Quote :

"Also isn't it technically pedophilia for children if they are getting scanned? man that would be tough for parents do they let their children get grouped or seen naked"

Nah pictures of naked kids aren't porn unless it's sexual.

Pretty much every parent has naked pics of kids.

11/16/2010 3:16:43 PM

i look at naked pics of kids and people on a daily basis for my disease class.


i dont even think about it when i see it anymore.

we discussed scrotal lymphedema today. insane.

[Edited on November 16, 2010 at 3:19 PM. Reason : sdsad]

11/16/2010 3:19:15 PM

HEY, IF THOSE PARENTS DON'T WANT THEIR KID'S DINGALINGS ON THE BIG SCREEN.... THEN THEY CAN JUST WALK THEM FROM NY TO CALIFORNIA.



also



this is a really neat website that I use at work to build scenarios:

http://www.skyvector.com



[Edited on November 16, 2010 at 3:20 PM. Reason : jeppeson maps are wonky]

11/16/2010 3:19:29 PM

I don't want a stranger looking at naked pics of me. I don't care how many naked pics he looks at a day, that doesn't make me feel better.

11/16/2010 3:21:14 PM

^ look Nerdchick, look...


I've seen you nekkid before. You really don't have much to brag about or safegaurd.

11/16/2010 3:22:27 PM

yeah, i think thats another place where i differ.


as long as they are professional about it, i dont give a shit.

11/16/2010 3:22:50 PM

Quote :

"HEY, IF THOSE PARENTS DON'T WANT THEIR KID'S DINGALINGS ON THE BIG SCREEN.... THEN THEY CAN JUST WALK THEM FROM NY TO CALIFORNIA."

i'm sure you're trying to be sarcastic, but sometimes it's hard to tell

i'm sure not sure that there's a "big screen" that will specifically show children's genitals to the general population, so your point is kind of, well, stupid unnecessarily exaggerated...also, you're absolutely right in that they have many other viable options for getting from NY to california including by car, bus, or train

in the long run, it doesn't matter if you whiners complain about it or not...while the process will undoubtedly be refined, it likely won't go away just because you're bored and have nothing better to complain about (FIRST WORLD PROBLEMS ITT)

[Edited on November 16, 2010 at 3:27 PM. Reason : .]

11/16/2010 3:24:00 PM

Quote :

"as long as they are professional about it"

lol

11/16/2010 3:26:22 PM

WHATS THAT SUPPOSED TO MEAN?!?!?!?!?

11/16/2010 3:27:07 PM

Quote :

"the RIGHT to travel? no one is restricting you from travel."

The right to travel has long been interpreted to include the right to travel by vehicle of one's choice without undue interference.

Quote :

"The right to travel is a part of the "liberty" of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment ... Freedom of movement across frontiers in either direction, and inside frontiers as well, was a part of our heritage. Travel abroad, like travel within the country, may be necessary for a livelihood. It may be as close to the heart of the individual as the choice of what he eats, or wears, or reads. Freedom of movement is basic in our scheme of values. "Our nation," wrote Chafee, "has thrived on the principle that, outside areas of plainly harmful conduct, every American is left to shape his own life as he thinks best, do what he pleases, go where he pleases." -- Justice William O. Douglas, Kent v. Dulles (1958)"

11/16/2010 3:27:19 PM

Quote :

"undue interference"

subjective.

11/16/2010 3:27:53 PM

Joie you know they are gonna call their buddies into the scan room when they see you heading for that box

there will be high-fiving and fist-bumping aplenty

11/16/2010 3:28:14 PM

^^That's the point. We have standards for undue interference... and that's what the Fourth Amendment is all about. And the argument is that this goes beyond those standards set up.

[Edited on November 16, 2010 at 3:28 PM. Reason : ]

11/16/2010 3:28:43 PM

^^lol

a. that would NOT happen

b. if it did whatever, as long as the pic was deleted and gone.....yeah-whatever.

[Edited on November 16, 2010 at 3:30 PM. Reason : sfddsfd]

11/16/2010 3:29:37 PM

Quote :

"as long as they are professional about it,"

I think this is a big part of the problem

There is not any kind of assurance about what happens to the images after you are scanned... and examples have already surfaced where things were treated "less than professional"

11/16/2010 3:29:39 PM

you know what i'd be ok with?



as long as it didn't microwave mi huevos

[Edited on November 16, 2010 at 3:30 PM. Reason : h or j?]

[Edited on November 16, 2010 at 3:32 PM. Reason : if i wasn't at work i'd photoshop a huge dick onto that skeleton to show what i'm not kosher with]

11/16/2010 3:30:33 PM

Quote :

"There is not any kind of assurance about what happens to the images after you are scanned... and examples have already surfaced where things were treated "less than professional""

you are completely and totally right.
but this can be applied to ANYTHING.


and where you draw the line depends on where your priorities lie.

11/16/2010 3:31:57 PM

i, for one, would PREFER to fly without going through one of these...but i want to fly more than i want to not be scanned

it's that simple...if a person can't bear being scanned OR groped, then they shouldn't be flying because it's obviously not that important

11/16/2010 3:35:18 PM

EMCE how dare you imply any shortcoming in my ladylike virtue!!

11/16/2010 3:36:40 PM

sorry

11/16/2010 3:40:10 PM

All you people that defend this shit by saying it is a privilege to fly, etc....whatever.

I have to fly to Australia in two weeks for business, I have a small penis and don't want to be groped.

What the fuck am I gonna do, take a boat?

11/16/2010 3:40:57 PM

i think its funny that im arguing this while i tend to be pretty conservative

11/16/2010 3:41:01 PM

I don't think that's strange. A lot of conservatives take the stand of "if you're not doing anything wrong, it shouldn't bother you."

[Edited on November 16, 2010 at 3:42 PM. Reason : ]

11/16/2010 3:41:56 PM

Quote :

"All you people that defend this shit by saying it is a privilege to fly, etc....whatever. I have to fly to Australia in two weeks for business, I have a small penis and don't want to be groped. What the fuck am I gonna do, take a boat?"

i don't know, be an adult?

11/16/2010 3:42:46 PM

^^i think they value privacy more

[Edited on November 16, 2010 at 3:43 PM. Reason : source: EXTREMELY conservative/republican friends and family. ]

11/16/2010 3:43:06 PM

Work at McDonalds. You will not have to travel by plane.


Unless, of course, you are required to attend the McDonalds Burger Making Conference in Dublin.

11/16/2010 3:45:22 PM

lol

11/16/2010 3:45:38 PM

Don't laugh at me, thx.

11/16/2010 3:46:31 PM

I understand what you're saying--and I am a conservative, surrounded by a family of conservatives. They ALL disagree with me on this one. Even with the screening of the three year old "What if the three year old had bombs?" and "I don't care what I have to do if it makes it safer." I don't think today's conservatives as a whole tend to care as much about privacy as most people would think.

And I know most of you probably don't care--but If anyone is interested in reading the constitutional interpretation and case law, I have an article written on this subject. It's a bit long (55~ pages) but I'd be happy to email it to anyone who really wants to know the history.

[Edited on November 16, 2010 at 3:48 PM. Reason : ]

11/16/2010 3:46:35 PM

^^^^Exactly.

I guess I'll be an adult and ask the company in Australia to take a video-tour of the plant for me on their Iphone. And send me some soil samples.

McDonalds here I come.

Flying is a privilege...maybe in Wright Brothers days, but that shit is a necessary mode of travel in this era.

[Edited on November 16, 2010 at 3:48 PM. Reason : ]

11/16/2010 3:47:23 PM

^yeah, i have noticed that today's conservatives are a lot less.....conservative... than that of my fathers era.

11/16/2010 3:47:51 PM

stop being silly EMCE

this is a SRS THREAD

[Edited on November 16, 2010 at 3:50 PM. Reason : ]

11/16/2010 3:49:56 PM

I was just kidding too back there when I said I had a small penis and needed to fly to Australia in two weeks.

I don't have to go to Australia.

11/16/2010 3:52:46 PM

for real though....


I have to fly pretty often for my jerb
I would imagine that many pilots do as well

and honestly, fuck.... designing airplanes and helos is the only thing I've ever been good at
that's my livelihood, mang. Say NO to cock grabbers at the airport

11/16/2010 3:55:06 PM

^would you change your mind if the cock grabber was ...

11/16/2010 3:57:57 PM

11/16/2010 4:03:04 PM

Quote :

"And I know most of you probably don't care--but If anyone is interested in reading the constitutional interpretation and case law, I have an article written on this subject. It's a bit long (55~ pages) but I'd be happy to email it to anyone who really wants to know the history."

I'd be interested in reading it

11/16/2010 4:24:39 PM

Quote :

"When asked if U.S. airports should use full-body x-ray machines at security checkpoints, 81% of those surveyed in the CBS poll said yes. Only 15% said no. CBS says there's a 3-percentage-point margin of error for the poll."

http://travel.usatoday.com/flights/post/2010/11/most-americans-ok-with-full-body-scans/131415/1

And apparently, even though the radiation dose is very, very low, some scientists worry about the type of radiation scan may be particularly more harmful...

Quote :

"But according to the UCSF professors, the low-enegy rays do a "Compton scatter" off tissue layers just under the skin, possibly exposing some vital areas and leaving the tissues at risk of mutation. When an X-ray Compton scatters, it doesn't shift an electron to a higher energy level; instead, it hits the electron hard enough to dislodge it from its atom. The authors note that this process is "likely breaking bonds," which could cause mutations in cells and raise the risk of cancer. Because the X-rays only make it just under the skin's surface, the total volume of tissue responsible for absorbing the radiation is fairly small. The professors point out that many body parts that are particularly susceptible to cancer are just under the surface, such as breast tissue and testicles. They are also concerned with those over 65, as well as children, being exposed to the X-rays. "

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/11/fda-sidesteps-safety-concerns-over-tsa-body-scanners.ars

11/16/2010 4:46:56 PM

IM STILL OUTRAGED

11/16/2010 5:56:00 PM

Quote :

""how do you feel about full body imaging of school kids?" i have no problem with it, personally...it's not like children have never been used to carry bombs before "

Wow. Just wow.

11/16/2010 6:35:14 PM

^Yeah, seriously.

It's not like women... oh shit wait.

11/16/2010 6:37:51 PM

Quote :

"Wow. Just wow."

inorite! it blows my mind, too, that people would be so retarded as to compare full body scans at an airport to kiddie porn!

11/16/2010 6:40:56 PM

Mostly I'm just blown away that you have no problem with said kiddie porn.

11/16/2010 6:42:35 PM

oh snap...did i say that? crap...can you tell me where i said it? because i should probably ask qfred to delete any post where i said whatever dumbass thing it is that you're trying to make up

11/16/2010 6:57:07 PM

My two cents as a masters level physicist who works in radiation safety. Two points:

1. The radiation issue
Dose is calculated as (energy deposited)/mass (there are also radiation and tissue weighting factors i'm leaving out). The vast majority of the energy for these scanners is absorbed in the skin. The TSA figures divide by total body mass rather than the mass where the energy is truly absorbed. Standard easy mistake to make. Skin making up about 5% of your mass could increase the dose by a factor of 20.

This doesn't take into account the percentage of the population genetically predisposed to radiation sensitivity (reported as 1 in 20) whose cells do not repair radiation damage as easily as the rest of us. Their risk factor is harder to calculate. Not to mention children who are also more sensitive.

While this could be argued as small, in radiation safety it's conservatively assumed that any radiation exposure has some risk. (Linear no threshold model) The latest scientific report and analysis on radiation risk states "At doses of 100 mSv or less, statistical limitations make it difficult to evaluate cancer risk in humans." Beir VII Report (google it). This means below that level we can't tell one way or another, but better safe than sorry.

Submitting millions of people to unnecessary radiation that does not even make us safer (rectal cavities anyone?) is irresponsible and only serves to put money in the pockets of the scanner manufacturers and to make some "feel" safe so that they reelect their politicians. Which brings me to point two.

2. The security issue
The US did two main things after 9/11 to truly improve security. Reinforce cockpit doors, and an awareness to kick the ass of any knife wielding terrorist. Nowadays, a sharp object won't get a terrorist anywhere and metal detectors take care of guns. All that leaves terrorists is explosives which millimeter wave or x-ray backscatter machines won't detect (a handful of rectums and vaginas can hide a lot of C4). Add to this the fact that large bottles of saline are ignored as "medical supplies", and the whole security theater is a joke.

How to achieve real security
Install the air puffers that everyone seems to have forgotten about. Each person steps through a metal detector and then into a puffer. You're blown with a puff of air which is sucked up and analyzed for trace amounts of explosives. This should be performed on baggage as well. Meanwhile, a bomb sniffing dog is walked up and down the security line to see if he alerts and who looks nervous.

This solves the security issue, the unreasonable search and seizure/invasion of privacy, and is actually effective.

11/16/2010 8:19:35 PM

Seriously not trolling here, but I have a question

For those who don't care about the part where they see your goodies... Would you feel the same way if you had to go into a room and strip down?

11/16/2010 8:20:25 PM

air puffs 4 life

11/16/2010 8:33:42 PM

AIR PUFFS Y'ALL

11/16/2010 8:36:47 PM

RED ROCKS

11/16/2010 8:37:57 PM

Proposition: instead of going through the body scanner or the titty/dickgrab procedure, I posit that anybody who can shotgun a Four Loko 1) loves freedom, and 2) is not a terrorist. FOUR LOKOS FOR EVERYONE!!

11/16/2010 8:41:48 PM