PDA

View Full Version : New XRay Scanner tested for airports


Mr. Anderson
Jun 26, 2003, 11:59 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/ptech/06/26/seethru.security.ap/index.html

Wow, talk about seeing everything....I'm sure who ever gets to operate this machine is going to get tired of it after a while or just go numb to seeing naked people.

Kind of scary, actually. Some people you just don't want to see naked.....;)

D

phrancpharmD
Jun 26, 2003, 12:48 PM
hmmm, radiation dose only about that of sunshine eh? How much sunshine? Sunshine sure has the capability of causing some really nasty skin cancers if exposed to it for too long. I think I'd be more concerned about the dose received by the technicians working around the machine all day long; I wonder if they'll have to wear the little "rad" badges nuclear pharmacists and radiologists / radiology techs have to wear. . .

agreenster
Jun 26, 2003, 01:17 PM
WOW. Thats really freakin bizarre!

I think they should be implemented, because they appear relatively impossible to sneak anything through. But they should have the monitors in booths so unauthorized people wont be checking out the show.

QCassidy352
Jun 26, 2003, 03:55 PM
this is just sick. how about everyone gets strip searched every time they go in to a government building? is that a good idea? these security nuts need to be stopped. :mad:

edit: I'm about at the point now where I don't want to fly anymore... not because I have the slightest fear of terrorism, but because I can't stand the ten security checkpoints, getting to the airport 90 min early for domestic flights, searches, etc. I hope this costs the airlines enough customers that they get a message.

agreenster
Jun 26, 2003, 06:11 PM
So I guess you'd rather blow up in a firery crash and have your friends and family learn about your demise on CNN?

If you were paying attention, you'd note that this particular device will actually SAVE you time at the airport because it will eliminate the need for getting patted down and scanned with the metal detector wands at 6 different checkpoints.

C'mon man, it isnt a conspiracy to invade your privacy, its about keeping people from getting killed. I for one appreciate all the safety. (plus, I dont care WHO sees me naked, I look pretty good! :) --maybe SOMEONE is a bit self conscious about their weight, hmmmm???)

;)

Mr. Anderson
Jun 26, 2003, 08:28 PM
Although I thought it quite interesting that they chose a woman at first, then realized that you'd see even more if it was a man.

What will be fun for the security guards will be the trannies....;)

Nothing will get by them if they're paying attention and I'm sure its going to cause so problems regardless. The first person going through who gets caught with something hidden is in for a surprise....

D

MacFan25
Jun 26, 2003, 09:12 PM
Wow, thats pretty weird.

I bet that they wont be used though, since its kind of invading. But, I would rather them use the machines if it keeps weapons from getting through.

Stelliform
Jun 26, 2003, 09:31 PM
QCassidy352 has some valid points. I live 3 and a half hours drive from Houston. Many local businesspeople do business regularly in Houston and many used to fly. (45min Flight) Now almost all drive since security is so slow, it takes longer to fly.

Now this would speed up scanning, but I wouldn't fly because of it. Of course I don't fly now because of all of the security. Not that I don't have anything to hide except my fat body. ;) I just would rather drive than deal with the hassle and expense.

QCassidy352
Jun 26, 2003, 10:06 PM
Originally posted by agreenster
So I guess you'd rather blow up in a firery crash and have your friends and family learn about your demise on CNN?

If you were paying attention, you'd note that this particular device will actually SAVE you time at the airport because it will eliminate the need for getting patted down and scanned with the metal detector wands at 6 different checkpoints.

C'mon man, it isnt a conspiracy to invade your privacy, its about keeping people from getting killed. I for one appreciate all the safety. (plus, I dont care WHO sees me naked, I look pretty good! :) --maybe SOMEONE is a bit self conscious about their weight, hmmmm???)

;)

What a load of CRAP. I'm sorry, but this type of nonsense REALLY pisses me off. How far are you willing to go? How many rights, how many privacies, how many liberties are you willing to cheerfully give up for some kind of false sense of security? Oooh, I'm soooo scared of dying in a firey crash caused by terrorists... ROFL. First, you're more likely to die from driving to the store, choaking on a pretzel, or being hit by lightning than from a terrorist attack. Second, if I'm worried about any aspect of airline safety it's mechanical failure. Many more planes go down for that reason than because of terrorism.

It IS a conspiracy to invade privacy, and to take liberties. What's next - arrests and detainments without charges, tapping cell phones, entering houses without warrants? No, wait, we already cheerfully accept these things (or will as soon as Patriot II gets pushed through) -- all in the name of safety from terrorism. Well I'm sorry, but I'm a hell of a lot more scared of the government than of terrorists. You're damn right that I'm willing to increase my risk of dying in a terrorist attack to retain a few liberties because the chances of dying in a terrorist attack are essentially zero either way. Know how many american planes have been hijacked planes in the past year? 0. How about the last 18 months? Oh, that's right, zero again.

And what if you do stop the threat against planes? How about bridges, tunnels, stadiums, trains, subways? And the list goes on. Do you want random searches on the street? Every car crossing the Brooklyn Bridge to be checked for explosives? Hey, I know - let's make this Germany, circa 1940. Not much terrorism there!

And BTW, "self conscious about my weight?" I'm a cross country and long distance track runner. Know what those guys look like? Ok then.

P-Worm
Jun 26, 2003, 11:38 PM
Am I the only one who is thinking about the movie "Enemy of the State" during this conversation? Some of this security is rather frightening in my opinion.

P-Worm

tazo
Jun 27, 2003, 12:41 AM
Originally posted by agreenster
So I guess you'd rather blow up in a firery crash and have your friends and family learn about your demise on CNN?

If you were paying attention, you'd note that this particular device will actually SAVE you time at the airport because it will eliminate the need for getting patted down and scanned with the metal detector wands at 6 different checkpoints.

C'mon man, it isnt a conspiracy to invade your privacy, its about keeping people from getting killed. I for one appreciate all the safety. (plus, I dont care WHO sees me naked, I look pretty good! :) --maybe SOMEONE is a bit self conscious about their weight, hmmmm???)

;)

You wouldn't hear of him dying on CNN. You would hear of how the people who committed the act are just misunderstood and deserve gentle rehabilitation. That or they are made martyrs.

I think that if they get the fig leaf thing going then i would have no prob with the system.


tazo

Mehmet
Jun 27, 2003, 01:41 AM
me, and my mom are really worried about this.

My mom is not going to be virtually strip searched, ever, in front of anyone.. why?

she's muslim, so am i.

Chances are, we're not going to be able to refuse it, and like QCassidy352 said, we're just getting a rights stripped from us.

I either dont fly, or they dont put me/my mom in that machine. Come on? how can you guys say its a good thing?

lets say your wife was going through, you wouldnt want some guy wacking off of your wife now would you?

tazo
Jun 27, 2003, 03:34 AM
Originally posted by Mehmet
me, and my mom are really worried about this.

My mom is not going to be virtually strip searched, ever, in front of anyone.. why?

she's muslim, so am i.

Chances are, we're not going to be able to refuse it, and like QCassidy352 said, we're just getting a rights stripped from us.

I either dont fly, or they dont put me/my mom in that machine. Come on? how can you guys say its a good thing?

lets say your wife was going through, you wouldnt want some guy wacking off of your wife now would you?

I don't see how your being Muslim means you can't walk through a xray machine...

Don't fly if you feel your right to privacy is greater then the sum rights of all those around you.

I don't think some guy is going to whack off to a split second image of a probably non-model woman.

wdlove
Jun 27, 2003, 10:08 AM
This reminds me of my childhood. When going to a show store, they were able to X-Ray my feet. The ability to know the shoes were a good fit. They were discontinued because of the fear of the X-Ray!

agreenster
Jun 27, 2003, 11:49 AM
Originally posted by QCassidy352
What a load of CRAP. I'm sorry, but this type of nonsense REALLY pisses me off. How far are you willing to go? How many rights, how many privacies, how many liberties are you willing to cheerfully give up for some kind of false sense of security? Oooh, I'm soooo scared of dying in a firey crash caused by terrorists... ROFL. First, you're more likely to die from driving to the store, choaking on a pretzel, or being hit by lightning than from a terrorist attack. Second, if I'm worried about any aspect of airline safety it's mechanical failure. Many more planes go down for that reason than because of terrorism.

It IS a conspiracy to invade privacy, and to take liberties. What's next - arrests and detainments without charges, tapping cell phones, entering houses without warrants? No, wait, we already cheerfully accept these things (or will as soon as Patriot II gets pushed through) -- all in the name of safety from terrorism. Well I'm sorry, but I'm a hell of a lot more scared of the government than of terrorists. You're damn right that I'm willing to increase my risk of dying in a terrorist attack to retain a few liberties because the chances of dying in a terrorist attack are essentially zero either way. Know how many american planes have been hijacked planes in the past year? 0. How about the last 18 months? Oh, that's right, zero again.

And what if you do stop the threat against planes? How about bridges, tunnels, stadiums, trains, subways? And the list goes on. Do you want random searches on the street? Every car crossing the Brooklyn Bridge to be checked for explosives? Hey, I know - let's make this Germany, circa 1940. Not much terrorism there!

And BTW, "self conscious about my weight?" I'm a cross country and long distance track runner. Know what those guys look like? Ok then.

Conspiracy theorists are freaks. Give it a rest dude. Its just an x-ray machine.

Mehmet
Jun 27, 2003, 01:23 PM
Originally posted by tazo
I don't see how your being Muslim means you can't walk through a xray machine...

Don't fly if you feel your right to privacy is greater then the sum rights of all those around you.

I don't think some guy is going to whack off to a split second image of a probably non-model woman.

why do you think women wear scarves, and cover most of their bodies? its to not show their bodies to other people besides inner family (son, daughter, husband, and what not). It is NOT ok for someone to look at my mom naked, especially some random guy at the front of an xray machine. The culture in the US doesnt really put this in as a factor, since everyone here walks around half naked anyway.

Stelliform
Jun 27, 2003, 01:46 PM
Originally posted by Mehmet
why do you think women wear scarves, and cover most of their bodies? its to not show their bodies to other people besides inner family (son, daughter, husband, and what not). It is NOT ok for someone to look at my mom naked, especially some random guy at the front of an xray machine. The culture in the US doesnt really put this in as a factor, since everyone here walks around half naked anyway.

I am not sure of what part of america you live in, but the women around here definitely wouldn't go for that. Especially the over 40 crowd. How likely do you think it is for your Grandmother to undergo that kind of scrutiny.

Now on the flip side this would be a huge boon to the porn sites that specialize in celebrity porn. Imagine every time a Celeb flies commercial and they go through a scanner, all they have to do is bribe the low paid tech to snap an image from the screen. I am sure people would pay to see those scans.

arogge
Jun 27, 2003, 01:55 PM
Originally posted by P-Worm
Am I the only one who is thinking about the movie "Enemy of the State" during this conversation?

Another good example is the privacy-invading technology in Minority Report. They'll probably be checking laptops at these so-called "security" checkpoints next -
"You need to present the necessary papers to prove that your software is legal. Where are your Microsoft certificates containing the serial numbers?"

Stelliform
Jun 27, 2003, 02:02 PM
Originally posted by arogge

"You need to present the necessary papers to prove that your software is legal. Where are your Microsoft certificates containing the serial numbers?"

Heh, then I think only 1% of the poplution that carries laptops would be allowed to fly. :) Even the people who are legal have a hard time proving it to a SPA investigation...

I personally don't mind the search. I just don't like the idea that they essentially get to look at every person who flies Naked. It is like a manditory strip search IMHO.

Edit: Afterthought, I might more ok with it if they had his and hers scanning boths. Since strip searches are conducted by same sex security.

arogge
Jun 27, 2003, 02:19 PM
Originally posted by agreenster
Conspiracy theorists are freaks. Give it a rest dude. Its just an x-ray machine.

It's also not a conspiracy when it's happening in plain view of the public. Would you accept blood tests at the checkpoints too? With such tests, we could stop many diseases from spreading. This would be more beneficial than exposing everyone at airports to X rays in the hopes that someone will decide to blindly walk into the checkpoint without realizing that illicit items will be detected. These privacy-invading devices cost money too, both upfront and for operator training, money that could be better spent on improving aircraft maintenance and keeping the airline industry afloat.

Mr. Anderson
Jun 27, 2003, 02:53 PM
I really don't see it as that big a deal. One of the things it does do is makes terrorism more of a deterrent and you're seeing a *shadow* of your body, not a picture.

Sure its removing some privacy - but what exactly are you trying to hide?

D

agreenster
Jun 27, 2003, 03:55 PM
Originally posted by arogge
It's also not a conspiracy when it's happening in plain view of the public. Would you accept blood tests at the checkpoints too? With such tests, we could stop many diseases from spreading. This would be more beneficial than exposing everyone at airports to X rays in the hopes that someone will decide to blindly walk into the checkpoint without realizing that illicit items will be detected. These privacy-invading devices cost money too, both upfront and for operator training, money that could be better spent on improving aircraft maintenance and keeping the airline industry afloat.

People dont spontaneously combust from catching a cold on a plane. People do however blow up when terrorists take over plances and fly them into buildings.

BTW--HE said it was a conspiracy, not me.

I think its just smart technology. Sure, its a bit invasive, Im not arguing that. Like I said before, as long as its handled correctly, it could be a very discreet, useful tool.

agreenster
Jun 27, 2003, 03:58 PM
Originally posted by arogge
Another good example is the privacy-invading technology in Minority Report. They'll probably be checking laptops at these so-called "security" checkpoints next -
"You need to present the necessary papers to prove that your software is legal. Where are your Microsoft certificates containing the serial numbers?"

Sorry for the double post....



People wont be X-rayed at the airport to keep them from stealing software you nut. Its intended to keep them alive while on the plane. Why is this so hard for everyone to understand?

wdlove
Jun 27, 2003, 04:04 PM
The government has addressed harmful x-ray and privacy issues. They have adjusted the 3D image so that the operator doesn't see external body features!

http://www.pnl.gov/energyscience/01-02/art1.htm

arogge
Jun 27, 2003, 04:32 PM
Originally posted by agreenster
People dont spontaneously combust from catching a cold on a plane. People do however blow up when terrorists take over plances and fly them into buildings.
I think its just smart technology. Sure, its a bit invasive, Im not arguing that. Like I said before, as long as its handled correctly, it could be a very discreet, useful tool.

Making eye scans of all "good" people and disallowing everyone else access to places where the "good" people reside would work too. When I mentioned the ability to stop diseases, I wasn't referring to common colds. The question is: how many rights will we give up in name of security? The society is rapidly approaching the world envisioned by Orwell. It didn't take long before the anti-terrorism laws were used for purposes other than terrorism, so how long will it be before the X ray devices are misused? There's already talk of using airport security to scan for drugs. Where will it end? The system is perfect, until it comes after you.

arogge
Jun 27, 2003, 05:10 PM
Originally posted by agreenster
People wont be X-rayed at the airport to keep them from stealing software you nut. Its intended to keep them alive while on the plane. Why is this so hard for everyone to understand?

Kind of aggressive, aren't you? The chances of dying in an airplane because of a hijacking are less than the chances of dying while driving to an airport and being killed on the street. What will make airplane passengers safer is better aircraft maintenance and design, proper emergency training for all passengers in the event of a crash or a hijacking, and smart security. Take the millions of dollars for X ray devices and put it toward a parachute and training for every passenger so that a plane can be evacuated if necessary. Passengers should also be trained to respond to hijackers instead of freezing in compliance. You can scan every single passenger with these X ray devices, and the threat of terrorism will not have been reduced by any significant amount. Airport security is like Microsoft software - no matter how many security patches you throw at it, the software will never be secure because the basic design is the problem. The basic design of a free society opens it to threats. You can try to lock terrorists out of planes, and they'll hit a bus. You can try to secure busses, and the terrorists will hit a shopping mall. You can put checkpoints at all malls, and the terrorists will hit a busy street. And every time we give away more rights, the terrorist's goal to destroy free society moves closer to completion.

arogge
Jun 27, 2003, 05:44 PM
Originally posted by wdlove
Thttp://www.pnl.gov/energyscience/01-02/art1.htm

There was a similar device envisioned on Star Trek: Voyager, in the episode entitled Latent Image. It could scan people right down to their basic structures:

http://startrek.com/library/voy_episodes/episodes_voy_detail_104365.asp

tazo
Jun 27, 2003, 07:38 PM
Originally posted by Mehmet
why do you think women wear scarves, and cover most of their bodies? its to not show their bodies to other people besides inner family (son, daughter, husband, and what not). It is NOT ok for someone to look at my mom naked, especially some random guy at the front of an xray machine. The culture in the US doesnt really put this in as a factor, since everyone here walks around half naked anyway.

Yes. Everyone walks around half naked. Everyone. In fact you see our highest leaders stripping on CNN. Well, maybe some leaders.

wdlove
Jun 27, 2003, 08:23 PM
Originally posted by tazo
Yes. Everyone walks around half naked. Everyone. In fact you see our highest leaders stripping on CNN. Well, maybe some leaders.

I didn't realize the CNN had become a strip club! :( Do they have an R rating with each show now? :p

Mehmet
Jun 27, 2003, 10:51 PM
Originally posted by tazo
Yes. Everyone walks around half naked. Everyone. In fact you see our highest leaders stripping on CNN. Well, maybe some leaders.

i dont think youve been to the bay area..

tazo
Jun 27, 2003, 10:55 PM
Originally posted by Mehmet
i dont think youve been to the bay area..

Don't assume. It makes an...

I have. In fact I lived there. Believe it or not, not everyone walks around half naked. I think saying everyone does something is harsh. Everyone should know this...
;)

Mehmet
Jun 27, 2003, 11:45 PM
Originally posted by tazo
Don't assume. It makes an...

I have. In fact I lived there. Believe it or not, not everyone walks around half naked. I think saying everyone does something is harsh. Everyone should know this...
;)

im not trying to come off as a strict non-secular ******* or anything, but, IMHO, a lot of people (mainly female teens and up) just want to get more and more, naked, without actually being it.. again, thats IMHO. Anyway, you can refuse to take off your jacket because of religious reason in an airport, i think that you should be able to refuse these xray machines, and instead get scanned with them stick thingies.

BTW, i live in the bay area right now.

tazo
Jun 27, 2003, 11:54 PM
Originally posted by Mehmet
im not trying to come off as a strict non-secular ******* or anything, but, IMHO, a lot of people (mainly female teens and up) just want to get more and more, naked, without actually being it.. again, thats IMHO. Anyway, you can refuse to take off your jacket because of religious reason in an airport, i think that you should be able to refuse these xray machines, and instead get scanned with them stick thingies.

BTW, i live in the bay area right now.

I am sure there will be the option to be stick-scanned.

Do you have a problem with female teens scantly clad? :D

Congratulations on your bay area residency?

Mehmet
Jun 28, 2003, 12:19 AM
Originally posted by tazo


Congratulations on your bay area residency?

LOL, no, i thought that you thought that i assumed the bay area had half-naked people.. so i said i live in the bay area..

anyway.

scem0
Jun 28, 2003, 04:25 AM
So you can't get into the airport if you got a pointy......

ummmm.....

nevermind.

:p

It does seem kind of like an invasion of privacy.

And that woman on the site is one of the people I don't want to see 'x-rayed'. ;)

scem0

Sun Baked
Jun 28, 2003, 04:42 AM
Forget terrorism, the DEA would love this thing...

Border crossings, airports, cruiseships etc. and you'd be able to nail a lot more drug mules and smugglers.

wdlove
Jun 28, 2003, 11:32 AM
Originally posted by scem0
So you can't get into the airport if you got a pointy......

ummmm.....

nevermind.

:p

It does seem kind of like an invasion of privacy.

And that woman on the site is one of the people I don't want to see 'x-rayed'. ;)

scem0

The way that the government has modified the X-Ray picture, can't really determine female from male. Only real need of the X-Ray is to find contraband.

tazo
Jun 28, 2003, 01:46 PM
scemo,

ewww :D

Mehmet,
I was making comment towards your assumption that I had never been to the bay area :)

QCassidy352
Jun 30, 2003, 06:04 PM
Originally posted by agreenster
Conspiracy theorists are freaks. Give it a rest dude. Its just an x-ray machine.

Ok, let's clarify what I meant by "conspiracy." The government is systematically removing one freedom and right after another in the name of "national security." That's a conspiracy in my book. Let's not harp on the specific meaning of one word here - I'm making a general point, and whether you want to call it a conspiracy or not, personal freedoms are disappearing one by one and no one seems to care.

"Sure its removing some privacy - but what exactly are you trying to hide?"

That's a pretty scary road to go down. "Give us a blood sample - what are you trying to hide? Show us financial records - what are you trying to hide?" You don't have to be trying to hide something to want a little privacy.

"People dont spontaneously combust from catching a cold on a plane. People do however blow up when terrorists take over plances and fly them into buildings."

Once again, the chances of any given person dying in a terrorist attack on a plane are so small as to be statistically insignificant. You, like so many others, have sadly bought in to this idea that terrorism is a threat that justifies the most absurd of laws.

"Its intended to keep them alive while on the plane."
Anyone who is seriously worried about dying in a terrorist attack on a plane really needs to get a little perspective.

ouketii
Jun 30, 2003, 08:05 PM
if there is reason to install metal detectors and xray machines, it is in the public's benefit to comply. if the danger of abuse was not there, there would be no reason for the precaution.

tazo
Jun 30, 2003, 09:31 PM
Originally posted by QCassidy352
Ok, let's clarify what I meant by "conspiracy." The government is systematically removing one freedom and right after another in the name of "national security." That's a conspiracy in my book. Let's not harp on the specific meaning of one word here - I'm making a general point, and whether you want to call it a conspiracy or not, personal freedoms are disappearing one by one and no one seems to care.

"Sure its removing some privacy - but what exactly are you trying to hide?"

That's a pretty scary road to go down. "Give us a blood sample - what are you trying to hide? Show us financial records - what are you trying to hide?" You don't have to be trying to hide something to want a little privacy.

"People dont spontaneously combust from catching a cold on a plane. People do however blow up when terrorists take over plances and fly them into buildings."

Once again, the chances of any given person dying in a terrorist attack on a plane are so small as to be statistically insignificant. You, like so many others, have sadly bought in to this idea that terrorism is a threat that justifies the most absurd of laws.

"Its intended to keep them alive while on the plane."
Anyone who is seriously worried about dying in a terrorist attack on a plane really needs to get a little perspective.

And the odds of being mugged while late at night with hundred dollar bills is very low. But we don't do it because of the slightest possibility correct? But maybe my foresight makes me a conspiracy theorist.

phrancpharmD
Jul 1, 2003, 09:44 AM
Originally posted by arogge
every time we give away more rights, the terrorist's goal to destroy free society moves closer to completion.

Originally posted by QCassidy352
The government is systematically removing one freedom and right after another in the name of "national security." "Give us a blood sample - what are you trying to hide? Show us financial records - what are you trying to hide?" You don't have to be trying to hide something to want a little privacy."



Bravo! Human rights worldwide have diminished since our government's "war" on terrorism began, and it does not take a devout conspiracy theorist, Orwell, X-files, or Rush (the band, and particularly the album 2112; not the fascist talk show host) fan to see the abuse potential in our burgeoning "security" infrastructure. Yes, I would rather take my chances with liberty than subject myself to our government's "security" schema, hence the first quote in my sig. Remember who the people most vocally advocating and implementing these technology are, and consider whether they have any financial incentives. . .

phrancpharmD
Jul 2, 2003, 08:46 AM
sorry for the double post, but it appears our government has no problem making plans to spy on regular foreign citizens in their own (http://story.news.yahoo.com/fc?cid=34&tmpl=fc&in=US&cat=Terrorism) countries, it's just a matter of time before this "security" technology makes its way to "free" countries. . .

runningman
Jul 2, 2003, 04:29 PM
okay no one has said the obvious but where could I get one:D

tazo
Jul 2, 2003, 05:31 PM
Originally posted by phrancpharmD
Bravo! Human rights worldwide have diminished since our government's "war" on terrorism began, and it does not take a devout conspiracy theorist, Orwell, X-files, or Rush (the band, and particularly the album 2112; not the fascist talk show host) fan to see the abuse potential in our burgeoning "security" infrastructure. Yes, I would rather take my chances with liberty than subject myself to our government's "security" schema, hence the first quote in my sig. Remember who the people most vocally advocating and implementing these technology are, and consider whether they have any financial incentives. . .

How is Rush, the talk show host, an "oppressive government, or dictator"?

Go look up the meaning of fascist, fascism. Like Nazi and communism, people throw around words because they sound good. Throw the words around because they are the words of today, the counterattack words. The modern-day insult.

If you don't know what a Nazi is or what they represented, committed, then don't use the word. Do not lower yourself to the levels of so many uninformed people. A nazi is someone who participated in the murder of 6 million Jews, and millions of other people. A neo-nazi is someone who believes the tactics of said Nazis were appropriate and are still useful, relevant in our society. Communism is the government controlled sharing of everything amongst everyone, regardless of their involvement in the end result. A communist is someone who believes in said government.

Don't throw around words people, just because they help your argument, or make you feel better. These are strong words, with powerful backbones. Don't use them as you would a four-letter word.

-tazo

bousozoku
Jul 4, 2003, 05:32 PM
I have one question for the government. How well do these work when they're unplugged?

I don't know if anyone else remembers, but there were a few incidents within a couple of weeks where the current machines were unplugged for several minutes. Since the current people don't seem to know the shape of a gun, I don't know that this or anything else will help anyway.

Perhaps, if they made it harder to unplug the equipment and had people take breaks more often to keep them awake and aware it would be more useful.

phrancpharmD
Jul 8, 2003, 10:01 AM
Tazo,
While the Nazis were Fascist, not all Fascists are Nazis. Fascists advocate extreme nationalistic ideals and a centralized autocratic government with little or no popular control, and extreme applications of fascism and communism vary very little. Think of the "Right Wing Rebels" fighting the "Leftists" in many parts of the world or the situation behind the Iron Curtain during the Cold War and you realize that both sides actually have very much in common in extreme application of their dogma. So does Rush fit into this extreme application of the term, of course not. Although you could possibly see my point that advocating (or implying) the value of racial profiling, targeted searches, dangerously bloated "security" infrastructure, and the erosion of personal freedoms enforced by a military or police apparatus in the name of state security and the "National Good" lean a little too far to the right (and therefore towards Fascism) for my tastes. And while the human tragedy of the holocaust and loss of millions of catholics, jews, Gypsies, and other ethnic groups is unfathomable, you could possibly see how from an Arab point of view the Israeli government's policies ironically can have a Fascist slant for the aforementioned reasons. As with most things, the reality of the situation is in the eye of the beholder. And it's fine for you to suggest that I'm haphazardly throwing around words, you don't know me and I'm certainly not going to get all hot and bothered by what you say no matter how much I disagree with you. But just because someone doesn't goosestep doesn't mean his ideology can't have a Fascist tone. . .