Posted on 09/21/2007 7:56:37 AM PDT by Erik Latranyi
(AP) BOSTON An MIT student has been arrested at gunpoint after allegedly walking into Logan International Airport with a fake bomb strapped to her chest this morning.
State police say 19-year-old Star Simpson, a sophomore from Hawaii, had a computer circuit board, wiring and a putty that later turned out to be Play-Doh in plain view over a black hooded sweatshirt she was wearing.
Stay with wbztv.com and WBZ-TV for the latest on this developing story.
If I were the judge...the cost of the incident, and 30 days of jail with another 30 days of community service. The minute she mentions MIT classes and how it’d ruin her classtime...I’d just smile and say that this was “my experiment” in human behavior now...and I’ll test you to see how strong you can be in real life.After I did some research and found out she wore that shirt all over town and campus for months and what the writing on her shirt meant(it's a reference to a class at MIT) I wrote it off to pavlovian conditioning on the Boston Police. Especially after the Aqua Teen incident you'd think those idiots would learn.
Thanks for the post. She must be a liberal because they would never make excuses like that for a conservative.
I think that she did not do this as a stunt. I think that she did not think through to the consequences of her actions.
Wait. Was that some sort of cheesy Darth Vader thing?
Seriously, black. Electronic device in a chestplate in the front.
Sounds Vader-ish to me, not saying it IS just that it sounds like it could be (or that she had that in mind.)
Well, I guess we’ll see.
UH, nevermind. Didn’t even get to the second page where my questions were all answered.
Fter reading the article, I believe she KNEW exactly what she was doing.
You mean the costs of their overreaction? Why should she have to pay when the Boston police (once again) overreact and act hysterical?
No, the fairest solution would be for the police to let her go with a warning. The warning should be something like this:
"We the police are too stupid to think like adults and we think blinky lights are scary and they make us want to pull out our machine guns. We've done it twice in the last six months and we'll probably do it again. So consider this your warning. No more blinky lights around Boston police, okay?"
I suspect you are correct. It’s a different world behind the hedges, so to speak.
Bingo. In our brave new world, we need to lower our thinking to that of the average government idiot that will try to exert authority over us today. With kids it's in school - the first-graders must think to themselves "Will this drawing of my daddy get me suspended?" With adults it's "Will this innocent object confuse a stupid cop and get me shot?"
She’s cute in the first photo. Of course, she’s just a kid.
College is fine, but life has its lessons as well. Too bad she’s going to have to learn this one the hard way.
Consider decaf.
"We the police are too stupid to think like adults and we think blinky lights are scary and they make us want to pull out our machine guns. We've done it twice in the last six months and we'll probably do it again. So consider this your warning. No more blinky lights around Boston police, okay?"I lol'd.
It listed as hypotheses for suicide:living under the Reagan and Nixon administrations causes suicide, drugs and the hippie mentality prevent suicide.
Only data through 1991 is used.
It was written by 2 MIT students, Chew & Greenspun. Chew received a Master’s in 1998 and a PhD in 2000. Greenspun received a Bachelor’s in 1982, Master’s in 1993, and PhD in 1999.
This prompts some questions and speculation by me.
As far as I can tell, the report is undated. Based on the dates of their degrees, I would guess it was likely written sometime between 1996 & 2000, and probably to fulfill some course requirement.
1. Why data only through ‘91? a) no suicides after 1991, b) suicides during Clinton years don’t support anti-Republican hypothesis, c) I’m wrong about when it was written, d) no data available after 1991.
If this paper was written to fulfill some sort of course assignment, I’d give it a pass. (I’d hate to be judged on something I slapped together in a week to hand in.) If it’s intended to stand up as scholarly research, I think it’s pretty shoddily written.
Bottom line, sample size of data is too small to draw solid conclusions.
I read it, but I didn't find it very interesting. The data was too thin, as the authors acknowledge. I posted it partly because I found the title vaguely amusing.
As far as I can tell, the report is undated. Based on the dates of their degrees, I would guess it was likely written sometime between 1996 & 2000, and probably to fulfill some course requirement.
The internal date in the PDF is 1996. However, that's probably just when it was put online. Chew now teaches at USC. Her CV dates the paper in the Fall of 1992 and describes it as an "OR Practicum report". I assume OR is Operations Research.
On her hobbies page, Chew lists photography. Greenspun is also a shutterbug — and an aviator and prolific blogger.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.