Moderator: Community Team
Why? The device was a nuisance, but nothing more.thegreekdog wrote:I didn't know one could purchase a device to interfere with airport systems at an apparently affordable price. That's a little disconcerting.
Perhaps it could be used nefariously. Of course, we could only search Arab men because statistics show they are the most likely to use these types of devices nefariously, but that wouldn't be racist.BigBallinStalin wrote:Why? The device was a nuisance, but nothing more.thegreekdog wrote:I didn't know one could purchase a device to interfere with airport systems at an apparently affordable price. That's a little disconcerting.
Half of all air traffic problems in the US stem from this guy:BigBallinStalin wrote:Why? The device was a nuisance, but nothing more.thegreekdog wrote:I didn't know one could purchase a device to interfere with airport systems at an apparently affordable price. That's a little disconcerting.
thegreekdog wrote:Perhaps it could be used nefariously. Of course, we could only search Arab men because statistics show they are the most likely to use these types of devices nefariously, but that wouldn't be racist.BigBallinStalin wrote:Why? The device was a nuisance, but nothing more.thegreekdog wrote:I didn't know one could purchase a device to interfere with airport systems at an apparently affordable price. That's a little disconcerting.
They should hire another 'fall guy' to escape direct blame.DoomYoshi wrote:Half of all air traffic problems in the US stem from this guy:BigBallinStalin wrote:Why? The device was a nuisance, but nothing more.thegreekdog wrote:I didn't know one could purchase a device to interfere with airport systems at an apparently affordable price. That's a little disconcerting.
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/0 ... elays.html
I don't disagree.BigBallinStalin wrote:thegreekdog wrote:Perhaps it could be used nefariously. Of course, we could only search Arab men because statistics show they are the most likely to use these types of devices nefariously, but that wouldn't be racist.BigBallinStalin wrote:Why? The device was a nuisance, but nothing more.thegreekdog wrote:I didn't know one could purchase a device to interfere with airport systems at an apparently affordable price. That's a little disconcerting.
Sidestepping the racist, nonracist policies, but couldn't you say the same about anything?
For example, there's plenty of cheap means for terrorizing or damaging airports, which may seem disconcerting, until we wonder... just how many people are actually willing to do that? We can imagine "a lot," but realistically, it doesn't seem to be worrisome enough*.
*Of course, if I was chief of security for some airport, I'd be worried, but that's a different context.
Look in the horse.BigBallinStalin wrote:Since you're Greek, I suspect you're hiding something from me...
Symmetry wrote:Here's the FCC case:
http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/201 ... 106A1.html
Turn out they don't like people driving around jamming everything they can.
That's bullshit! Make him pay for it the Canadian way: by forced sex slavery while being moved around the country by Ukrainians.While we understand the amount of the forfeiture proposed herein may be
sizable for an individual, we find it appropriate given the significant
safety concerns raised by the violations at issue. Consistent with Section
503 of the Act, we note that in response to this NAL Mr. Bojczak can
provide information about his financial condition and ability to pay which
could result in a reduced forfeiture based on Mr. Bojczak's particular
financial circumstances
Bar the Ukrainians, that's the Jefferson approach.DoomYoshi wrote:Symmetry wrote:Here's the FCC case:
http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/201 ... 106A1.html
Turn out they don't like people driving around jamming everything they can.That's bullshit! Make him pay for it the Canadian way: by forced sex slavery while being moved around the country by Ukrainians.While we understand the amount of the forfeiture proposed herein may be
sizable for an individual, we find it appropriate given the significant
safety concerns raised by the violations at issue. Consistent with Section
503 of the Act, we note that in response to this NAL Mr. Bojczak can
provide information about his financial condition and ability to pay which
could result in a reduced forfeiture based on Mr. Bojczak's particular
financial circumstances
saxitoxin wrote:Serbia is a RUDE DUDE
may not be a PRUDE, but he's gotta 'TUDE
might not be LEWD, but he's gonna get BOOED
RUDE
Hmm, I'm gonna go with a tentative maybe here.Serbia wrote:Ban bloggers. Bollocks. CONFUSED? YOU'LL KNOW WHEN YOU'RE RIPE This is my word.