Socket to Me: Star Simpson Follow-Up

it should have been examined like any other electronic device, no more, no less energon international

How many times does 42 go into 19? :o All the Star apologists need to stop drinking the kool-aid. Sodium, playdoh, wtf? The socially retarded MIT students should be required to have adult supervision when traveling off campus.

Yeah! Everyone who doesn't go to MIT is dumb!

"It is looking like it really never occurred to Simpson that she probably shouldn't be wearing anything that remotely resembled a bomb to the airport,"

And she didn't. Take a good look at one of the locations where we got to see what was supposedly a fake bomb

http://wbztv.com/topstories/local_story_264104114.html

and one sees a simple LED display panel;

the full argument used by apologists for the outrageous conduct of your state police is "it's got wires and chips and looks electrical and stuff, and that scares people"; what outsiders are left to see is a lot of verbiage that boils down to just that, and it really doesn't make Bostonians look very bright.

But far be it from me to say that no good comes from this. As a lifelong Midwesterner, I would like to express the gratitude of an entire region to the Boston area for taking our place in the national folklore. For generations, that "simpleminded farmboy" stereotype has been dogging us wherever we went, but no more. Hallelujah, I do believe we've been replaced.

What do you think? Maybe there can be a "Cheers" reunion, updated for our times, in which Woody talks Sam down from the ceiling, trying to explain to him that the toaster isn't necessarily evil. "But Woody, I looked in the back and it's got wires and electricity and stuff" "Sam, you been spikin' the chowder again?"

It'd be a hoot. Keep up the good work, boys. By the way, hang anybody for witchcraft, lately?

The device that was attached to her jacket was a breadboard, not a circuit board. Some of the components were covered with tape. They could have been anything. She was also carrying modeling clay, which looks just like plastic explosives. So, for those of you who don't know, it's easy to build a bomb with a breadboard, electronic components, a 9 volt battery, and plastic explosives.

She walked into LOGAN AIRPORT, for God's sake! She had what appeared to be an electronic detonator, a battery, and explosives. She asked about an incoming flight. When the woman at the information both questioned her about the device, she didn't answer, but walked away and left the airport.

No, I don't think airport security overreacted. In fact, I think they showed amazing self restraint. If she had been male, I think she'd be dead now.

Welcome to Boston, students! We've been amused and enlightened by your superior intelligence since 1636.

Since then, students and residents have followed this simple rule: If you crazy kids decide to play "stick it to the man," you need to suck it up if you get a slap on the wrist.

Glad to say that Ms. Simpson gets this, and all is well.

And, really, this is none of our business, but we also read in the Herald that Simpson's boyfriend, Tim Anderson, who paid her $750 bail, is 42 years old. Is he her professor? The Herald described him as a "retired 3-D printer inventor." Simpson is 19. You gotta admit that's unusual.

It's none of your business, it's none of mine. Why did you even print it? Bad reporter! If you understood higher intelligence or you would have realized that their physical ages are irrelevant when their mental ages match. What kind of relationship would a 19yo with a 160+ IQ (I'm guessing) have with the average 19yo idiot at 90 IQ (not guessing)?

"I am glad that you can read people's motives so easily. However, for those of us without telepathic abilities...

...people who 'innocently'... carry fake bombs into airports."

Does this mean if YOU think she intended the item to be a fake bomb, then that's definitely what it truly is while whatever I think must be false?

Claiming to know her motives either way is not a matter of "telepathic abilities", but rather a judgment based on the information available coupled with our own personal life experiences. If you wish to say your opinion is that she's lying and wore the device as a fake bomb, then that's fine. I won't agree with you because I believe it lacks common sense for a person with her history to do such a thing. However, agree or disagree, to assert knowledge either way is a result of the same thought process, rendering your assertion of her malicious motive equal with my assertion of her innocent motive. To disregard this is nothing more than a feeble attempt to make your assertion true while all others must be false which smacks in the face of basic logic.

Your ability to look into her brain to know her motive with any certainty is no different than my ability to do the same.

My assertion of her innocent motive is based on my belief that it lacks all logic for a person with her history to suddenly change from being a highly motivated and successful person to become a criminal, making a terroristic threat at an airport using a fake bomb pinned to her shirt which she, with all her electrical knowledge, created using a plastic board, playdoh and blinking lights. It lacks common sense to the point of absurdity. While the logical conclusion that she was simply so caught up in her work at MIT as an EE student who created an eye-catching display for career day at her school which she then innocently wore to the airport fits in very well with her enthusiastic background of high involvement with her school. My assertion is not one of "telepathic abilities"; rather, one of reasoned thinking based on the given information of this particular person's history and her activities of that day.

Can you please explain how her past behaviors and achievements would fit the assertion that she suddenly decided to become a criminal by creating such a crude "fake bomb", wearing it at MIT's career fair completely undetected only to use this as her cover to make threats at the airport?

Or in simple terms... get real.

It was a REAL circuit board device, not a fake one. This article should be corrected. The security is saying it is a fake bomb, but it really isn't a fake anything.

This proves how incompetent our airport security really is. If she had taken the time to put it in a little plastic box, or even a discarded cardboard one, there would not have been any problems. Any security staff that can't tell the difference between LEDs and explosives should be fired. I have carried vary complex electronic instruments through security and they have inspected them by making me turn them on. They happened to be in plastic manufactured looking boxes, with blinking lights and dials, so they were thought to be OK. It was clear that they had no idea what I had in the box other than the blinky lights on the front. She had everything in the open for them, and they proved they don't know a threat when they see one. I think people should test this all over until the FAA decides to give the security personnel some training in what they should be looking for, so the rest of us can go about our lives, not in fear of persecution for having 'electronics' as a hobby.

Has anyone noticed that they now let you on a plane with up to 4" pointed metal scissors, but you still can't bring a 2" pocket knife on board?

"She simply possess innocence. I mean innocence of the mind, innocence of the heart, innocence in that when she sees a plastic board with lights, playdoh and a battery, she innocently sees it as nothing but a plastic board with lights, playdoh and a battery."

I am glad that you can read people's motives so easily. However, for those of us without telepathic abilities, we would appreciate it if people did not cause disturbances with their "innocence." That includes people who "innocently" run red lights or carry fake bombs into airports.

I like the half assed retraction of "crazy biotch." Too late. You're an ignoramus and a misogynist.

Bad Star!

What is next for this "MIT" student...going to Virginia Tech with a fake bomb/gun for the sake of art? She may be smart but the common sense is lacking.

"Is that really her hair or is she wearing a toilet cover on her head?"

   — [5] Posted by: guest | September 23, 2007 6:33 AM

Are you really that rude or is your brain short-circuited due to extended periods in the toilet?

I agree with guest post #2. Okay, they're checking out things that appear suspicious to them. That's fine. But once it is clear that it was a simple misunderstanding, they should not charge her with a crime.

I do not think it is unreasonable for a technically minded girl of 19 who just came from a career day at MIT to not even consider that others would think of her plastic artwork as a bomb. Why would she? We all bring computer circuit boards into airports all the time via our laptop computers.

Unfortunately, she did possess something that appears to be the one thing most of us do not possess which is what will cause her trouble in this case: innocence. She simply possess innocence. I mean innocence of the mind, innocence of the heart, innocence in that when she sees a plastic board with lights, playdoh and a battery, she innocently sees it as nothing but a plastic board with lights, playdoh and a battery. She is guilty of not having bombs so carved into her brain to the point in which she would immediately know that a plastic board with lights, playdoh and a battery isn't artwork, but a bomb, threatening the very lives of all at the airport.

So we simply must throw the book at her. If we work really hard, we might be able to screw up her future. We can't possibly let an innocent young girl succeed in life! She must be stripped of her innocence until she, too, has a paranoid and fearful way of viewing the world. We must beat this girl's innocence into submission!

Yeah, right. The biggest danger we have right now is our leadership, not a bright, but somewhat socially awkward, teenage girl who's being a good kid, striving to achieve high goals through education. How dare she be so good, so pure, so innocent that she can't see the evil in everything like the rest of us can. For that, she must be punished!

The terrorists of 9/11 succeeded. Just look at us now.

Is that really her hair or is she wearing a toilet cover on her head?

Are circuit boards now just thought to be bombs?

After seeing the image of the 'device' I would not think it a bomb. Some LEDs and some resistors on a piece of plastic with a 9volt battery.

It is much more probable that any true 'bomb device' would be a mobile phone with extra wires than the primitive hunk of plastic sewn onto her sweat shirt.

Her only error was thinking that average people are smarter than they are, because that device is obviously not dangerous.

Either:

(1) She has a mental problem and MIT should suspend her indefintely until her treatment is completed (remember the VT shooter had mental problems).

(2) She is stupid and MIT should expel her for not meeting their scholastic standards.

(3) She did it as a prank and MIT should expel her and she should go to jail.

Has to be one of the above.

It is good that people are looking for and reporting things that don't look right and the police response was appropriate. But once they determined that there wasn't a bomb and that she wasn't a threat, why did authorities charge her with having a "hoax device" and disturbing the peace. A hoax, by definition and as specified in the hoax device law requires intent. She didn't didn't do anything to disturb the peace; it was other people's actions, base on their misperception that made it a big deal.

I am just waiting for an over-reaction to someone with a "BAG BALM" in their carry-on luggage

"Dairy Association Co. " Rock Island Que'

Yukio YANO