Balta1701

Just because i'm trying to get you into the local U.S. Marshalls office doesn't mean I'll be planting a meth lab in your backpack.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Nov 22, 2010 -> 02:55 PM) And there are actual living humans advocating Alejandro De Aza start for a major league team. I'm starting to think 2012 will indeed be the end. De Aza was the opening day starter for the Marlins a couple years ago.

Help me get in contact with my local marshall's office, would you? They're probably sick of hearing from me.

Frankly sir, I think the evidence does exist and I think you're refusing to see it.

QUOTE (balfanman @ Nov 22, 2010 -> 02:41 PM) I agree that DeAza is the better overall player, but how much they make is really irrelavant if they can't stay on the field. I'm not sure De Aza is the better player, just adding to the discussion here.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Nov 22, 2010 -> 02:44 PM) Why large backpacks? Why not 5 or 6 suicide bombers that each have a smaller backpack? Since there's almost no security at any of the places I mentioned this shouldn't be difficult to accomplish. 5-6 suicide bombers? Now you're talking a very large commitment of resources. 5-6 suicide bombers getting on 5-6 planes and just taking out those planes and you're talking 500-1000 casualties, compared to 50 to a couple hundred people at even the most crowded of event, with a much, much greater likelihood that one of them will be caught and the plot exposed.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Nov 22, 2010 -> 02:32 PM) Union station, any major sports event (Think Televised!), shopping malls, marathon, places of worship, etc. And those are just to name a few. And there are almost no security safeguards for any of them. But one common feature of every one that you cite is...you need a non-trivially large amount of explosive to do significant damage; the level of high-explosive that you could easily conceal on your skin or in a purse will cause a heckuva panic, but it won't kill a lot of people on its own. In all of them, you're talking large backpack levels of material required, and large backpacks stand out. That said, there are things that probably need to be done to harden those targets as well.

Do you think his has been dyed and Kotsay's hasn't?

Bet you a few Giants fans would disagree.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Nov 22, 2010 -> 02:28 PM) Metal detectors and bag scanners are security. We are crossing the line now for something that will not prevent anything. Really, the whole point of this effort is that it's going after these small, skin-lining explosives, of the type we've seen done a couple times now. It isn't perfect (yet), I will grant that, but what is the alternative...continuing to hope that they can't get the fuse right? Like it or not, a plane is a much more tempting target than almost anything else you can envision. With a small (but non-trivial) amount of explosives, you can get several hundred guaranteed casualties. Without other ingredients like gas, that level of damage is almost impossible anywhere else, unless you hit a place with its own structural deficiency.

Zilch.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Nov 22, 2010 -> 02:21 PM) Well there ya have it folks. Terrorists can only attack us in two ways. First, at the actual airport but since that isn't as effective and can only kill dozens they will use the second tactic, boarding airplanes with bombs. Every other aspect of our lives will be terrorist free! What exactly are you arguing again? Because there are unsecured places, we shouldn't care whether or not the airports are secured ones? Why are we back down this road?

X-cocaine abuser Hamilton has that wrapped up.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Nov 22, 2010 -> 02:11 PM) Away from the people? What about this scenario where the bomber, indicated by the red X, is surrounded by a snaking line with at least 100 people surrounding him? Ok, so in the case where I'm 3 people behind the bomber...that's 3 people I have in front of me to absorb the force of the impact. Unless there is a very, very lo roof, the energy of the explosion is going to be concentrated most in the 9 people directly around the bomber...then the next layer out, there is a full set of people in the way to shield them. Some of them will probably get hit by flying material, but they're not likely to have their bodies torn apart by the impact. To first order, if you detonate in that area, you'll hit the people right around you very hard, but then those people will serve as something of a wall, blocking energy from hitting the layer of people behind them. Getting to that 2nd layer of people takes a very large quantity of explosives. Furthermore, if the bomb itself contains shrapnel, the first layer of people get peppered; the 2nd layer doesn't get hit directly. The other thing going on in most of the airports I've been in is very high ceilings. That first layer of people will have energy bounce off of them, but any energy directed upwards will keep going. Killing a lot of people in that format takes a large quantity of explosives. There's a reason why, in countries with serious terrorist problems, when you hear of death tolls in the hundreds, it's because the bomb went off in a building that collapsed, or the bomb started a stampede that killed a lot of people. Even in crowded Iraqi marketplaces, for example, single bombs much more commonly got 5-20 people.

QUOTE (balfanman @ Nov 22, 2010 -> 02:05 PM) But Juan Pierre is extremely durable while DeAza has not proven that he can stay off the disabled list for any period of time. All else equal, this makes Pierre much more valuable. However, Pierre is getting paid $5 million+ by the Sox this year, whereas De Aza is not. THat's how that comes up.

QUOTE (Controlled Chaos @ Nov 22, 2010 -> 02:06 PM) We're not all standing in line at McGhee Tyson. 20-50 people at O'hare would be a short line. You don't think I've gone through a line at an airport? Come on man. Even in the most crowded areas at LAX, you would need a very, very powerful explosive to get 100 people. Too much of the energy dissipates away from the people. There's a reason why bombers put things like nails into bombs; the killing power of raw explosives is really quite limited unless you have a large enough quantity to damage a structure.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Nov 22, 2010 -> 01:58 PM) If you're talking about a major airport like O'Hare, the snaking security lines can have a concentration of way more than 50 in a small amount of space. Maybe even more than the 100-300 on a plane. The definition of small amount of space has changed though, because to actually kill someone in that line, you need a serious shock wave from the explosive or you need debris to hit them. You have no ability to kill anyone who isn't within the blast radius unless there is a collapse of some sort. That takes a significant quantity of explosives, especially in an open area where some of the force of the blast is wasted by, say, going upwards. On a plane, you don't need to hit any of the people with the shockwave, you just need to cripple the plane, and you're very close to the skin of it.

The thread can defend itself if it wants to.

QUOTE (elrockinMT @ Nov 22, 2010 -> 01:01 PM) Point well taken I think there are things worth criticizing Hendry on; the Bradley Deal, for example, but depleting his farm system and going for the title is not one of them. He's managed to surprise me already in how rapidly that system has recovered and started producing MLB talent again.

QUOTE (Controlled Chaos @ Nov 22, 2010 -> 01:11 PM) Look the main thing that needs to be prevented is using the plane as a missle. That has been addressed with more secure cockpit doors as well as a more prepared group of passengers and FA's. If that is taken out of the equation, the chance for mass casualties is very limited. A terrorist can inflict more damage a number of other ways and blowing yourself up in line at the airport would be one of those ways....as would doing it in a stadium or a train station or a mall or something. Strong security is needed and I'm usually all for doing things in the name of safety, but molestation is not one of them...this is just out of whack. Blowing yourself up on a plane takes out somewhere between 100-300 people because it's a confined space. Doing so in a line maybe gets you 20-50, if you have a giant amount of explosives.

Really, don't try to catch up on it. It's painful.

QUOTE (Controlled Chaos @ Nov 22, 2010 -> 10:59 AM) Where does all this lead? Back to the observation -- again, one made incessantly in this space -- that by the time a terrorist conspiracy matures to the point that it is ready for execution, it is, generally speaking, too late to stop it. If a cavity bomber reaches the airport without detection, he will have a high-likelihood of success in carrying out his mission. Which means, obviously, that much of the money we spend on airport security could be better spent on intelligence collection, and on the breaking up of terror cells overseas.[/i] The flaw in that logic is that it assumes that the amounts of money spent on the 2 sides are comparable. I'd be willing to bet that the costs of improving intelligence overseas are much, much more substantial than the costs of these machines, no matter how much Secretary Chertoff is making on them. If the machines produce small gains in security for small increases in costs, while better overseas intelligence has the potential to produce large gains in security but requires large increases in costs, now you've got a much more complicated question.

Obviously, this can only be viewed as a bad thing for the teachers' unions.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Nov 22, 2010 -> 11:52 AM) This is so laughable. Baron Davis and Elton Brand are worthless, while Luol Deng is a 20 ppg, 6 rpg, 3 apg player who will play solid defense and shoot a pretty good field goal percentage. Your hate of all things Deng is ridiculous. And yes, Deng has a big contract, but please don't compare him to Brand/Davis. I'm surprised it took someone that long to write that.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Nov 22, 2010 -> 01:00 AM) Supposedly done for good this time. He'd be a good pickup for the Bills that would allow them to use their 1st rounder on something else, as either he or Fitzpatrick would be able to run the offense. The Bills should pick him up and still use their first rounder on a QB if they can get a future franchise one. Neither guy they have is that role. Young's 4 twitter bursts after the game: ("If I say something about God, all will be forgiven right? Thems the rules").