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.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
New XRay Scanner tested for airports
- Thread starter Mr. Anderson
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
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.
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
Yes. Everyone walks around half naked. Everyone. In fact you see our highest leaders stripping on CNN. Well, maybe some leaders.
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...
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 assh0le 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?
Congratulations on your bay area residency?
So you can't get into the airport if you got a pointy......
ummmm.....
nevermind.
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
ummmm.....
nevermind.
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
Originally posted by scem0
So you can't get into the airport if you got a pointy......
ummmm.....
nevermind.
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.
scemo,
ewww
Mehmet,
I was making comment towards your assumption that I had never been to the bay area
ewww
Mehmet,
I was making comment towards your assumption that I had never been to the bay area
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.
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
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.
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.
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. . .
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. . .