Just because they attend MIT doesn't mean they are smart

  • Thread starter Thread starter Moonbear
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Mean Mit
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the incident involving an MIT student who was arrested at Boston's Logan International Airport for wearing what was initially perceived as an explosive device. Participants explore the implications of her actions, the definitions of a "hoax device," and the broader context of security measures at airports.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question the student's intentions and whether her actions were a stunt or a lack of judgment.
  • There is a discussion about the definition of a "hoax device," with some arguing it could be anything that is not a bomb.
  • Several participants express concern over the security response, suggesting that the student was not attempting to board a plane and thus her actions should not have warranted such a reaction.
  • Some participants highlight the societal implications of wearable technology and how it may be perceived in sensitive environments like airports.
  • There are comments on the perceived overreaction of security personnel and the challenges they face in distinguishing between real threats and benign items.
  • One participant mentions the high suicide rate at MIT, suggesting a connection to the pressures faced by students, though this claim is met with a request for a reference.
  • Humor is used by some participants to comment on the situation, with remarks about the student's name and appearance.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views, with no clear consensus on the appropriateness of the student's actions or the security response. Some agree on the lack of judgment displayed, while others defend her intentions and criticize the security measures in place.

Contextual Notes

There are conflicting accounts of the details surrounding the incident, including the nature of the device worn by the student and the context of her presence at the airport. Participants also note the limitations of current security protocols in adapting to new technologies.

  • #61
cyrusabdollahi said:
Do you not know how to read what I post?

Go back and read post #30.

Ohhhh--I get it now---we're supposed to read everything that you write as being funny or sarcastic---OK---OK---I get it now---


DaveC426913 said:
Not sure if you're serious or sarcastic, but we don't shoot people dead for inappropriate reactions. Even in airports.

Wait, you were being sarcastic.

just like dave is saying


----------evo--you're right again
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
...I have not tried to be funny at all during my posts in this thread. :confused:
 
  • #63
Stingray said:
So, we should live in constant fear for the rest of our lives because of the actions of a few people six years ago? Boston is not Baghdad. There haven't been bombs going off all the time (or ever, really). I think your attitude is a very disturbing one.
Hi. I'm Mr. Strawman. Nice to meet you. Should we live in fear? No. Should we accept more responsibility for our own actions and spend more than one nanosecond thinking about how our actions can have consequences? Yes.

I never said Boston was Baghdad. Again, going way too far with a statement. What I did say that you can not possibly think that Logan airport, being the central staging point for 9/11 attackers, would not have some of the most uptight security on the planet now. Hell, just going to Detroit Metro I make darned sure that there is absolutely nothing I am doing or carrying...or anything...that could make me look suspicious in any way shape nor form. I'll chalk some up to her being an idiot teenager, but come on.

Should this girl have a criminal record after this? No. Should she be in trouble? Absolutely. I'd have her doing community service until she got her PhD. If something were to happen and she was shot, I'd be sorry that it happened, but I wouldn't hold it against the security people either. They are put in a horrible situation with having to act very quickly. I would never want to be put in the situation of having to make a choice of shooting someone.
 
  • #64
I have been urged by a friend to point out that "bad judgement" is not the same as "stupid"! (I graduated from MIT, the friend did not.)
 
  • #65
Mr. Strawman--a better phrasing than I---(speed typing a response is not one of my forte's, and sometimes short is not sweet)

and I should have put a smiley face/(emote?) behind the that kind of (Iraq) comment, I guess...(I've seen that done before)
 
Last edited:
  • #66
Stingray said:
My point was that people don't think as much about their appearance when just picking someone up.

Circuit board on chest, lump of clay in her hand. She was not being thoughtless.


Stingray said:
Yeah, sure. Why exactly would anyone want to cause a scene like this? If she was really goading, she did a poor job of it.
Why would you say that? She was accosted by security with automatic weapons. She did an excellent job of it.

Stingray said:
I've carried things in my luggage that looked a heck of a lot more bomb-like than this,
Were you goading them with it?



BTW, I don't know if it's occurred to anyone, but what the security thinks is not the only issue here. I'll bet one of the scenarios that Security considers is what would happen if bystanders (or, say an information rep) saw and reacted to a circuit board and lump of clay. Valid threat or no, that could have caused a stampede, and people could very well have gotten hurt in the ensuing chaos. Security would have every right to react to this very real danger.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 57 ·
2
Replies
57
Views
8K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
10K
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
11K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K