Someone must explain the difference between possible (no matter how far fetched) and probable to this government. Perhaps because they are so close in the dictionary it's causing a problem. They couldn't see commercial aircraft as missles but can see some outlandish possible-maybe, untried and difficult to implement idea such as alts. If there are such problems perhaps they should use the explosion resistant Israeli cargo boxes in airplanes. It's all about money. It's all about the show. The dog and pony show of politics.
Telling the same thing does not equate doing anything and there has been no doing that I can see. IZ like you has no credibility.. Personally, I think he's a fed.
If he is (I know not), he is my kind of Fed because he cites regs supportive to free access to rockets. AND cites how the orgs are working at odds with consumers and their own members and manufacturers.
I was just reading about how the Israelis put the cargo in decompression chambers before they're allowed on the aircraft. Granted this is not fool-proof, but it should catch the simple devices.
I imagine these hardened cargo boxes add weight. To offset that you would have to remove seats or reduce the amount of commercial cargo per flight. That impacts the bottom line.
I would agree that it would affect the bottom line immediately, but I think the loss of an aircraft and passengers would have a much greater impact (no pun intended)later on. I know that I personally would feel safer riding in an airplane knowing they had hardened cargo containers. (OT) Why do people tell you to get on the plane when they should be telling you to get in the plane. I think George Carlin summed it up in a comedy routine. "F$#% you! You get on the plane I'll get in the plane!"
Don't you know that we are now officially forbidden, in the name of "Ensuring Adequate Security", to attempt to make the distinction between "possible" and "probable" dangers: after all (so the notion seems to go) we didn't think something like the Trade Center attack was "probable", did we?...
It is Fred spewing shit (taking liberties with the truth, as only he does so well).
Izzy has a life. His views are on the record forever.
He could not have even predicted how TRA would "do his bidding".
Tripoli Board of Directors Meeting Summary Teleconference of October 5, 2004 Present: Ken Good, Pat Gordzelik, Bruce Lee, Bob Schoner, Terry McCreary, Derek Deville, Bill Davidson, Dick Embry, Chuck Rogers Absent: none Proxies: none Executive Session Summary: The purpose of the call was to examine the current situation with HPR magazine deliveries and decide required actions. During 2003, approval had been given to HPR to move to a twelve-issue per year production scheme, along with other earlier changes that simplified the accounting of HPR subscription funds received through TRA memberships. Ken Good presented the Board an assessment that showed as of September 30, 2004, only four of the promised twelve 2004 issues had been confirmed as dis- tributed, with a fifth in the process of currently being distributed. The Board expectation is that nine of the twelve should have already been pro- duced, and it was apparent that the twelve-issue per year commitment could not be met. Extensive e-mail on this topic had been exchanged among the Board, and Ken and other Board members had been in com- munication with Bruce Kelly to ascertain what options were available to get HPR on track. Decision Outline: o HPR Publisher Bruce Kelly was unable to assure the Board that 12- issues could be produced in 2004, although it appeared that several other issues could be produced by year's end. o Options available to the Board were to sever the relationship with HPR or re-evaluate the relationship and find a way to continue with HPR, while enabling ongoing performance and no default of what subscribers had paid for. o Severing the relationship results in no immediate magazine alter- natives, money owed to subscribers, and a problem of finding/creat- ing a replacement publication. o While 12-issues per year is not realistic, a lower number, like the previous 9-issue scheme looks feasible.. o A detailed proposal for the Board to consider that would permit HPR to continue was presented by Chuck Rogers, based on previous Board e- mail input/concerns. This was discussed and largely adopted. The final proposal that was unanimously supported includes: o HPR reverts to a nine (9) issue per year production cycle. o HPR may increase subscription rates to $5.50 per issue as the reg- ular delivery discount rate for TRA members. This will permit the magazine to retain reasonable profitability, and thus enable the publisher to remain in business. o All subscribers who paid for twelve issues would still receive twelve, and the publisher will be required to extend their subscription peri- ods to ensure this occurs.. o Since no formal contract or agreement had ever been executed between TRA and HPR after it was spun off to Bruce Kelly many years earlier (and much difficulty and misunderstanding had result- ed in recent years because of this), a formal contract will be drafted and executed between the parties. Pat Gordzelik will draft the con- tract, and it will be signed by Ken Good and Bruce Kelly. Submitted by Ken Good, TRA President
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.