That article really overestimates the desire of suicide bombers to survive their attempt. It also really overestimates how hard it is to do massive economic damage just by implying you know how to make TATP.
What Bin Laden et al wanted to do was inflict long term economic pain, and they absolutely accomplished that goal. This just shows they’re still succeeding, really.
I don't think long term economic pain was the goal. I think influencing the American people into opposing interference in the Middle East as "not worth it" was the goal. And that would be achieved by the visceral carnage and the implication of "we'll stop if you stop". Not through fuzzy and indirect economic effects.
I don't think they ever cared about damaging the US in general, they just want the US and the west in general out of their backyard.
> That article really overestimates the desire of suicide bombers to survive their attempt.
The article addressed it pretty well. They have a fairly strong desire to not blow up in the taxi to the airport, so you can't carry premixed TATP around. And it won't work to just dump it into the toilet or sink and let the reaction rip, you won't get enough TATP out of that to matter.
> In transaction processing, the Telecommunication Application Transaction Processing Benchmark (TATP) is a benchmark designed to measure the performance of in-memory database transaction systems.
It's amazing how much of the world runs off inefficient databases! Certainly rigging a benchmark would do a lot more than a ziploc full of some volatile peroxide.
Is the tıtle purposely ambiguous for clicks? They obviously mean each liquid bottle has to be max 100 ml, not that the total amount of liquids allowed is 100 ml, right?
I used to forget lighters in my check in (in the hold) suitcase when flying to hk, th or sg; in the eu not an issue, in there I always got called to the little room; 'lighter!', for every lighter in there.
I think airport people are fixated on it because of the increased revenues from beverage sales (and some security people are happy to help if they can sell wildly overpriced scanners at a massive profit)
I thought it was because the density of water was similar to explosives and x-ray scanning equipment at the time was not sensitive enough to differentiate without many false positives?
Seems even with the new scanners there is some issue why they have to limit items to no more than 100ml temporarily. Maybe waiting for a software update… though if there is a loophole seems weird to wait until September 1st…
> Technical information received by the Commission and validated by ECAC States and laboratories, shows that the existing configurations of standard C3 EDSCB equipment to which the Commission has granted the ‘EU Stamp’ marking or the ‘EU Stamp pending’ marking need to be revised in order to improve their performance
Sounds like this might be a software problem of some sort, although it’s surprising if that’s affecting multiple vendors. Maybe an issue with the certification process?
If I understand this correctly there are new scanners that should make it easier to detect explosives, I guess. But while they do have these new scanners, they still will not allow more than 100ml, which was the case already.
It was always 100ml, but some airports don't comply because their national regulator says it's fine if you have a fancy scanner. Now EC says, no it's not, go back in line.
Schiphol for example lets you bring in whatever whater you want in whatever flask you have.
This is not true, airports with upgraded scanners are complying with the law just fine.
This appears to be a temporary technical problem:
> This precautionary measure is not in response to any new threat but addresses a temporary technical issue, undertaken in alignment with the EU’s international partners
And:
> Technical information received by the Commission and validated by ECAC States and laboratories, shows that the existing configurations of standard C3 EDSCB equipment to which the Commission has granted the ‘EU Stamp’ marking or the ‘EU Stamp pending’ marking need to be revised in order to improve their performance
Hasn't this rule been there for many years? I have flown to UK twice and there ere always restrictions on 100ml per bottle. Even lost a deodorant bottle because of that (security made me throw it away).
By the way, anyone else here annoyed by the typical form factor of perfume bottles? Usually these containers have thick glass walls, are large and heavy, totally inadequate for traveling.
Yes, you can transfer a bit into special travel containers but you'll have to hit the spray button dozens of times to transfer even a meaningful quantity. And if you don't wear latex gloves your hands will have a strong smell for the rest of the week.
It's called decanting. And no you don't end up spilling the fragrance all over your hands while transferring it to a small bottle. Yiu can also buy travel sized bottled of many popular fragrances which are specifically meant for travelling. But yes, in general full sized fragrance bottles aren't meant for carrying along while travelling.
> Yes, you can transfer a bit into special travel containers but you'll have to hit the spray button dozens of times to transfer even a meaningful quantity.
Fortunately with a lot of modern expensive perfume it's usually possible to just open bottle and use some easier way to transfer the liquid like with syringe. Transfering it by spraying is very invonvinient.
So at least there is one good and useful consequence of eco / reuse movement.
Readit News
What Bin Laden et al wanted to do was inflict long term economic pain, and they absolutely accomplished that goal. This just shows they’re still succeeding, really.
I don't think they ever cared about damaging the US in general, they just want the US and the west in general out of their backyard.
The article addressed it pretty well. They have a fairly strong desire to not blow up in the taxi to the airport, so you can't carry premixed TATP around. And it won't work to just dump it into the toilet or sink and let the reaction rip, you won't get enough TATP out of that to matter.
It's amazing how much of the world runs off inefficient databases! Certainly rigging a benchmark would do a lot more than a ziploc full of some volatile peroxide.
Deleted Comment
Seems even with the new scanners there is some issue why they have to limit items to no more than 100ml temporarily. Maybe waiting for a software update… though if there is a loophole seems weird to wait until September 1st…
> Technical information received by the Commission and validated by ECAC States and laboratories, shows that the existing configurations of standard C3 EDSCB equipment to which the Commission has granted the ‘EU Stamp’ marking or the ‘EU Stamp pending’ marking need to be revised in order to improve their performance
Sounds like this might be a software problem of some sort, although it’s surprising if that’s affecting multiple vendors. Maybe an issue with the certification process?
TLDW: was previously hard to tell the difference between water and explosives.
If I understand this correctly there are new scanners that should make it easier to detect explosives, I guess. But while they do have these new scanners, they still will not allow more than 100ml, which was the case already.
Then they got rid of the rule so that more than 100ml is allowed
Now they've reintroduced the rule
Schiphol for example lets you bring in whatever whater you want in whatever flask you have.
This is not true, airports with upgraded scanners are complying with the law just fine.
This appears to be a temporary technical problem:
> This precautionary measure is not in response to any new threat but addresses a temporary technical issue, undertaken in alignment with the EU’s international partners
And:
> Technical information received by the Commission and validated by ECAC States and laboratories, shows that the existing configurations of standard C3 EDSCB equipment to which the Commission has granted the ‘EU Stamp’ marking or the ‘EU Stamp pending’ marking need to be revised in order to improve their performance
Yes, you can transfer a bit into special travel containers but you'll have to hit the spray button dozens of times to transfer even a meaningful quantity. And if you don't wear latex gloves your hands will have a strong smell for the rest of the week.
Of course they found a nice name to try to make up for this extremely bad user experience ...
I use one of the big brand fragrances and I'd prefer they sold small vials, a bit larger than the usual testers, but they don't.
Fortunately with a lot of modern expensive perfume it's usually possible to just open bottle and use some easier way to transfer the liquid like with syringe. Transfering it by spraying is very invonvinient.
So at least there is one good and useful consequence of eco / reuse movement.
In Italy you have to relinquish your bottle caps to enter concerts, which is interesting now that caps need to be attached to the bottles.