dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
6165
share rss forum feed


ropeguru
Premium
join:2001-01-25
Mechanicsville, VA

1 recommendation

reply to FutureMon

Re: Stranded jet-skier saunters through JFK safeguards

said by FutureMon:

Not knowing the details of the fence line, why couldn't he have just walked along the fence line until he got somewhere he could be noticed?

Even if he does get charged, public outrage over the incident will hopefully get them dropped. But of course, the officials in charge of security have to have some time to beat their chests first...

- FM

In my opinion, he did something stupid and SHOULD be charged for it as there were other ways for him to get help that would not have involved jumping a chain link fence into a KNOWN SECURE area.

Also, there SHOULD be an investigation as to why the multi-million dollar system that WE the tax payers paid for did not work.


Cheese
Premium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
kudos:1
reply to Mele20

said by Mele20:

said by Name Game:

The way you searched forced google to only look for these terms.."stranded jet skier"

Google doesn't let you search as you want to anymore.

Bullshit...

iknow
Premium
join:2012-03-25

1 recommendation

reply to ropeguru

said by ropeguru:

said by FutureMon:

Not knowing the details of the fence line, why couldn't he have just walked along the fence line until he got somewhere he could be noticed?

Even if he does get charged, public outrage over the incident will hopefully get them dropped. But of course, the officials in charge of security have to have some time to beat their chests first...

- FM

In my opinion, he did something stupid and SHOULD be charged for it as there were other ways for him to get help that would not have involved jumping a chain link fence into a KNOWN SECURE area.

Also, there SHOULD be an investigation as to why the multi-million dollar system that WE the tax payers paid for did not work.

that's absurd!. would it be a crime to break into a house that is on fire to rescue possible occupants? NO!. would it be a crime to kill an arsonist who is about to set fire to a house or building? NO!. it's quite ok to commit a lower crime to prevent a higher crime. trespassing to save a life is quite ok in the U.S.

dave
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
kudos:8
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

1 edit

said by iknow:

would it be a crime to break into a house that is on fire to rescue possible occupants? NO!.

I don't think he 'broke into the airport' to rescue anyone there.

would it be a crime to kill an arsonist who is about to set fire to a house or building? NO!.

I don't think anyone was about to set fire to the airport.

it's quite ok to commit a lower crime to prevent a higher crime. trespassing to save a life is quite ok in the U.S.

He was supposedly trespassing to supposedly save his own life. Although once he was on shore, maybe he was no longer in imminent danger of loss of life.

And in any case, your argument does not generally hold. One may expect the jury to consider the compelling need of preventing the 'higher crime', but there is AFAIK no such statute in law.

But in this situation there was no 'higher crime' to be prevented.

--
It's not that I think he ought to be charged with trespass, it's simply that the arguments you put up are irrelevant.

dave
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
kudos:8
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

1 recommendation

reply to ropeguru

said by ropeguru:

Last time I checked, cell phones could call 911 where he could have gotten help.

Last time I checked, cell phones generally don't survive a swim in salt water.

The way I read the story, he didn't swim until after his craft had started sinking ('taking on water'), and it probably wouldn't be prudent to wait around for someone to show up. So he swam. And we don't know if he has the wherewithal to keep his phone dry while swimming. In retrospect, a little waterproof phone case would have been a smart move, but we already know that forethought wasn't his strong suit.



AVD
Respice, Adspice, Prospice
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Onion, NJ
kudos:1
reply to Mele20

said by Mele20:

I am wondering why there are only four news articles about this incident: FoxNews, The Daily Mail, Gothamist and the original article in the New York Post.

»news.google.com/news/story?q=str···kQqgIwAA

post = fox news
I don't know who owns the Daily Mall.
--
--Standard disclaimers apply.--
The preceding posting is null and void in Arizona and any other jurisdiction where prohibited by law.


JALevinworth

@embarqhsd.net
reply to ropeguru

said by ropeguru:

said by FutureMon:

Not knowing the details of the fence line, why couldn't he have just walked along the fence line until he got somewhere he could be noticed?

Even if he does get charged, public outrage over the incident will hopefully get them dropped. But of course, the officials in charge of security have to have some time to beat their chests first...

- FM

In my opinion, he did something stupid and SHOULD be charged for it as there were other ways for him to get help that would not have involved jumping a chain link fence into a KNOWN SECURE area.

Also, there SHOULD be an investigation as to why the multi-million dollar system that WE the tax payers paid for did not work.

After looking at birdseye on Bing I don't think he had much choice. Realizing he was in dark and needing to swim for it, you naturally are going to save your ass and swim towards lights (I've been on a disabled power boat in the dark out in similar surroundings.. you can't see shore or any land in the dark unless there are lights). There doesn't appear to be anything but the airport around there. Looks undeveloped, swaps, and a golf course closest. The rest is the airport property.

Of course, he could have walked miles on the perimeter of the fence (assuming it was passable all the way around, but if it's dark you can't tell that) after that 3 mile swim to the front of the airport, but he didn't.

Whether he physically could or not or just didn't is still unknown - but if he could, so what? he's charged with climbing the fence. What's the PA to do? Not charge him and say, cool story bro? Of course they will and should. Doesn't mean the charges might not be dropped or reduced later either. It must be investigated completely first IMHO.

Even so, I bet he's glad to be alive to face the charges. That's a far better scenario than drowning.

-Jim


Name Game
Premium
join:2002-07-07
Grand Rapids, MI
kudos:7
reply to goalieskates

Jet ski riders are on notice: stay off Jamaica Bay

MARK MORALES
Wednesday, June 20, 2012
Jet ski riders won’t have Jamaica Bay to cruise around anymore.

Federal park officials have started cracking down on jet ski riders, enforcing a ban that’s been on the books since 2001.

Riders who speed down the Brooklyn and Queens waterway have been getting either a written warning or a ticket for as much as $75 since the start of the summer season, according to sources.

“We get harassed constantly by (the US Parks Police),” said Anthony Stallone, owner of a jet ski tour company operating out of Venice Marina on Emmons Ave.

Stallone, 41, said he was riding with friends earlier this month when a slew of federal officials s stopped them and handed out fines.

“As soon as we came out of the marina they were right there waiting for us,” said Stallone.

Last weekend, parks officials were back again - this time preventing anyone from leaving the marina through Jamaica Bay causing Stallone to cancel his tours for the day.

“They totally shut down the whole marina - and there’s hundreds of jet skis riding out here,” said Stallone.

Officials for the US Parks Police said the law was always enforced but did not say how many tickets have been handed out.

It’s unclear if the ban is being consistently enforced: The News observed jet ski riders on the bay Wendesday afternoon.

National Parks Service officials also would not confirm the crackdown but said the ban is necessary to protect wildlife.

“Jamaica Bay is a sensitive environment. Species use it as their home,” said National Parks Service spokesman John Warren. “They get startled because of the sound [of the jet ski] and it erodes the salt marsh. We want to reverse that process.”

But local riders and marina operators said the ban is not fair.

Mike Bulzomi , who has been - manager of the Sea Travelers Marina on Flatbush Ave. for 16 years, said he’s never seen anyone come back on their jet ski with a ticket.

Bulzomi said he’s afraid that if the ban is enforced, jet skiers will hop off their rides for good.

“It’s ridiculous,” said Bulzomi. “It’s hard enough to stay in business with the way the economy is.”

One rider who got a written warning last week said he’s worried about what to do with his jet ski.

“It sucks. I spent a lot of money on this thing to get it fixed,” said the rider, who also paid $800 for the season for dock his jet ski. “I don’t know what their enforcement is going to be. It’s really bad.”

»articles.nydailynews.com/2012-06···aica-bay

--
Gladiator Security Forum
»www.gladiator-antivirus.com/



Name Game
Premium
join:2002-07-07
Grand Rapids, MI
kudos:7

Gateway National Recreation Area has announced that the ban on the use of personal watercraft in National park waters in the New York metropolitan area will remain in effect for the 2008 boating season.

The area includes most of Jamaica Bay (Brooklyn and Queens), the ocean and bayside waters of Sandy Hook, N.J., and the area along the eastern shore of Staten Island.

The Staten Island area includes Fort Wadsworth, Miller Field, Hoffman and Swinburne Islands and Great Kills Park and its boat ramp and the surrounding waters of Great Kills Park and its entrance channel.

The ban has been in effect for the past six years and will continue due to ecological distress, noise and non-compliance of boating rules by the operators of the PWC.

Remember also that you can not launch or land a PWC from any beach in New York City.PWC use is allowed from all other areas and in Raritan Bay.

In New York State all operators of a PWC must be at least 14 years old and have taken an approved eight-hour safe boating class and have passed a proctored exam.

The certificate of passing must be carried by the operator at all times. Personal Watercraft can only be operated from sunrise to sunset and when conditions are not classified as restricted visibility (rain, fog).

PWC operators must comply with all navigation rules that apply to all other vessels. The U. S. Park Police will continue to enforce the ban through patrols by their marine unit. Failure to comply will result in a summons being issued.

REQUIRED PWC EQUIPMENT

A life preserver must be worn by each person on or being towed by the PWC. It must be impact rated for 50 MPH and approved by the Coast Guard.

A horn or whistle capable of a two-second blast must also be carried.

A visual distress flag (orange color -- 1 foot square) must also be onboard.

Engine cutoff switch must be attached to the operator.

Lines for securing the PWC and a fire extinguisher are also required.

PWC operation is also not allowed in designated swimming areas. Reckless operation of a PWC is also not permitted. Examples are wake jumping too close to other vessels, weaving in and out of congested or anchorage areas, last minute swerving to avoid collisions and any maneuvering which endangers the life or property of others. PWC's can be great fun if used responsibly.
_________________

»deepcreekyachtclub.com/Forum/index.php
--
Gladiator Security Forum
»www.gladiator-antivirus.com/



Rook008
Miles To Go
Premium
join:2002-02-05
Far Rockaway, NY
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

1 recommendation

reply to ropeguru

said by ropeguru:

...
In my opinion, he did something stupid and SHOULD be charged for it...
Also, there SHOULD be an investigation as to why the multi-million dollar system that WE the tax payers paid for did not work.

I agree.
Castillo made a bunch of mistakes to get to where he was and even though he may have done the right thing to him, jumping an 8 foot fence to get to help quickly, he should still pay for jumping the fence. I think paying a fine would be fair and end the matter.

The bigger story here is why this expensive security system didn't work.
--
"Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats." - H. L. Mencken

raythompsontn

join:2001-01-11
Oliver Springs, TN
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to Name Game

said by Name Game:

last minute swerving to avoid collisions and any maneuvering which endangers the life or property of others.

So the alternative is to just endure the collision rather than avoid?


Rook008
Miles To Go
Premium
join:2002-02-05
Far Rockaway, NY

I think they were referring to games of chicken, which is actually a lot of fun on a jet-ski.


raythompsontn

join:2001-01-11
Oliver Springs, TN
Reviews:
·Comcast

1 recommendation

said by Rook008:

I think they were referring to games of chicken, which is actually a lot of fun on a jet-ski.

So it is OK to play chicken, you just can't swerve at the last second to avoid the collision.

The entire part about avoiding the collision just reads funny.


Rook008
Miles To Go
Premium
join:2002-02-05
Far Rockaway, NY
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

said by raythompsontn:

...
The entire part about avoiding the collision just reads funny.

Yeah, it does.
--
"Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats." - H. L. Mencken


Rook008
Miles To Go
Premium
join:2002-02-05
Far Rockaway, NY
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

1 recommendation

reply to goalieskates

What I don't get is, doesn't a system like this need to be tested to insure that it actually works before it replaced the old security system?

Technology is great and all, but with that much money being spent, couldn't they do some test breaches or something?
--
"Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats." - H. L. Mencken



Cudni
La Merma - Vigilado
Premium,MVM
join:2003-12-20
Someshire
kudos:13
reply to goalieskates

A thing of past with this in place. Armed of course, no point otherwise
»DHS Prepares for Civil Unrest....

Cudni


Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:1
reply to Rook008

said by Rook008:

What I don't get is, doesn't a system like this need to be tested to insure that it actually works before it replaced the old security system?

Technology is great and all, but with that much money being spent, couldn't they do some test breaches or something?

The kid should not only not be charged with anything, He should send DHS a bill for testing their POS security system that is clearly less secure than a supermarket.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports

dave
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
kudos:8
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
reply to raythompsontn

said by raythompsontn:

So it is OK to play chicken, you just can't swerve at the last second to avoid the collision.

That's ok; the problem becomes self-limiting if no-one swerves.


rcdailey
Dragoonfly
Premium
join:2005-03-29
Rialto, CA
reply to Kearnstd

The guy did have to climb over a fence, which most of us don't have to do at a supermarket (except maybe when it's closed). They probably should have sensors on the fences at JFK, which would at least let them know something is messing around (even if it is a wild creature).
--
It is easier for a camel to put on a bikini than an old man to thread a needle.


Mele20
Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
kudos:5
reply to Name Game

said by Name Game:

Baloney..

And google certainly does let you search for what one wants..I do it all the time

so how many do you get here

(Page 10 of about 2,880 results (0.27 seconds))

[

I got 196,000 results and the search was for "Daniel Casillo". The search did not add "jet skier" like is in your link. This was on Fx 10 ESR. On Fx 4, I got completely different results with your link using Fx 4 and when I did it more than once, different results when Google Sharing wasn't used. On Fx 4, I got 20,000 results one time and 5,000 another. Both had a ton of junk.

Google does not let you search as you want unless, perhaps, you use "advanced search" which I did not do and I never claimed to have used "advanced search". Plus, Google search results now also are tied to the browser and browser version you use as well as, in my case, if the search goes through Google Sharing servers and which one it goes through (the servers are world wide) or if doesn't use Google Sharing for some reason. Whether or not Proxo is filtering also changes Google results.

You use Chrome so you will get different results.
--
When governments fear people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. Thomas Jefferson


StuartMW
Who Is John Galt?
Premium
join:2000-08-06
Galt's Gulch
kudos:2

said by Mele20:

...if the search goes through Google Sharing servers and which one it goes through (the servers are world wide)...

I only know of and use one GoogleSharing proxy (proxy.googlesharing.net) and that seems to be located in Houston, TX.

The GoogleSharing proxy randomizes the BrowserID (User Agent) between requests.

Unfortunately the GoogleSharing website (»www.googlesharing.net) seems to be redirected/changed so I can't provide quotes/links.
--
Don't feed trolls--it only makes them grow!


Name Game
Premium
join:2002-07-07
Grand Rapids, MI
kudos:7

1 edit
reply to Mele20

Click for full size
Come on Mele..I can get that many also with just his name..

I don't know what you are trying to prove..but anyway google will let a user search for anything..and BTW I don't log into google and I don't use their advance search..I do once in a while look at the cache pages..expecially when even at this forum the mod deletes a thread Google does not delete those so one can see the content for years. And at that link I posted with his name and jet ski..I also get a lot more than I posted because time has now passed since the post and there are more that google has found out there when doing it's new up to the minute fancy dance.
»searchengineland.com/what-happen···ce-26452

--
Gladiator Security Forum
»www.gladiator-antivirus.com/

Mele20
Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
kudos:5
reply to StuartMW

Hmm....I wonder why we can't reach googlesharing.net. I tried all different ways including through Mozilla Addons site on Googlesharing page and through the author's website, etc. Even my link on Fx Addons list redirects to Abine's main page which has changed in the last few days. Googlesharing extension updated last night.

When the Houston one is over used then the user is redirected to other googlesharing proxies. I get them from all over the world. I also get some weirdity on Fx 4 that directly reflects which server is contacted. That doesn't happen on Fx 10. Maybe because I am in Hawaii the Houston one is not always contacted?

Of course, eventually, none of Abine's offerings will be free including googlesharing. They have good privacy stuff so I probably will buy some package of theirs once better developed and usable on all browsers.

So, do you always get a search through Googlesharing unless you get that announcement that it has been turned off because all servers are too busy? I get that announcement frequently depending on the time of day that I search. I also sometimes don't get the announcement, or see Google Sharing disabled in the status bar, but I get regular Google search. It is easy to tell as regular Google search wants me to set a location. Plus, sometimes I get regular Google search (non secure) and Proxo filters yet Google Sharing is turned on.

At the moment. Google Sharing is disabled in my status bar and I didn't disable it. I have been away from the computer for several hours and it was disabled by GoogleSharing while I was away. This happens frequently...don't you see this?
--
When governments fear people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. Thomas Jefferson



Name Game
Premium
join:2002-07-07
Grand Rapids, MI
kudos:7

1 edit

»www.websitedown.info/proxy.googlesharing.net

»www.googlesharing.net/

Doesn't this mean that you could monitor my searches, though?
With the release of Googlesharing 0.20, even the Googlesharing proxy is not capable of monitoring your search queries. The addon pre-fetches the identity information from the Googlesharing proxy, uses that to construct an anonymized request, and then routes an encrypted connection to Google through the Googlesharing proxy. So while the traffic is routed through Googlesharing, it is encrypted to Google and thus not visible to the Googlesharing proxy.
The result is that Google knows what is being searched for, but doesn't know who issued the request. The Googlesharing proxy can tell where requests are coming from, but can't tell anything about the content of the request. The only thing you have to trust is that the operator of the Googlesharing proxy is not actively colluding with Google in order to determine the identities of Googlesharing users.
If you're still worried, remember that the Googlesharing addon and proxy code is publicly available. So it's possible for you to run a Googlesharing proxy yourself, or to find someone who you do trust.

»www.abine.com/googlesharing/gs_faq.php


Mele20
Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
kudos:5

1 edit

Click for full size
Click for full size
Click for full size
Click for full size
No ABINE's website is NOT www.googlesharing.net. Your website down information site got itself fooled because googlesharing.net IS DOWN FOR EVERYONE. Abine is REdirecting all traffic to their website.

You should use »www.downforeveryoneorjustme.com instead. It is not fooled by Abine's redirection. Abine has done this before. The googlesharing.net site has oodles of information besides those FAQs you quoted from on Abine's site. The googlesharing.net site explains how to make your own google proxy which maybe Abine doesn't want folks to know how to do....especially once they start charging for Google sharing proxy? But it is probably just down temporarily for a benign reason. As I have said this has happened a number of times since I got googlesharing extension.

Abine needs to fix their new main page as the download url is behind the Privacy Watch icon using Fx 10 ESR. Other Fx users? Is it ok on later versions of Fx?

EDIT: It is fine on Fx 4. The download URL at Abine is not obscured by the Privacy Watch icon. I have had so many problems with Fx10 ESR and never any similar problems on Fx 4 both running on XP. (And I get criticized for using an old browser because it works right and the newer versions don't)!
--
When governments fear people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. Thomas Jefferson


AVD
Respice, Adspice, Prospice
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Onion, NJ
kudos:1
reply to goalieskates

If Jamaica Bay is a navigable waterway, how can the National Parks Service ban watercraft?



ropeguru
Premium
join:2001-01-25
Mechanicsville, VA
reply to Rook008

said by Rook008:

The bigger story here is why this expensive security system didn't work.

Agreed...


ropeguru
Premium
join:2001-01-25
Mechanicsville, VA
reply to AVD

Apparently in 2002, there was a ban put in place for personal water craft for all NPS covered waters. This includes most of Jamaica Bay. Not sure of the outcome but it appears that in 2003, the Superintendent at Gateway NRA was going to propose some alternatives so that personal watercraft could traverse the bay and get to the ocean. But it seems they would still be banned from the bay itself.

»www.timesledger.com/stories/2003···135.html

When it comes to habitat protection, the NPS has a lot of power to ban things.



thebay

@rr.com

That body of water is the only place not run by NPS. Jet ski's are allowed from 5 towns up to beach 138th st. The system failed, this person should of been helped, he saved his life and maybe thousands of others.



AVD
Respice, Adspice, Prospice
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Onion, NJ
kudos:1

said by thebay :

T he saved his life and maybe thousands of others.

this.