lockmat

NBC said they don't use the air puffs anymore because they worked well in the labs, but not in real life b/c it mixed whatevers in the air.

NBC nightly news just showed that this scanner can now submit images that are less personal; basically just showing the outline of a body...so it seems the privacy issue is becoming a less valid argument, if one at all.

Was that for lunch or dinner?

Well, we know there are a lot of stinkin names on the last, although I'm still not convinced it's difficult to filter it once the person enters the airport. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126212276274109385.html?mod=rss_whats_news_us

LOL Sorry, had to make a reply in addition to my +1

Seems like it's misnamed. Should put the word, "East" in front. Also, I'm searching for how long they believe this grant will last. I wonder if HGAC intends to give it again if it's a success; if not who will?

So let them know they're on it, giving them a chance to clear their name. If they don't, let all the passengers know. Avoiding embarrassment is up to them. At the very least, notify the pilots, flight attendents ect (if they don't already) so to keep a close eye on them.

I would say the best way to avoid confiscation of questionable items should just check their baggage. Airlines should just tell their passengers, "If you're not sure, check it."

Idea...what if we treated people on the no-fly list like we do pedifiles? When someone on the list enters through security into the terminal, people on that flight should be notified that someone on the list is flying on their plane. A couple things I'm not sure about... 1. How sure are we of these people on the list? Can we take it to the bank that they're a true threat? If we're affraid to offend someone who truly is not a threat, can the govt. notify them that they're on it so they have an opportunity to defend themselves and get their names off? Or do we want to get them in the act and say, "ah-hah, we got you!"? If they are a true threat, hopefully they'll just try and find someone else to do the job or at least deter them. Maybe the terrorist-camps don't have mailable addresses? 2. This would probably cause panic in the airport. However, why would we be letting someone on the no-fly list to fly in the first place? I guess we truly are willing to take that chance over offending someone. After-all, this guy was on the no-fly list, yet allowed anyway? Hmmm, maybe they should call it something different. The govt. should come out with more details, unless of course it's confidential for some reason.

Hi Crunch, Thanks for the input. Maybe it would be helpful if we just discussed the ideal situation, like the one we have (man on watch list) and not so much on an unknown person. I'm not sure of the likelihood of an unknown person (someone not on a list) committing a terrorist act. The least we could do is do a better job at protecting ourselves from the people we know are a threat. I won't belabour the point and restate the red flags that were there in this case. And I hope I'm not being presumptious to believe it would have been easy to keep this particular guy off the plane. I also know it's simple for a mistake, even an obvious one, to happen at least one time, so I don't want to beat up the responsible party up too bad. But let's take the passport for example. Is it really THAT easy for someone to get a fake passport or to trick the passport system? What happened when they scanned his passport and his information showed up on the screen? I wonder what the protocol is when a person on the list is shown to be at the airport? I think if we just pay Google, they could probably create a system that's impenetrable. I really am not trying to be naive. These are simple questions and I'm sure they have more complicated answers than I expect, I hope. I understand money vs. govt. vs. business etc. Even with those restrictions, I'm just surprised it is so hard to keep someone who's on the list, off the plane.

By no means am I a security expert. Maybe some can help out. This watch list. Is it just the USAs or is it an inernational list? What things are in place for international flights for govts/airlines to know who is on their plane before they board? I would find it hard to believe that nobody knows who is really getting on their planes. The airlines have just as much at stake for their company and employees safety not to know. Don't people have to show their passports? I would also be surprised to learn that the US govt does not have the capability to know who is flying into our country. If that's the case, we're doomed.

The Healthcare bit was just to pile on. My main point is that the red flags were numerous and obvious and our government showed seriously inadequacy. It directly relates to the topic. He was on the watch list His dad sounded the alarm on him He bought a one-way ticket He paid cash for his ticket Do they need him to wear a name-tag that says "Terrorist" on his chest? Think of all the technology in this world and how the private sector utilizes it. The govt is very much behind and is not on track to keep us very safe, so it seems. I will be flying this weekend and am not worried (only b/c the numbers are in my favor that I won't be on a plane blown up), but this event should not make us feel very safe in general.

With the most obvious red flags, our government still could not stop this guy? I can't wait until they are in control of my health care.

With the most obvious red flags, our government still could not stop this guy? I can't wait until they are in control of my health care.

Concerning the tie breaker, I've never even thought about it, not even for our Yahoo league. I guess I assumed it was who was closest, regardless if it was over. I hope the Leach allegations are not true.

I've learned that pink is not for warm fuzzy baby girls, but rather loserville. I hope things get better for me. Also, I don't understand that tie. I don't remember doing that, can you explain?

is that a hotel? what's it called?

You may be right on the congestion. It's getting worse, but they're also expanding Woodlands parkway and other streets. I don't think it's technically the Woodlands but 242 is in serious need of a flyover. However, there is almost no crime in there. I spoke with a hotel the other day and they told me the statistic, which I forgot, but it was very very low. Also, I would say the ameneties and proximity to them is probably second to none.

HOUSTON-Four leases totaling 16,667 square feet have pushed the 105,223-square-foot Four Chasewood office building to 90% occupancy a little more than a year after coming online. Owner GenCap Partners Inc. is readying for the next step at Chasewood Technology Park: the 235,000-square-foot Five Chasewood. "We've completed design development on Five Chasewood, and we're looking for a lead tenant," comments David Lee, senior vice president with Transwestern's Houston office. The remaining 20 acres are being targeted for two additional office towers and a hotel. Lee says discussions are underway for the hotel component, adding that, upon build-out Chasewood Technology Park will have 1.2-million square feet of office space, some retail and a hotel. http://www.globest.com/news/1562_1562/houston/182760-1.html

ok, so here's a real one. Has some interesting tidbits about how our would be stadium compares to others http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/soc/6781949.html

So we have to wait four more years???? jk

Highway...I guess this is manually updated by yourself, correct?

Just to poke fun. I keep thinking of all the reports that a decision will be made in "two weeks" and then that turns into almost two years...and now Kansas City! is building a stadium. I hope to see it get built but am skeptical.

It's worth reading the whole article... http://www.globest.com/news/1557_1557/houston/182634-1.html