The Glade 4.0

"Turn the lights down, the party just got wilder."
It is currently Sun Nov 24, 2024 5:21 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 300 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 30, 2010 3:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 11:59 am
Posts: 3879
Location: 63368
Visible light (400-790 THz) is way up there in the electromagnetic spectrum and it's penetration capability are much less than some much lower frequencies.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 02, 2010 2:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:03 am
Posts: 4922
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/201 ... ners.ars/2

Quote:
In simple terms, the amount of radiation poses little risk, as it's a small fraction of what people will be exposed to during the flight itself, which lifts them above miles of the Earth's protective atmosphere. Even the UCSF researchers explicitly state that an occasional trip through a backscatter scanner will pose little health risk.

But they also point out that most of the safety data we have on this sort of exposure is derived from medical X-rays, and assumes the majority of the photons will pass straight through the subject without being absorbed. Here, most of the photons will be absorbed, and it'll happen within a concentrated area, within a few millimeters of the skin. And, in some areas of the body, the skin is very thin, and covers tissues like the breast and testes, which may be sensitive to radiation.

Again, since the absorption and penetration of backscatter radiation is so different, the UCSF group argues that the safety data we do have isn't especially relevant to it.

So there are a lot of factors at play here: different energies, different absorption profiles, different exposure levels. At this point, there doesn't seem to be an obvious way of figuring out how they balance each other out. That isn't to say it's unsafe, just that we don't know.


Seems that unlike Sasandra states, people just don't know how harmful these machines are.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 02, 2010 2:51 pm 
Offline
The Dancing Cat
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 2:21 pm
Posts: 9354
Location: Ohio
Lex Luthor wrote:
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/12/the-physics-and-biology-of-the-tsas-backscatter-security-scanners.ars/2

Quote:
In simple terms, the amount of radiation poses little risk, as it's a small fraction of what people will be exposed to during the flight itself, which lifts them above miles of the Earth's protective atmosphere. Even the UCSF researchers explicitly state that an occasional trip through a backscatter scanner will pose little health risk.

But they also point out that most of the safety data we have on this sort of exposure is derived from medical X-rays, and assumes the majority of the photons will pass straight through the subject without being absorbed. Here, most of the photons will be absorbed, and it'll happen within a concentrated area, within a few millimeters of the skin. And, in some areas of the body, the skin is very thin, and covers tissues like the breast and testes, which may be sensitive to radiation.

Again, since the absorption and penetration of backscatter radiation is so different, the UCSF group argues that the safety data we do have isn't especially relevant to it.

So there are a lot of factors at play here: different energies, different absorption profiles, different exposure levels. At this point, there doesn't seem to be an obvious way of figuring out how they balance each other out. That isn't to say it's unsafe, just that we don't know.


Seems that unlike Sasandra states, people just don't know how harmful these machines are.


From your article above:
Quote:
Summing up
In general, we find it difficult to disagree with the UCSF researchers. Although there is extensive safety data regarding exposure to X-rays, the backscatter scanners distribute the energy over the human body differently. As a result, the safety data we have may not be directly relevant. There's little reason not to generate additional data that is relevant. We now have very sophisticated assays that enable us to detect the sort of cellular damage caused by ionizing radiation, and decades worth of historic data on lab animals exposed to radiation. Providing some more definitive information than we have now should be relatively straightforward.

As we wait for that data, the TSA could go a long way towards reassuring passengers that they aren't at risk from something more threatening than the tiny dose of radiation delivered by a properly functioning scanner: the risk that the scanner won't be functioning properly. A detailed description of the procedures that are used to ensure their appropriate operation would go a long way towards establishing public confidence. And, if operations and testing procedures aren't in place, then the TSA is grossly overdue in formulating some.

In the meantime, the other conclusion of the UCSF group—that occasional use of the scanners is probably safe—seems pretty reasonable.

_________________
Quote:
In comic strips the person on the left always speaks first. - George Carlin


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 02, 2010 2:57 pm 
Offline
Has a plan
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 2:51 pm
Posts: 1584
Well since we can toss out Government rules by just using sub-contractors, why don't we just subcontract law enforcement to Xe or another merc company? We've set the precedent that as long as we have that intermediate that laws are pointless. We can cut down on these pointless rules and regs that were there to uphold individual liberties and that just seem to get in the way of how Government performs it's duties.

I still laugh that I have to be scanned, verified, my information recorded and shared, subjected to unknown risks via this scanning process etc... yet a cop in Arizona who has already stopped someone doing something wrong, they can't ask about immigration status. (remembering that immigrants must carry their papers, and that police are routinely required to verify the identity of people).

So what happens if an illegal immigrant tries to fly? Does the illogical object meet the irresistable farce?

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 02, 2010 3:11 pm 
Offline
The Dancing Cat
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 2:21 pm
Posts: 9354
Location: Ohio
Hannibal wrote:
Well since we can toss out Government rules by just using sub-contractors, why don't we just subcontract law enforcement to Xe or another merc company? We've set the precedent that as long as we have that intermediate that laws are pointless. We can cut down on these pointless rules and regs that were there to uphold individual liberties and that just seem to get in the way of how Government performs it's duties.

I still laugh that I have to be scanned, verified, my information recorded and shared, subjected to unknown risks via this scanning process etc... yet a cop in Arizona who has already stopped someone doing something wrong, they can't ask about immigration status. (remembering that immigrants must carry their papers, and that police are routinely required to verify the identity of people).

So what happens if an illegal immigrant tries to fly? Does the illogical object meet the irresistable farce?

Image

_________________
Quote:
In comic strips the person on the left always speaks first. - George Carlin


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 02, 2010 3:30 pm 
Offline
Has a plan
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 2:51 pm
Posts: 1584
Well done sir

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 02, 2010 4:22 pm 
Offline
I got nothin.
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 7:15 pm
Posts: 11160
Location: Arafys, AKA El Müso Guapo!
Quote:
And, in some areas of the body, the skin is very thin, and covers tissues like the breast and testes, which may be sensitive to radiation.


Its a secret eugenics program! They have a button that secretly irradiate people's junk so they can't reproduce!

_________________
Image
Holy shitsnacks!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 02, 2010 5:42 pm 
Offline
The Game Master.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 10:01 pm
Posts: 3729
Hopwin wrote:
Article wrote:
In the meantime, the other conclusion of the UCSF group—that occasional use of the scanners is probably safe—seems pretty reasonable.


Interesting. I wonder how we define "occasional?" Is usage on millions of air travelers each year occasional? Or is the 4 times I've had non-dental x-rays in my life occasional.

I mean, Russian Roulette is only dangerous 1/6 times you play, that's pretty occasional, especially if you aren't playing a lot!

Again, (hyperbole aside) it's all about Number Needed to "Treat" (remove threats, in this case) v. Number Needed to Harm. Constitutional arguments aside, this is what it comes down to in terms of health concerns, for me: insufficient data exists to prove safety, as compared to standards we use for medical devices.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 02, 2010 8:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:03 am
Posts: 4922
I don't think it's worth giving 200 people cancer for the hopes of catching a terrorist.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 02, 2010 8:25 pm 
Offline
Web Ninja
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:32 pm
Posts: 8248
Location: The Tunt Mansion
My old roommate is an x-ray technician at a local hospital and he told me a single airplane ride hits you with something like 200x the amount of radiation a single hospital scan uses. I'm not sure how much more the airport scanners use, but if you're already willing to get on the plane I don't think the scanner radiation should be a deal-breaker for you.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 03, 2010 1:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 9:09 pm
Posts: 614
Location: Salem, MA
Lenas wrote:
My old roommate is an x-ray technician at a local hospital and he told me a single airplane ride hits you with something like 200x the amount of radiation a single hospital scan uses. I'm not sure how much more the airport scanners use, but if you're already willing to get on the plane I don't think the scanner radiation should be a deal-breaker for you.


The backscatter based ones expose you to the same amount of radiation of two mins of flight. You're average person is subjected to more radiation from their wrist watch and dental work annually than they would get from the scanners annually.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 03, 2010 9:52 am 
Offline
Has a plan
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 2:51 pm
Posts: 1584
Lenas wrote:
My old roommate is an x-ray technician at a local hospital and he told me a single airplane ride hits you with something like 200x the amount of radiation a single hospital scan uses. I'm not sure how much more the airport scanners use, but if you're already willing to get on the plane I don't think the scanner radiation should be a deal-breaker for you.


I wonder if this is disclosed anywhere for travellers to see.

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 03, 2010 10:08 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:03 am
Posts: 4922
Hannibal wrote:
Lenas wrote:
My old roommate is an x-ray technician at a local hospital and he told me a single airplane ride hits you with something like 200x the amount of radiation a single hospital scan uses. I'm not sure how much more the airport scanners use, but if you're already willing to get on the plane I don't think the scanner radiation should be a deal-breaker for you.


I wonder if this is disclosed anywhere for travellers to see.


BTW it's spelled travelers unless you want to act British.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 03, 2010 10:32 am 
Offline
Has a plan
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 2:51 pm
Posts: 1584
Lex Luthor wrote:
Hannibal wrote:

I wonder if this is disclosed anywhere for travellers to see.


BTW it's spelled travelers unless you want to act British.


Relevent as always. Now is the radiation info disclosed or not? Wanker.

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 03, 2010 11:37 am 
Offline
I got nothin.
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 7:15 pm
Posts: 11160
Location: Arafys, AKA El Müso Guapo!
Image
http://nymag.com/news/politics/powergrid/69779/
Quote:
Even more to the point, the scan-and-grope approach represents an object lesson in the futile tendency toward fighting the last war. As Bruce Schneier put it pithily the other day on NYTimes.com, “We screen for guns and bombs, so the terrorists use box cutters. We confiscate box cutters and corkscrews, so they put explosives in their sneakers. We screen footwear, so they try to use liquids. We confiscate liquids, so they put PETN bombs in their underwear. We roll out full-body scanners, even though they wouldn’t have caught the Underwear Bomber, so they put a bomb in a printer cartridge. We ban printer cartridges over sixteen ounces—the level of magical thinking here is amazing—and they’re going to do something else. This is a stupid game, and we should stop playing it.”

_________________
Image
Holy shitsnacks!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 03, 2010 2:45 pm 
Offline
Lean, Mean, Googling Machine
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:35 am
Posts: 2903
Location: Maze of twisty little passages, all alike
Schneier is great. I need to start reading his blog again.

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Sun Dec 05, 2010 3:26 am 
Offline
Perfect Equilibrium
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:27 pm
Posts: 3127
Location: Coffin Corner
Taskiss wrote:
Visible light (400-790 THz) is way up there in the electromagnetic spectrum and it's penetration capability are much less than some much lower frequencies.


Penetration of electromagnetic radiation is surface property dependent. Certain properties have different levels of transsmivity, absorptivity, emissivity and reflectivity are different for various spectral bands. Some surfaces have uniform reflectivity for the visible light spectrum and thus show up to be colorless (grey). Others absorb and reflect other wavelengths and have the appearance of color. Outside of the visible spectrum, surface properties still behave this way, we just can't see them.

Transmissivity is different though for ionizing radiation. Ionizing radiation (some of which is electromagnetic in nature) penetrates as a function of ionizing energy and the state and average absorptivity cross-section of the subject material to that emission ionization energy. Alpha particles, for example, ionize very readily since they need electrons to bring them to stability. However, because this is the case, they do not penetrate very far and this is caused by this readily apparent ionization. Beta and especially Gamma radiation is less readily ionized but then also doesn't cause the same capability of providing the same energy per unit flux.

The spectral band of emission doesn't determine the penetrative capability.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 15, 2010 1:42 am 
Offline
Noli me calcare
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:26 am
Posts: 4747
Yup, security theater:

Quote:
The penetration not only distributes exposure throughout the body (this affecting the calculation of effective dose, which comprises a sum over all organs), but tends to diffuse the effects caused by contraband materials. Images can be made at low entrance exposures, but of very poor spatial resolution and S/N. The calculated signal excursions at high kilovoltage are so small as to make it doubtful that at any reasonable exposure levels density differences will be noticeable unless the contraband is packed thickly and with hard edges. Although the excursions are larger at low kilovoltage, they are still small and in the noise of the device's operational limits. The eye is a good signal averager at certain spatial frequencies, but it is doubtful that an operator can be trained to detect these differences unless the material is hard-edged, not too large and regular- shaped. Anatomic features and benign objects add structured noise that interferes with signal averaging. Figure 18 shows a widely-distributed backscatter image. On the left is a complete view of her torso, on the right, a section has been blacked out. While the breasts are easily recognized at right, without some prior knowledge of the subject, it would be hard to distinguish the increase of intensity in the superior part of her breasts from the natural gradients of the image.
It is very likely that a large (15-20 cm in diameter), irregularly-shaped, cm-thick pancake with beveled edges, taped to the abdomen, would be invisible to this technology, ironically, because of its large volume, since it is easily confused with normal anatomy. Thus, a third of a kilo of PETN, easily picked up in a competent pat down, would be missed by backscatter "high technology". Forty grams of PETN, a purportedly dangerous amount, would fit in a 1.25 mm-thick pancake of the dimensions simulated here and be virtually invisible. Packed in a compact mode, say, a 1 cm×4 cm×5 cm brick, it would be detected.

The images are very sensitive to the presence of large pieces of high Z material, e. g., iron, but unless the spatial resolution is good, thin wires will be missed because of partial volume effects. It is also easy to see that an object such as a wire or a box- cutter blade, taped to the side of the body, or even a small gun in the same location, will be invisible. While there are technical means to mildly increase the conspicuity of a thick object in air, they are ineffective for thin objects such as blades when they are aligned close to the beam direction.


Damn effective, plastic explosives, guns, knives and wires...nothing to see here.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Feb 03, 2011 7:01 pm 
Offline
Has a plan
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 2:51 pm
Posts: 1584
Ok I hate necro bumping and I debated sending this off to it's own thread, but I felt adding it to whats been said here so far was best.

Ditch TSA workers? Airports no longer allowed to 'opt out'
Agency announces that it won’t grant additional private security contracts

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41391509/ns/travel-news/

Spoiler:
The Transportation Security Administration has said it won’t allow any more airports to “opt out” and bring in private security contractors in place of the agency’s federal workers. Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., who in the fall wrote a letter to 100 airports urging them to ditch TSA agents, said it is “unimaginable” that TSA would end “the most successfully performing passenger screening program we’ve had over the last decade.”

Despite staunch opt-out support from Mica — the new chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee — TSA Administrator John Pistole said Friday that he had reviewed the private contractor screening program as part of a more general review of TSA policies and decided not to expand the program beyond the current 16 airports because he did not see “any clear or substantial advantage to do so at this time.”

Don't miss these Travel stories Courtesy Munro House B&B Relive the Underground Railroad at these B&Bs
History buffs can relive slavery times — especially during Black History month — by staying at these bed and breakfasts once thought to have been “stations” or safe houses on the Underground Railroad. Full story

..In a statement, Mica said, "I intend to launch a full investigation and review of the matter.”

Since the TSA was created after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, federal law has allowed airports the option of using private screeners. But few of the nation's roughly 460 commercial airports have done so.

Currently, San Francisco International, Kansas City International and 14 other airports use private contractors to screen airline passengers. Under the program, the private company conducts an airport’s passenger screening according to TSA’s rules and policies and under TSA supervision.

“TSA will continue to sustain the program at the current level to compare the effectiveness of federal vs. private screeners,” said TSA spokesperson Greg Soule. “The information we have to date shows the performance of TSA officers and private screeners is comparable.”

Story: TSA testing 'more modest' full-body scanners
‘Flabbergasted’
Several airports had been pursuing the use of private screeners. Gary Cyr, director of Missouri’s Springfield-Branson National Airport, said he was “flabbergasted” by the two-sentence TSA memo he received Friday letting him know that the airport’s application to “opt out” of the federal passenger screening program had been denied.
.“We got no response as to why, what for or otherwise,” said Cyr. “It’s the shortest important letter I ever got.”

Five other airports — all in Montana — also were looking to use private security screeners and received the same response Friday from the TSA. “Basically it was a form letter saying that our application had been denied because there would be no benefit to TSA,” said Cindi Martin, director of Montana’s Glacier Park International Airport.

Some government officials and unions representing TSA workers applauded Pistole's decision. Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., a ranking member of the Committee on Homeland Security, said in a statement that ending the acceptance of new applications for the program “makes sense from a budgetary and counterterrorism perspective.”

“The nation is secure in the sense that the safety of our skies will not be left in the hands of the lowest-bidder contractor, as it was before 9/11,” said John Gage, president of the American Federation of Government Employee, in a statement. The union represents TSA screeners.

Story: Jesse Ventura sues TSA in pat-down smackdown
Mixed reaction
Colleen Kelley, president of the National Treasury Employees Union, which is actively organizing TSA officers at some airports, also thinks Pistole did the right thing. “It keeps this important work in the hands of federal employees, where it belongs,” Kelly said in a statement.

But in Washington, D.C., where more than 200 airport staff members were attending a legislative conference, Greg Principato, president of Airports Council International–North America, said his organization opposes the TSA's stance. “Nobody here is happy about Pistole’s decision. Even airports that had no interest in opting out aren’t happy. They thought those airports that want the option should be able to pursue that.”

Principato said he is keeping an eye on the 16 airports already in the program. “We didn’t think TSA would make the move to not let anyone else in. We hope they won’t expand on the mistake by shrinking the current program.”

In the meantime, several airports that were considering the screening partnership program are contemplating their next moves.

“We still plan to opt out,” said Larry Dale, airport director at Orlando Sanford International in Florida, who planned to file his airport’s application this week. “My guess is they’ll send it back saying they’re not taking applications. But we’re taking advantage of something we’re allowed to do. We’re put too much time and investment into researching this not to go forward.”

“We’re just not sure what to think at this point,” said Chris Jensen, airport director at Missoula International. “So we’re going to wait and watch.”

Martin of Montana’s Glacier Park International Airport said her airport may re-apply. “The program is not dead. The reason our airport authority applied to the screening partnership program was because of TSA staffing cuts at our airport and customer service issue. Those issues still haven’t been resolved.”


So there goes any choice in the matter.

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Feb 04, 2011 8:53 am 
Offline
Explorer

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 7:31 am
Posts: 480
Location: Garden State
I'm absolutely shocked by this. Any questions about illegal search and seizure anymore? The government is forcing itself on a private entity and its citizens all in the name of security, even though there are no statistics or objective measures that support the efficacy of the TSA being at airports.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Feb 04, 2011 11:14 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:03 am
Posts: 4922
Ienan wrote:
I'm absolutely shocked by this. Any questions about illegal search and seizure anymore? The government is forcing itself on a private entity and its citizens all in the name of security, even though there are no statistics or objective measures that support the efficacy of the TSA being at airports.


Actually, the fact the that we have had very few terrorist incidents is a valid statistic. But there are too many other unknown variables for it to be relevant for policy.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Feb 04, 2011 11:39 am 
Offline
Explorer

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 7:31 am
Posts: 480
Location: Garden State
Lex Luthor wrote:
Ienan wrote:
I'm absolutely shocked by this. Any questions about illegal search and seizure anymore? The government is forcing itself on a private entity and its citizens all in the name of security, even though there are no statistics or objective measures that support the efficacy of the TSA being at airports.


Actually, the fact the that we have had very few terrorist incidents is a valid statistic. But there are too many other unknown variables for it to be relevant for policy.

Scientifically it isn't. You need to look at causation in addition to correlation. Is it due to policies of the TSA? Are there fewer attacks planned in an airport/airplane? Have they shifted incidents elsewhere? Or the biggest question of all. Are terrorist incidents truly down or is that just hidden from the public's view?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Feb 04, 2011 1:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:03 am
Posts: 4922
Ienan wrote:
Lex Luthor wrote:
Ienan wrote:
I'm absolutely shocked by this. Any questions about illegal search and seizure anymore? The government is forcing itself on a private entity and its citizens all in the name of security, even though there are no statistics or objective measures that support the efficacy of the TSA being at airports.


Actually, the fact the that we have had very few terrorist incidents is a valid statistic. But there are too many other unknown variables for it to be relevant for policy.

Scientifically it isn't. You need to look at causation in addition to correlation. Is it due to policies of the TSA? Are there fewer attacks planned in an airport/airplane? Have they shifted incidents elsewhere? Or the biggest question of all. Are terrorist incidents truly down or is that just hidden from the public's view?


Scientifically it contributes but like we are both saying there are also many unknown variables.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 08, 2011 11:16 am 
Offline
The Dancing Cat
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 2:21 pm
Posts: 9354
Location: Ohio
Got to take my first flight since the new procedures were implemented. On the way out of CLE I was scanned, on my way out of MDW I was patted down. I didn't find either terribly intrusive but I am growing a new arm in a convenient location so that's a bonus.

_________________
Quote:
In comic strips the person on the left always speaks first. - George Carlin


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 08, 2011 11:37 am 
Offline
pbp Hack
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:45 pm
Posts: 7585
Cool

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 300 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 97 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group