It was cinematic magic when a dying John Foster Kane uttered the famous word, “Rosebud,” as he let fall the snow globe down the stairwell shattering it into scores of broken pieces. Officials at Bradley International Airport in Windsor Locks, Connecticut, aren’t movie buffs it seems. When a TSA employee spotted the suspicious orb in some checked baggage she alerted State Police who evacuated the terminal. Once it was determined that Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer was submerged in water and glitter, instead of nitroglycerine, order was restored and flights were again whisking their way to all parts of the real globe.
Source: Courant.com
–Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger
Spot on with this write-up, I seriously think this
web site needs a great deal more attention. I’ll probably be back again to read
through more, thanks for the info!
Hi there Dear, are you truly visiting this web page on a regular basis, if so after that you will definitely
get good experience.
They’re called Garden GNOMES, sucka. Get it right and show some respeck
J. Brian Harris, Ph.D., P.E.
Having to defend against a near-infinitude of “terrorist threats” will destroy the economy of the defender without the terrorists having to do anything except make the threat of terrorism so believable that the effectively defenders destroy themselves.
—————————————————–
I don’t know of OBL reads Scientific American or of he figured it out for himself, but that has been his oft stated goal – to destroy our economy. So far he’s well on course.
Snowballs…
Good grief. Where do human errors come from?
In my previous post, fourth paragraph from the end, “that the effectively defenders destroy themselves” was meant to read, “that the defenders effectively destroy themselves”
I seem to recall an article in Scientific American, many years ago. The focus, as I recall, was on the effectiveness of “mutually assured destruction” and what it would take to be able to prevent every possible “terrorist” (not that terrorist was the word used; I have the issue where some of my library is presently in storage due to moving to a house too small to accommodate my entire library without my building a set of library stacks where the basement family room belongs).
The conclusion of that article was simple, and is readily found by any “terrorist,” so I suspect I do no harm in telling what I understand that article meant.
A “terrorist” need only think of one thing, which the defenders against “terrorists” did not anticipate, which will actually work. Having to defend against a near-infinitude of “terrorist threats” will destroy the economy of the defender without the terrorists having to do anything except make the threat of terrorism so believable that the effectively defenders destroy themselves.
As this was published long ago, and as the “terrorists” surely have had ready access to the article, does that make Scientific American and its owners “terrorists”?
Is any better way possible?
I find it sickening to fault the people who have to find ways to search baggage for possible threats, because no one can anticipate when or where an unforeseeable threat may arrive.
Who has ever actually done what is forever impossible?
Well some parts of the country still don’t understand our customs…..
I know I sleep soundly knowing these brave highly trained people are on the frontlines in the war on terror.
Rudolph the Red knows rain, dear.
the terrorists have won, we’re terrified of snow globes. good thing they didn’t have water balloons.