That had me laughing so hard I was calling people into my office to look...not a' one of them laughed.

I was driving around in Bartlett today and I happened across Boardwalk Street, which had a sign right next to it for Park Place Apartments. Woo!

Because I just need to whine to someone:

I'm away from home.

I'm really sick with a bacterial stomach bug you'd think I must've caught in Africa.

I can't eat. I can't drink.

This is the second night in a row of coming to blows with a cranky German director and working way past my bedtime.



In other news, I like the Broken West. The album really (finally) hit for me. It sounded great on the shuffle on the way out here. I wanna like Canasta, too, which hits the shuffle right after the Broken West. But man, this guy's voice sounds like the Barenaked Ladies or something.

I hope you see a specialist about whatever you've got, and rule out parasites!!

I think I'm over Canasta. They opened up for DeVotchKa and I liked them. I bought their CD and it's boring as hell. Then we saw them after Mark Mallman a couple of months ago and were bored and left after 1.5 songs.

Thanks, velocity. I've been to a doctor. He's treating me for some bacteria with a name I can't remember. The weird part is, it's treated with antibiotics, but it's also caused by antibiotics -- oh, and hanging out in hospitals or nursing homes.

So this is 38: Picking up weird shit that usually kills old people.

There's a HUGE fire going on over on the west side!! we could see the flames from near the lake.

Bartlett is fly like that. I was all over that area this afternoon. Strangeness.

RE: Canasta. Dude posts here, ssshh.

hmm. I too saw the smoke while passing Allstate Arena on 90 at around the time of your post.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/c...ll=chi-news-hed

I like that article because they add in a little story told by a taxi driver about when he saw the fire.

I have this. It exposes and explains a lot about the world that had been bothering me, stuff I was having a hard time putting my finger on.

I just heard that Wilco is going to stream Sky Blue Sky tonight. Pass it on.

haha, undo.


I learned an important lesson this morning. Do not put ripe bananas in a bag with a book in it.

Web of comfort: Japanese find sleep, shelter in cyber cafes

REUTERS[ TUESDAY, MAY 08, 2007 02:06:11 AM]

TOKYO: Takeshi Yamashita does not look like a homeless person. From his carefully distressed jeans to his casual-cool navy striped T-shirt, he is every bit the trendy Tokyoite. Yet the 26-year-old has been sleeping in a reclining seat in an internet cafe every night for the past month since he lost his steady office job and his apartment.

It's cheaper than a hotel, offers access to the internet and hundreds of Manga comic books, and even has a microwave and a shower where he can wash in the morning before heading off to one of his temporary jobs ranging from cleaning to basic office work. Asked how long he plans to go on living like that, Yamashita smiles and shrugs. "I hope the situation in Japan will improve. The new Japanese generation doesn't have any money, and many young people don't have any motivation. I don't have money, but I have a dream,"� he says, sitting in a cubicle with a PC and a stack of comic books.

So what is his dream? "I don't know. Maybe some ordinary job in an office." Yamashita is one of Japan's many "freeters"a compound of "free"� and "Arbeiter,"� the German word for "worker."� A by-product of the economic crisis that hit Japan and its lifelong employment guarantees in the 1990s, freeters drift between odd jobs. Earning around 1,000 yen ($8) per hour, they often struggle to pay the rent in Tokyo, one of the most expensive cities in the world where a modest 30 square meter (320 square foot) flat in a central location can easily cost 150,000 yen ($1,250) a month.

Now the economy is recovering, but many freeters are missing out on the upswing after years of unskilled work. Most expanding companies prefer to recruit fresh university graduates or transfer basic jobs to low-wage countries such as China.

Cyber Home

As an internet cafe owner in Tokyo's Ueno district, Masami Takahashi has had a close-up view of social change in Japan. Around the corner from his cafe, homeless people who cannot even afford a reclining seat sleep in cardboard boxes. Chinese prostitutes in Japanese kimonos prop up drunken office workers, or "salarymen,"� who will stumble into Masami's cafe for a nap later in the night.

The salarymen were the first to discover net cafes as a cheap alternative to hotels after companies hurt by the economic crisis stopped funding team drinks -- an essential part of Japanese corporate culture -- followed by a night in a hotel. And then there are customers for whom Takahashi's Internet point is home. Takahashi, an affable host sporting a mullet and a blue track suit, regularly sees freeters taking refuge at his cafe.

He has even lent money to some of them out of pity. "It shows how the social system is changing. It's a bit sad for us Japanese," he told Reuters, scratching his head. At about 1,400 to 2,400 yen ($12-$20) for a night in a central Internet cafe -- free soft drinks, TV, comics and Internet access included -- prices beat those of Japan's famous "capsule hotels," where guests sleep in plastic cells. This means that on a Friday night in Shibuya, one of Tokyo's main entertainment districts, the dimly lit cafes are packed. At 3 am, there is loud snoring from salarymen in suits, their shoes lined up neatly outside each individual cubicle containing a reclining seat or sofa, a computer and a clothes hanger.

There are fashionable young women wearing high heels and short skirts, who missed the last train after a night out. And there are those who use the discretion of a net cafe to their own advantage. "I often come here with my boyfriend. Today we escaped from high-school and came here,"� said 16-year-old Naomi, a schoolgirl in a white shirt, tartan miniskirt and knee-high socks. Shyly sweeping aside her long brown fringe, Naomi said she started going to net cafes with her boyfriend at the age of 15, telling her parents she was sleeping at a friend's place. "We spend all night talking and reading mangas, and in the morning we go to school."

'Working poor'

Like Yamashita, the freeter, many of the cyber homeless fade into this colorful crowd, finding anonymity as well as shelter. "The younger ones don't look any different from other young people," said Kazumasa Adachi, a manager at one of the more elegant net cafes where staff wear suits and receive customers with the polite efficiency of hotel receptionists. He recognises cafe dwellers by the heavy bags they lug around. "They are different from the real homeless because they belong to the working poor, so they do have some money, whereas the ones on the street have no money at all," he added.

There is no official data on the cyber cafe homeless. Japan's Welfare Ministry plans a wider study on the phenomenon, according to a newspaper report, but in the meantime, it is hard to gauge the scope of the problem or its social impact. Anecdotal evidence suggests that many are freeters in their mid-to-late-twenties, who stay in a net cafe for a couple of months before settling for a more permanent housing solution.

Those who are older, poorer, with fewer chances of escaping their drifting lifestyle, and sometimes too embarrassed to return home, find themselves at the very bottom of cyber society.

They congregate in run-down Tokyo suburbs such as Kamata, renting poorly ventilated, smoke-filled cubicles with reclining seats for 100 yen an hour.

"It's very uncomfortable. You can't really sleep," said one Kamata cafe guest who preferred not to be named.

i hate finals. i hate staying up all night. i hate(love) the somb for helping me procrastinate.

I was watching '10 Most Grumpy Animals' on Animal Planet and spotted my long lost little silver earring lodged between the TV stand and cabinet. You wish your life was this exciting.

From http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/

Con-Lab Gap Analysis
Even after the Boundary Commisson changes, there seems to be a difference in the electoral geography for the two main parties. This is typified by the fact that if Labour and the Conservatives have equal support, then Labour still has a majority in Westminster, but the Conservatives need about a 10% lead to get a majority themselves. Some people call this a "bias", but we will use the more neutral term of "gap". Whatever name we use, the question remains as to what causes this gap, is it a rational feature of a fair electoral system, and will it persist to the next election.

The article on this page examines the causes of the gap by consideration of the likely electoral geography at the next general election under the new boundaries.
Sections

1. Observing the Gap
2. Constituency sizes
3. Differential Turnout
4. Support Distributions
5. Tactical Voting
6. Conclusions

1. Observing the Gap
For our analysis, we will work with an adjusted version of the parties' support as at 1-Sep-2006, using polls from 7-Jul-2006 to 20-Aug-2006. Those support figures are Con 37.18%, Lab 32.59%, LibDem 20.86%. We adjust the Con and Lab figures to be equal at their average value of 34.88%. This gives Labour a predicted majority of 10 in the House of Commons, with 90 seats more than the Conservatives.

The following table shows clearly the existence and extent of the electoral gap between Labour and the Conservatives. The table varies the Con and Lab support figures around that. central case, keeping the LibDem support constant.

Con-Lab % Con % Lab % Con
Seats Lab
Seats Con-Lab
Seats
-10 29.88 39.88 177 388 -211
-9 30.38 39.38 180 387 -207
-8 30.88 38.88 182 387 -205
-7 31.38 38.38 189 381 -192
-6 31.88 37.88 196 375 -179
-5 32.38 37.38 201 371 -170
-4 32.88 36.88 214 359 -145
-3 33.38 36.38 220 353 -133
-2 33.88 35.88 227 346 -119
-1 34.38 35.38 235 336 -101
0 34.88 34.88 240 330 -90
1 35.38 34.38 249 321 -72
2 35.88 33.88 253 315 -62
3 36.38 33.38 268 301 -33
4 36.88 32.88 276 292 -16
5 37.38 32.38 287 279 8
6 37.88 31.88 296 270 26
7 38.38 31.38 305 262 43
8 38.88 30.88 317 251 66
9 39.38 30.38 335 234 101
10 39.88 29.88 351 219 132
The columns of the table are:

* The first column "Con-Lab %" is the lead (positive or negative) of the Conservatives over Labour in opinion poll terms.
* The next two columns are the supposed percentage support figures for both Con and Lab in that scenario.
* The next two columns, "Con Seats" and "Lab Seats", are the predicted number of seats won by each major party in the scenario.
* The last column, "Con-Lab Seats", is the difference in seats between the two parties.

The rows of the table are coloured red or blue according to the largest party. If the party has an absolute majority (326 seats or more), the colour has a darker hue.



Useful rule-of-thumb
From the table's data, we can also get a useful approximation rule. Each 1% change in the Con-Lab% difference is worth about 17 seats in the Con-Lab seat difference.

We will use this gearing of 17 later.

We can confirm some key facts.

1. Labour has a majority up to a Con-Lab% difference of zero.
2. Conservative majority starts from a Con-Lab% difference of nine.
3. The equal-seats point is around a Con-Lab% difference of five (precisely 4.9%)
4. Around 4% on either side of the equal-seats point is a hung parliament

The motivation for the three parties in the next election is clear. Labour need to be in the darker-red area, which means doing at least as well as the Conservatives. The Conservatives need the darker-blue area, which needs about a 9% lead in the opinion polls. The Liberal Democrats would like a hung parliament, and would like the Conservatives to lead Labour by around 5% or so.

In one sense the electoral landscape is symmetric. There is a 4% buffer zone on either side of the equal-seats point. Beyond that zone, each major party can enjoy a parliamentary majority. But the equal-seats point is not symmetric. We would expect it to be at 0%, but instead it is at 4.9%. This is the "gap" that we have observed, and now have to explain.
2. Constituency sizes
Despite the efforts of the Boundary Commissions, the seats are not all the same size, in terms of numbers of electors. There are three reasons for this. Firstly there are 59 seats in Scotland and 40 in Wales. This forces the average Scottish seat to have 65,300 electors and for Wales only 55,762. The average for England is higher at 69,735. This over-represents Scotland and Wales which are predominantly Labour supporting. To be equal, Scotland should have 55 seats and Wales should have 32 seats.

The number of seats in Scotland is now controlled by the Boundary Commission for Scotland, but the Scotland Act 1998 requires them to make seats with the same average electorate as England. In its fifth report in 2004, it calculated the quota number of Scottish seats at 57, but nevertheless produced 59 in practice. The small seats of Orkney and Shetland, and Na h-Eileanan An Iar (Western Isles) contributed to the discrepancy.

Although the number of seats in Wales is set by the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 to be at least 35 (which is now slightly too high), the rules also require the Boundary Commission for Wales to keep the number of seats approximately unchanged. In its fifth report (2005), the Boundary Commission for Wales kept the number of seats unchanged at 40.

Secondly, the Boundary Commission for England has to work with the electorates as at 2000. In the years since then, we would expect continued poplulation drift away from poorer (Labour) areas towards richer (Conservative) areas. This also over-represents Labour voters slightly.

Thirdly, it is not possible to have seats exactly equal, given that seats are made up of entire local election wards, and that some regard should be given to county, historic and natural boundaries.

We can estimate how much this over-representation is worth. Working with our base case of Con and Lab equal at 34.88%, we can weight each seat by its own electorate and count how many weighted seats each party wins. This alters the Con-Lab seat difference from -90 to -78, implying that uneven constituency sizes are worth 12 seats to Labour. Using our gearing of 17, we can think of this as about 0.7% of the total gap of 4.9%.
3. Differential Turnout
It has long been observed that Labour supporters are less likely to actually vote than supporters of the other parties. Indeed there is a strong negative correlation between the turnout of a constituency and the Labour support there. (The correlation is -0.69.) We can estimate that a Labour supporter is only 65% as likely to vote as Conservative and Lib Dem supporters.

This is a major effect, but it has already been allowed for by the pollsters. They try to restrict their sampling to those most likely to vote. So non-voting Labour supporters will be ignored both by the opinion polls and (automatically) by the general election. So we should be comparing like-with-like and differential turnout will not matter. But the Boundary Commissions, rightly, do not ignore non-voters and they draw the seat boundaries to ensure equal numbers of electors in each seat, not equal numbers of actual voters. This means, rather elegantly, that Labour non-voters are represented as long as they live in a seat with a lot of Labour supporters anyway. However, it does also mean that safe Labour seats will contribute less than they should to the measured national support figures, and thus cause some "gap".

We can estimate how much gap is caused by this effect. We do this by estimating how many votes would be cast for each party if the turnout in each seat was identical. Our formula for this is

V(i) = U(i) x Scale,

where U(i) is the original number of votes cast for party i in the seat, Scale is the seat's scale-factor and V(i) is the adjusted number of votes cast for party i. We define the seat's scale-factor to be

Scale = 80% x Electorate / (U(1) + ... + U(n) ),

to ensure an equal turnout of 80% in each seat. We can then calculate the national support figures by adding up the adjusted votes V(i) over all the seats. Starting with the base case of Con 34.88% and Lab 34.88%, this gives adjusted support figures of Con 34.02% and Lab 35.86%. So this has caused a support gap of 1.84%.

This effect is legitimate. Labour is strongly handicapped by the failure of many of its supporters to vote, and this effect is a much smaller move in the other direction. This part of the gap is a direct consequence of the principle of having seats with equal electorates rather than equal turnouts. It is hard to argue with that principle, though it does result in safe Labour MPs being elected with fewer votes than equally safe Conservative MPs.

Compared to the total gap of 4.9%, we see that this effect (1.8% gap) plus the uneven constituency sizes (0.7% gap) accounts for about half the total gap. We can check this calculation intuitively by taking a simple average of each party's percentage support over all the seats (instead of adding up all the votes cast for the party). This gives a Labour lead of 2.46%, which is again about half the gap.
4. Support Distributions
It is important to remember the support of a party is not spread uniformly across all seats. If it were, the most popular party would win every seat. A useful way of analysing this is to look at the distribution across seats of party support. For the, say, Conservatives, look at how many seats they have a support of 0%-5%, how many 5%-10%, and so on. The average over the seats must (arithmetically) match the national average, but the shape of the distribution can be important.

Here are two extreme examples for a party which has 35% support nationally. There are 632 seats (excluding Northern Ireland).

1. Strong case Suppose the party has 45% support in 492 seats, and 0% support in 140 seats. This has the correct average of ( 45% x 492 + 0% x 140 ) / 632 = 35%. Usually 45% support in any seat is sufficient to win, so the party will win about 492 seats and have a landslide majority of 334.

2. Weak case Instead, suppose the party has 30% support in 587 seats and 100% support in 45 seats. This also has the correct national average of ( 30% x 587 + 100% x 45 ) / 632 = 35%. In a three-party system, 30% support in any seat will always lose, so the party will win just 45 seats.

For those familiar with second moments of distributions, it is interesting to note that the standard deviations of these two distributions are almost identical. So the two distributions are equal in both first and second moment, but have completely different electoral outcomes.

We now work with a base case which has been adjusted for the effects of uneven constituency size and for differential turnout. We do this by applying the explained gap of 2.46%, to give national support figures of Con 36.11% and Lab 33.65%. This has the effect of ensuring that the average percentage support in each constituency is 34.9% for both parties. The seat gap is now 49 which, as expected, is about half the original seat gap of 90.

Frequency distribution of seats by Labour and Conservative support

The histogram shows the distribution across seats of support for both the Conservatives and Labour at this adjusted base case. For instance, the peak of 110 for Labour at 45% means that there are 110 seats in which Labour's support is between 40% and 45%. Of those, all but 8 were seats which Labour won.

Thinking about the two extreme cases above, let us consider whether the parties have a relatively "weak" or "strong" distribution. The Conservatives have more seats than Labour in the weak area of 25%-35%. These seats are bad for the Conservatives because they "use up" many votes in seats which they do not win. Conversely Labour has more seats than the Conservatives in the strong area of 40%-45%. These seats are good for Labour because they can win the seat without spending too many votes. Both of these effects are good for Labour and bad for the Conservatives.

On the other hand, the Conservatives have more seats than Labour in the slightly strong areas of 50%-55%. Labour also "wastes" some votes in very safe seats with 60%-70% support. These effects are bad for Labour and good for the Conservatives.

We need to quantify these effects so that we can determine which are more important. We can look at the means and standard deviations of the distributions, but we do not expect this to reveal very much. Another simple measure is just to count how many seats have support above, say, 40% (marginal seat), 45% (winnable seat), or 50% (safe seat).

Party Mean Std dev Num seats
above 40% Num seats
above 45% Num seats
above 50%
Con 34.86% 13.2% 336 256 183
Lab 34.79% 13.6% 354 266 156
Con-Lab 0.07% -0.4% -18 -10 27

The table shows the relevant statistics for the two parties, as well as the difference. The surprising result is that the distributions are very similar. The means and standard deviations are very close, but even the number of marginal, winnable and safe seats are similar compared with the remaining gap of 49 seats. Labour lead by 10 seats over winnable or safer seats, so they have a slightly more favourable support distribution.

The main difference appears, not in the distribution, but in the number of seats won. Labour has been much more successful at winning the borderline seats in the 40% bucket, where it has won nearly half the possible seats. The Conservatives only win about one sixth of their possible seats.
5. Tactical Voting
Our analysis of the support distributions has not explained very much more of the gap, but it has shown us where to look next. Let us now consider the set of seats in the 40% support bucket (which includes seats where support lies between 35% and 40%). There are 80 of those seats for the Conservatives, who won 14, and 88 of those seats for Labour, who won 42. What was different for the two major parties in those seats?

The following two charts show all the marginal Conservative and Labour seats respectively. The result of each seat is shown as a column of 100% of all votes divided up into Con, Lab, LibDem and the rest (Nat, Min and Oth). The winning party is highlighted in a bolder hue.

Conservative marginal seats: vote breakdown

And for the 88 Labour marginals:

Labour marginal seats: vote breakdown

We can see clearly that the Conservatives do not win many of their marginal seats, but Labour win quite a few of theirs. At first glance, it is hard to see any particular reason why this is. Looking more closely we see that Labour often win when the LibDems have good support, and the non-Labour vote is split. In Conservative seats, the non-Conservative vote is less often split, so the Conservatives usually lose. This suggests that tactical voting against the Conservatives may be taking place.

An informative statistic is that in the 18 Conservative marginal seats, where Labour was third, the Labour vote averaged just 12.04% and the Conservatives only won 2 of those seats. But in the 16 Labour marginal seats, where the Conservatives were third, the Conservative vote averaged 17.81% and Labour won 13 of the seats. It appears as if Labour supporters are quite ready, if Labour is trailing, to vote tactically to support the Lib Dems against the Conservatives. But Conservatives are less inclined to vote Lib Dem to stop Labour. So tactical voting by Labour supporters could be worth about 10 seats of the gap. Testing with a tactical unwind of 5% for third-placed Labour supporters in the election simulator confirms a change of 9 seats in the gap.

It is hard to estimate the amount of Lib Dem tactical voting against the Conservatives, if any. Speculatively, we attach a 1% tactical vote by third-placed Lib Dems in favour of Labour. This is partly a matter of judgement, though there is some weak numerial evidence. (The average support for third-placed Lib Dem candidates in Conservative marginals is about 1% less than that in Labour marginals.) The tactical voting feature of the election simulator values this gap effect at 16 seats.
6. Conclusions
We have observed a gap of 90 seats (equivalent to 4.9% support) between Labour and the Conservatives when the parties have equal support nationally. We have investigated some possible causes of this gap and tried to quantify them. The results of the analysis are shown below:

Cause Seat gap Support
gap % Comment
Uneven seat sizes 12 0.7% Scotland and Wales are over-represented
Differential turnout 33 1.8% Labour supporters don't vote in (safer) seats
Support distribution 10 0.5% Differences in clustering of supporters
Tactical voting by
Labour supporters 10 0.5% Labour supporters vote LibDem over Con
Tactical voting by
Lib Dem supporters 16 1.0% LibDem supporters vote Lab over Con
Total 81 4.5%

So we see that most of the gap has been explained. There is no single cause, but the two biggest effects are differential Labour turnout and tactical voting. In terms of the fairness or legitimacy of each of these effects, the following comments could be made:

* Uneven seat sizes. The over-representation of Scotland and Wales seems not to be justified, especially since both of them now enjoy devolved government.
* Differential turnout. This follows from the principle of equal numbers of electors in each seat, whether they vote or not. So Labour seats often have a smaller number of voters who turnout, thus electing an MP with fewer votes than elsewhere. This is quite legitimate.
* Support distribution. This is probably due to luck, and it is a small effect which is not obviously driven by any systematic factor.
* Tactical voting. This is the concern of individual voters who make their own choices.

To summarise, the gap is mostly due to the technical factor of differential Labour turnout (which hurts Labour more than it helps it) plus tactical voting against the Conservatives. It is not due, as far as is measurable, to the way in which the Boundary Commission for England has drawn the new seat boundaries. However, the total number of seats for Scotland and Wales are too high, making those areas over-represented.

Looking forward to the next election, we can confidently assume that the uneven seat sizes and differential turnout will continue to operate. The support distribution might change, but it is a small effect anyway. But tactical voting could alter significantly between the 2005 election and the next one. If public sentiment switches from wanting to "keep the Tories out" to either neutrality or even a desire to punish Labour, then perhaps a third of the 90 seat gap could disappear.

I'm still studying. Does anyone want to know random facts about gene flow and other biological events?
srsly, i've got 'em until 9:00 CST when I forget everything i just crammed in my brain.

He goes out at night with his big boots on
None of his friends know right from wrong
The kick a boy to death 'cause he don't belong
You've got to humanise yourself

A policeman put on his uniform
He'd like to have a gun just to keep him warm
Because violence here is a social norm
You've got to humanise yourself

Rehumanise yourself
Rehumanise yourself
Rehumanise yourself
Rehumanise yourself

I work all day at the factory
I'm building a machine that's not for me
There must be a reason that I can't see
You've got to humanise yourself

Billy's joined the National Front
He always was (just) a little runt
He's got his hand in the air with the other cunts
You've got to humanise yourself

Rehumanise yourself
Rehumanise yourself
Rehumanise yourself
Rehumanise yourself

I work all day at the factory
I'm building a machine that's not for me
There must be a reason that I can't see
You've got to humanise yourself

A policeman put on his uniform
He'd like to have a gun just to keep him warm
Because violence here is a social norm
You've got to humanise yourself

Rehumanise yourself...

Last winter I learned that even a green banana is not a good snack to put in your coat pocket when skiing.

Kimberly Kane Versus Korn On The Kob

It's relatively safe for work, it's just a woman eating an ear of corn, but she eats the HELL out of it.

I haven't flown anywhere in about a year and a half and I was just informed that I will not be able to take my lip gloss on the plane with me Friday. What kind of world are we living in?

Who needs lip gloss on a plane?

They should be called "Tokyokels."

not the point.

And your eyes are just holes in your face.

Because if you can take Lip Gloss onto the plane it might be Explosive Lip Gloss, and then the terrorists win.

Of course the Explosive Liquid Bomb Plot hinged on science straight out of an episode of "24;" i.e., if you could sneak a small amount of 2 mysterious liquids onto a plane (supposedly hidden in false bottomed bottles of a British Gatorade knockoff), quickly mix them together without any equipment except the sink of the Lav, without anyone noticing (remember Chem Lab? Was there anything you could mix together to make something interesting that didn't stink?), and make an explosive that's powerful enough to knock a plane out of the sky.

The things that're wrong with those assumptions are:

• A small amount won't do, you'll need to bring a large amount of raw materials.
• Most of the raw materials for any binary explosive are so dangerous you can only carry them in glass containers with glass tops sealed with glass.
• They need at least a little lab equipment (at least several retorts, stirrers, and lab thermometers) and lot & lots of ice.
• Let me repeat Lots & Lots of ice, or you won't get a big bang.
• If you don't mix the chemicals together correctly & under the right conditions they'll explode. But not enough of an explosion to destroy anything, except the people who're mixing this together.
• All of the materials you could use to make a theoretical binary bomb stink on their own, and the chemical processes needed to mix them stink even worse.
• Most possible binary explosives take 8-12 hours to make even a small batch.
• And you need to make a Big batch.

And even after that there's one last spoiler: planes are really, really difficult to make crash outside of the Movies & TV, just look at Aloha Air flight 243:




The plane made it in to a safe landing with only one fatality, a stewardess who wasn't strapped in at the time of the accident.

Let's not talk about plane crashes three days before I fly, plz. thx.

the plane in Freddie's post didn't crash, it tore apart 20,000 feet

And still landed safely.

Red, I've flown a few times since the new decree and enforcement is spotty at best. Going thru security the day after the routine changed, I stood behind a woman who'd forgotten to check her liquids, and she felt compelled to throw everything away (lotions, lip gloss, makeup, mascare, eye shadow wand). An hour later, past security, a friend takes lip gloss out of the purse she'd had with her the whole time--the x-ray machine hadn't found any liquids and it never occurred to her to toss or check her makeup bag.

Also, a pal who works at a courthouse says that security scanners & x-rays are calibrated to detect metal and they won't pick up liquids (or at least, they wouldn't a year ago).

I've lost my lip gloss on 4 of the past 5 flights. My art director has held onto hers 5 of 5.

Spotty, indeed.

More TSA Security Fun to make Red feel better: Last year I had to fly to Vegas on just a couple hours notice and only had time to grab my Laptop Bag & one Carry-on with some clothes & Dob Kit. When I was in the long ass security line there were signs saying "Empty the contents of your pockets into your carry-on baggage," so I grabbed my keys, cell phone, wallet, pens & other crap out of my pockets & shoved them into my carry-on. When I got to the front of the line I was flagged & pulled aside for special attention (same day flight, no checked baggage, etc.), where I was put through a bomb sniffer, had to open my laptop bag and remove & start my laptop, and my carry-on was run through the X-Ray machine 4 times.

After they finally cleared me to continue to my flight I remembered that part of the contents of my pockets that I'd emptied into my carry-on were 2 Swiss Army Knives, which 4 passes through the X-Ray machine obviously didn't turn up.

I have yet to lose a tube of lip gloss on a flight as well.

I've also walked through security with swiss army knives as well. The alarm didn't even go off. However, they did make me throw out my tube of Colgate because it was too big. Diatom bombs, I suppose.

I remember the last time I flew this lady threw a temper tantrum because she couldn't take her tweezers on board. I don't know if she thought she might get a splinter on the plane or she needed to do her eyebrows before we got to L.A..

Are underwire bras ok, or will I need to take it off as I go through security? How about nail polish? Are pants ok?

you best bet is to board the plane nude

be prepared for a cavity search

Diatoms are not to be trusted, dead or alive.

A swiss army knife in my carry-on got by security 2-3 times but I finally lost it awhile back. Are they still requiring all bags to be checked?

In 2000 I carried 2 Razor Knives from Chicago to Hawaii, through International Flight Security:



Basically the same thing that the 9/11 hijackers used.

Back in the '80s I went through security checks carrying such contraband as Knives, Manriki-Gusari & Handcuffs without being stopped.

They ID'd my handcuffs but didn't have a problem with them.

someone point mt to the drunlk thread, thx.

red and whisky...bad idea. tomorrows gona sukc.

You know those medic alert bracelets? They should make those for lushes and drunks. Mine would warn bartenders not to give me Jameson.

Mods, how come my inbox says '-1 new messages.' Did I break the Somb?

feeling better, biggie?

Yeah, antibiotics seem to be doing the trick. I am back at work today, and everything.

Same thing happened to me. When you get a couple of PM's, it'll go back to normal.

Hi, Danny!

Hi, Freddie! Paris Hilton loves and forgives you!