >
    > >>Actually, apparently not even fob keys, which we have...
    > >
    > >
    > > What, I can take by BMW keyfob! I'm not going!
    >
    > Oh, now I get it! You're talking about the electronic
    > gadgets that "arm" car alarm systems, and open car locks
    > with the push of a button. (To me - and probably many
    > Americans - "fob" means a simple key-chain ornament.)

Ah- that's interesting- it was a word I didn't use until a few weeks
ago. My 'fob' opens the electronic entries to the communal areas of the
building I live in.

--
David Horne- http://www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk
http://homepage.mac.com/davidhornecomposer http://soundjunction.org

On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 11:28:35 -0700, "EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)"
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >irwell wrote:
    >> On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 10:54:38 +0100,
    >> [email protected] (David Horne, _the_ chancellor of
    >> the royal duchy of city south and deansgate) wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>The Reid <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>>Following up to [email protected]
    >>>>>no wigs toupees ,hearing aids ,shoes ,water or duty frees or hamburgers
    >>>>>allowed,
    >>>>>definately no laptops or phones ,no books or papers allowed either
    >>>>not too keen on putting my cameras in the hold, may buy a tough
    >>>>bag.
    >>>I had precisely this problem after 9/11 with a camcorder and a laptop.
    >>>The laptop was fine, but my camcorder was damaged. Luckily it was under
    >>>warranty!
    >>
    >> This where some enterprising business could come into being!
    >> Rent cameras out at the arrival airport, take your pictures, keep the
    >> memory cards, return the camera on departure.
    >You may have something, there! (Especially if these new
    >restrictions become permanent.)
Could be similar to renting a car, where you can pick what model
from basic to luxury, pay for the gas, in this case the memory card,
and rent for the camera from a simple P&S to a complex DSLR.

"David Horne, _the_ chancellor of the royal duchy of city south and
deansgate" <[email protected]> skrev i meddelandet
news:1hjve3w.gdi39rvf68N%this_address_is_for_spam@ yahoo.co.uk...
    > Lennart Petersen <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> "irwell" <[email protected]> skrev i meddelandet
    >> news:[email protected]...
    > []
    >> > This where some enterprising business could come into being!
    >> > Rent cameras out at the arrival airport, take your pictures, keep the
    >> > memory cards, return the camera on departure.
    >> -----------------
    >> I was thinking about the same thing as a future.
    >> But when all things have calmed down I think it's reasonable enough to
    >> inspect the battery and make one or another exposure to see the camera is
    >> real working. An analog camera could be opened and El Al did so when I
    >> travelled with them.
    > I wouldn't worry about packing my own little digital camera- they're
    > fairly hardy- the (analogue) camcorder was quite a clumsy affair.
-----------------------------
Me too. I'm sure my camera will survive if packed with some care.
But a such system opens for not so honest air-terminal workers if the
average suitcase contains a laptop,mobile phone and an expensive camera.
Working for the mail I've some inside knowledge about theftsecurity at
air-terminals and that's unfortunately not always at the highest standard.
The US requirement for having luggage unlocked doesn't help exactly.

    >> But besides isn't something in the hold luggage more or less the same
    >> threat
    >> as the non-checked luggage. Wasn't Lockerbie because of checked luggage ?
    > Yes, but the whole system of processing checked luggage changed as a
    > result. I saw someone on the BBC today claim that hold luggage is
    > checked to a higher standard than cabin luggage- but don't know the
    > details.
---------------
They say so. And what else can we expect from them ?
Indeed they've got heavy X-ray,bomb-sniffing dogs and other things.
But nevertheless there're reason to believe that security on hold luggage
can't be to the standard of hand luggage and security search for passengers.
Unless you increase the efforts much beyond today's standard and is prepared
to pay for one or two hours security search for each passenger (as El Al do)
O.k it's possible but think about the enormous loads of luggage carried by
today's air passengers.

On 10 Aug 2006 11:55:29 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

    >mini Mini wrote:
    >> "Oral-B" <[email protected]> wrote in
    >> news:[email protected]:
    >> >> Funny how many people think we're dumb, or cannot read, or don't get
    >> >> TV/newspapers in our area
    >> >>
    >> >
    >> > And it's funny how many people think that all we do is sit and wtch TV
    >> > all day or listen to the radio. And nothing in the newspapers as this
    >> > story broke well after todays papers had been printed.
    >> >
    >> > What's happening at airports for flights flying into the UK? Anybody
    >> > heard any news about passenger delays at non-UK airports?
    >> In fact, I had no idea this was going on until I read it here.
    >I flew from Amsterdam to Nwecastle today and had no idea that anything
    >was happening until I arrived!

You got promoted to the DSS Help Desk after all? :-)
--

Martin

EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote:

    > (Especially if these new
    > restrictions become permanent.)


Which would be a GREAT thing IMNSHO. Banning most carry - ons would be
*very* smart move, it would make air travel *much* more pleasant...

--
Best
Greg

EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote:

    > David Horne, _the_ chancellor of the royal duchy of city
    > south and
    > deansgate wrote:
    > >
    > > It will be interesting to watch this all unfold. (The people held will
    > > have to be charged eventually- 4 weeks IIRC?)
    > Perhaps they will work out5 a "deal" with Bush, so they can
    > send them to join his unclassified prisoners at Guatanamo?


That would be fine with me. AFAIC they can lock the pukes away forever...


    > Some of those have been there for several years - have any
    > yet been "charged"?


We're not dealing here with some 13 year - olds who threw a baseball through
a window, Evelyn...

--
Best
Greg

In article <[email protected]. com>,
[email protected] wrote:

    > The Reid wrote:
    > > no outbound hand luggage except docs, glasses, medicines, nappies
    > > etc, long delays, not sure LHR actually checking in at the
    > > moment. In case you had not heard!
    > >
    > > (18 arrested re terrorist attempt)
    >
    > Must be a mistake - the country has been made completely safe by Tony
    > Blair bombing Iraq, shooting Brazilians, sending weapons to Lebanon etc
    > etc.
    >
    > B;

Must be a coincidence, a plot against the UK and US, the two leading
countries which waged war in Iraq and gave cover to the Israelis.

In article
<1hjv2hd.13ykcnf14c7ausN%this_address_is_for_spam@ yahoo.co.uk>,
[email protected] (David Horne, _the_ chancellor of
the royal duchy of city south and deansgate) wrote:

    > I would really wait and see on this. Maybe it was some stupid people
    > sitting around just talking- you never know. Will be interesting to see
    > how it pans out.

The administration in the US sees this as a political bonanza. Bush
gave a speech today about how security is a big issue against the
"Islamic Fascists."

The day before this news broke, Tony Snow, the press secretary, said
that by not invading Baghdad in '91, by withdrawing that is (drawing a
parallel to today) we invited 9/11.

This statement was made in the context of the loss in the Connecticut
Democratic primary by Senator Lieberman, a staunch war supporter.
Lieberman's opponent advocated the withdraw of US troops in the campaign.

So today, the Bush admin., with Chertoff the point man, talked about how
the Brits were monitoring the suspects for weeks and how they'd briefed
the Bush admin.

So reporters today asked Snow if he knew about this plot when he made
the statement about inviting 9/11.

In article <1hjve3w.gdi39rvf68N%this_address_is_for_spam@yaho o.co.uk>,
[email protected] (David Horne, _the_ chancellor of
the royal duchy of city south and deansgate) wrote:

    > I don't think so- they're talking about potentially dangerous liquids,
    > disguised as beverages maybe.
    >

BBC supposedly interviewed an expert who said an explosive could be
fashioned from household products.

That's not to say the suspected weapons for this plot was something that
simple. The plotting was described as elaborate, involving maybe far
more people than those arrested.

[email protected] wrote:

    > In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
    > (EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)) wrote:
    >
    >
    >>*From:* "EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" <[email protected]>
    >>*Date:* Thu, 10 Aug 2006 11:21:25 -0700
    >>The Reid wrote:
    >>>Following up to mini Mini
    >>>>In fact, I had no idea this was going on until I read it here. If you
    >>>>already knew I'm sure you could have ignored the thread. Now, I have
    >>turned >>on the news but won't have normally.
    >>>I posted about 9/11 here and people said they were sitting at the
    >>>PC with no news input and didnt know what I was on about..
    >>I never listen to the news in the morning (too busy getting
    >>ready for work). I only learned about 9/11 because my
    >>house-cleaner told me about it, when he arrived before I
    >>left for work that morning. (Since I normally listen to the
    >>classical music radio station on my way to the office, I
    >>probably would otherwise only have heard about it after I
    >>arrived there.)
    >
    >
    > Surely even that station would have interrupted normal programming for a
    > news event of such magnitude?
    >
    > (Is it KUSC, by the way? I forget where you live...)

KUSC, yes - but so much of their programming is
pre-recorded, with only about a minute's worth of news on
the hour, it might still have been easy to miss it!
(Obviously, that morning I promptly tuned to an "all news"
station, so I don't know what they did on that occasion.)

David Horne, _the_ chancellor of the royal duchy of city
south and
deansgate wrote:

    > EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>The Reid wrote:
    >>>Following up to David Horne, _the_ chancellor of the royal duchy
    >>>of city south and deansgate
    >>>>Actually, apparently not even fob keys, which we have...
    >>>What, I can take by BMW keyfob! I'm not going!
    >>Oh, now I get it! You're talking about the electronic
    >>gadgets that "arm" car alarm systems, and open car locks
    >>with the push of a button. (To me - and probably many
    >>Americans - "fob" means a simple key-chain ornament.)
    >
    >
    > Ah- that's interesting- it was a word I didn't use until a few weeks
    > ago. My 'fob' opens the electronic entries to the communal areas of the
    > building I live in.

Then I can understand the authorities' concern over them - I
imagine they might easily be programmed for a grimmer
purpose, by people who know how.

Gregory Morrow wrote:

    > EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote:
    >
    >
    >>(Especially if these new
    >>restrictions become permanent.)
    >
    >
    >
    > Which would be a GREAT thing IMNSHO. Banning most carry - ons would be
    > *very* smart move, it would make air travel *much* more pleasant...

So long as they don't lose your luggage! I too chafe at the
"bin hogs" who feel they must carry on every bit of luggage
they bring, but my one carry-on contains (in addition to
cosmetics, medications and vitamins) nightwear and an
emergency change of clothing - and of course my camera and
anything else of value which might invite sticky fingers.
(It's true the only times I've had an airline lose my
luggage was Western - on two separate direct, non-stop
flights from LAX to MPLS - but I know people who HAVE had
their checked luggage go astray, so want to be prepared just
in case.)

Gregory Morrow wrote:

    > EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote:
    >
    >
    >>David Horne, _the_ chancellor of the royal duchy of city
    >>south and
    >>deansgate wrote:
    >>>It will be interesting to watch this all unfold. (The people held will
    >>>have to be charged eventually- 4 weeks IIRC?)
    >>Perhaps they will work out5 a "deal" with Bush, so they can
    >>send them to join his unclassified prisoners at Guatanamo?
    >
    >
    >
    > That would be fine with me. AFAIC they can lock the pukes away forever...
    >
    >
    >
    >>Some of those have been there for several years - have any
    >>yet been "charged"?
    > We're not dealing here with some 13 year - olds who threw a baseball through
    > a window, Evelyn...

No, but we ARE (or were, until Bush) living in a country
governed by laws which supposedly apply equally to all!
Several of those laws deal with an accused person's right to
be speedily charged and brought to trial. Suspending those
laws by holding prisoners on foreign soil and saying U.S.
law therefore does not apply is a dangerous procedure, IMO!
(Dangerous to the freedom of ALL of us - not just the
illegally detained prisoners.)

On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 11:17:26 -0700, "EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)"
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >The Reid wrote:
    >> Following up to David Horne, _the_ chancellor of the royal duchy
    >> of city south and deansgate
    >>
    >>
    >>>Actually, apparently not even fob keys, which we have...
    >>
    >>
    >> What, I can take by BMW keyfob! I'm not going!
    >Oh, now I get it! You're talking about the electronic
    >gadgets that "arm" car alarm systems, and open car locks
    >with the push of a button. (To me - and probably many
    >Americans - "fob" means a simple key-chain ornament.)

It means that to me too.
--

Martin

On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 01:37:51 GMT, "Gregory Morrow"
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote:
    >> (Especially if these new
    >> restrictions become permanent.)
    >Which would be a GREAT thing IMNSHO. Banning most carry - ons would be
    >*very* smart move, it would make air travel *much* more pleasant...

and speed up the loading of passengers.
--

Martin