|
On October 15 2009 23:31 HeaDStrong wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2009 23:11 RoyW wrote:
I think it's a impressive piece of technology, and should be implemented by airliners/airports if they deem it to be more cost effective from a time and money perspective. Ultimately, though, if people are uncomfortable with it they should be offered an alternative feel -up.
I do feel it's a shame people seem to have an invasive issue with this, but what of you free-marketers out there? Surely if airports should implement it if it's in their interest and the free-market will produce an airliner that will cater for those who have a problem!!
lol, i began to write exactly the same thing and then saw your post. i mean its totally up to the airlines and airports to make this decision to implement this. dont like their terms? - dont fly with them. but for sure they wont do such a thing if it would greatly reduce income because of customers being not satisfied.
Indeed, and if this did happen, I believe most people would very suddenly get over themselves
|
Hmmm.... I think I'd actually prefer this to having to take off my shoes, belt, accessories, etc.
I'm sure for people who are self conscious, this is a bit invasive, but it could actually speed things up at the airport. I hate having to walk back and forth through the damned detector thingy.
|
1984 characterized how dangerous a government could be when they knew where people were, what they were doing, and what they were thinking. The people of 1984 were to be loyal only to the state, not to one another. It argued about the power of linguistics in shaping human culture (protip: linguistics is almost the only reason why religions are still so dominant in our current culture). It said almost nothing about the privacy of your body, and I don't see why anything people see in public everyday (your silhouette/profile) isn't part of the public domain. In many ancient cultures, clothing was optional or even taboo. Clothing doesn't make a society more civilized.
In Greece people walked the streets nude everyday, it's only because of religious influence and hundreds years of Victorian culture-masturbation that we see our bodily privacy as important. How could you possibly feel more invaded by being seen than by being touched?
This coming from an overweight engineering student with a small dick.
And why would you think it more important to protect your visual privacy when finally there is a 100% for certain (yes, it will alwayswork, I don't see how you could hide a knife or big black bomb or compound explosives with electronics wired into it anywhere in your body).
From an engineering perspective though, I think the transmission data from the x-ray could just as easily be passively scanned by a computer and any unusual data could be investigated more heavily in real time (i.e. pad search or visual scan). There is almost no reason for someone to have to look at a monitor. Except maybe the unions.
So if the technology is ever improved (silhouette only or passively scanned) would you be willing to use it? The real question is why don't terrorists just blow up a security checkpoint here in the U.S. I mean there's a high density of people in lines and you don't have to go through any kind of security just to get that far...
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
On October 16 2009 00:05 SirKibbleX wrote:
1984 characterized how dangerous a government could be when they knew where people were, what they were doing, and what they were thinking. The people of 1984 were to be loyal only to the state, not to one another. It argued about the power of linguistics in shaping human culture (protip: linguistics is almost the only reason why religions are still so dominant in our current culture). It said almost nothing about the privacy of your body, and I don't see why anything people see in public everyday (your silhouette/profile) isn't part of the public domain. In many ancient cultures, clothing was optional or even taboo. Clothing doesn't make a society more civilized.
In Greece people walked the streets nude everyday, it's only because of religious influence and hundreds years of Victorian culture-masturbation that we see our bodily privacy as important. How could you possibly feel more invaded by being seen than by being touched?
This coming from an overweight engineering student with a small dick.
And why would you think it more important to protect your visual privacy when finally there is a 100% for certain (yes, it will alwayswork, I don't see how you could hide a knife or big black bomb or compound explosives with electronics wired into it anywhere in your body).
From an engineering perspective though, I think the transmission data from the x-ray could just as easily be passively scanned by a computer and any unusual data could be investigated more heavily in real time (i.e. pad search or visual scan). There is almost no reason for someone to have to look at a monitor. Except maybe the unions.
So if the technology is ever improved (silhouette only or passively scanned) would you be willing to use it? The real question is why don't terrorists just blow up a security checkpoint here in the U.S. I mean there's a high density of people in lines and you don't have to go through any kind of security just to get that far...
O__________________________O
|
On October 16 2009 00:12 {88}iNcontroL wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2009 00:05 SirKibbleX wrote:
1984 characterized how dangerous a government could be when they knew where people were, what they were doing, and what they were thinking. The people of 1984 were to be loyal only to the state, not to one another. It argued about the power of linguistics in shaping human culture (protip: linguistics is almost the only reason why religions are still so dominant in our current culture). It said almost nothing about the privacy of your body, and I don't see why anything people see in public everyday (your silhouette/profile) isn't part of the public domain. In many ancient cultures, clothing was optional or even taboo. Clothing doesn't make a society more civilized.
In Greece people walked the streets nude everyday, it's only because of religious influence and hundreds years of Victorian culture-masturbation that we see our bodily privacy as important. How could you possibly feel more invaded by being seen than by being touched?
This coming from an overweight engineering student with a small dick.
And why would you think it more important to protect your visual privacy when finally there is a 100% for certain (yes, it will alwayswork, I don't see how you could hide a knife or big black bomb or compound explosives with electronics wired into it anywhere in your body).
From an engineering perspective though, I think the transmission data from the x-ray could just as easily be passively scanned by a computer and any unusual data could be investigated more heavily in real time (i.e. pad search or visual scan). There is almost no reason for someone to have to look at a monitor. Except maybe the unions.
So if the technology is ever improved (silhouette only or passively scanned) would you be willing to use it? The real question is why don't terrorists just blow up a security checkpoint here in the U.S. I mean there's a high density of people in lines and you don't have to go through any kind of security just to get that far... O__________________________O
Guy admits he has a small dick - obviously lying 
|
God iNc, he had so much to say and all you commented on is his small cock? hahahahahaha!
I'd say improve the technology to only checking "foreign objects (shampoo liquid, metal etc)" before implementing it to the public. I'd still see this being a fetish to others even if it's just a silhouette of your body.
if you check out the guys' body, you'd almost see all the curves/linings..
And man, I'd have to ask the guard if I can get myself a boner for performance wise, I don't want them seeing it as a little asian cockey doodle! hahahahaha
kidding
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
On October 16 2009 01:09 Licmyobelisk wrote:
God iNc, he had so much to say and all you commented on is his small cock? hahahahahaha!
I'd say improve the technology to only checking "foreign objects (shampoo liquid, metal etc)" before implementing it to the public. I'd still see this being a fetish to others even if it's just a silhouette of your body.
if you check out the guys' body, you'd almost see all the curves/linings..
And man, I'd have to ask the guard if I can get myself a boner for performance wise, I don't want them seeing it as a little asian cockey doodle! hahahahaha
kidding
O_________________________________________________________O
|
On October 16 2009 00:05 SirKibbleX wrote:
1984 characterized how dangerous a government could be when they knew where people were, what they were doing, and what they were thinking. The people of 1984 were to be loyal only to the state, not to one another. It argued about the power of linguistics in shaping human culture (protip: linguistics is almost the only reason why religions are still so dominant in our current culture). It said almost nothing about the privacy of your body, and I don't see why anything people see in public everyday (your silhouette/profile) isn't part of the public domain. In many ancient cultures, clothing was optional or even taboo. Clothing doesn't make a society more civilized.
In Greece people walked the streets nude everyday, it's only because of religious influence and hundreds years of Victorian culture-masturbation that we see our bodily privacy as important. How could you possibly feel more invaded by being seen than by being touched?
This coming from an overweight engineering student with a small dick.
And why would you think it more important to protect your visual privacy when finally there is a 100% for certain (yes, it will alwayswork, I don't see how you could hide a knife or big black bomb or compound explosives with electronics wired into it anywhere in your body).
From an engineering perspective though, I think the transmission data from the x-ray could just as easily be passively scanned by a computer and any unusual data could be investigated more heavily in real time (i.e. pad search or visual scan). There is almost no reason for someone to have to look at a monitor. Except maybe the unions.
So if the technology is ever improved (silhouette only or passively scanned) would you be willing to use it? The real question is why don't terrorists just blow up a security checkpoint here in the U.S. I mean there's a high density of people in lines and you don't have to go through any kind of security just to get that far...
Like I wrote before it's not really about nakedness it's about the governement taking away something that's important to (some) people in the name of some far away war.
|
United States43352 Posts
People saying that they don't mind but that woman might really have a problem with it haven't thought this through. You see women have internal genitals. They'd not appear on the outline of their body this scan shows.
|
with all this men controling men, women controling women, somehow I have a feeling there's a higher than average percentage of gay people working at airports.
|
On October 15 2009 22:56 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
greg I don't mean to be mean but if you conversed with women on even a semi regular basis I think you'd have a better scope of what is at stake. For you and me it isn't a big deal at all. For your mother, grandmother, sister and others.. that man over by the wall catching a glimpse of their undergarments and perhaps breast outline IS a big deal.
I'm sorry but you obviously DID mean to be mean and that was un-called for.
While I totally understand how women could have a big problem with this I think it could be quite simply solved. For example have 2 lines for people to be scanned (female and male) and have a female guard (checking the scanner) on the female line and a male guard (checking the scanner) on the male line.
Again I feel we have to stress that this is a very basic outline, it's not "omg nudes". Also Idra is completely correct in saying that it's worth doing this even for one plane. Being utilitarian and saying you cause more harm by invading the privacy of many than good by saving lives of few is rediculous.
Anyway as I said, as long as we can have a seperate sex method (as I mentioned) and keep the images very basic (no sexual detail what-so-ever) I think we should definitely be doing this. While the test is still fallible, adding a higher percentage chance of stopping innocent people dieing is worth it for such an inconvenience.
|
On October 16 2009 01:51 Kwark wrote:
People saying that they don't mind but that woman might really have a problem with it haven't thought this through. You see women have internal genitals. They'd not appear on the outline of their body this scan shows.
But don't you get it? Women are different creatures, who should be more shamed by their body. They are also our possessions, and I, for one, don't want anybody seeing the outline of my possession.
|
If some guy you didn't know saw you naked and you would never see or ever talk to him and he only saw you naked for like 2 seconds would you care?
|
|
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
No I was totally making the point that this debate could very well be lost on greg because he literally has no interaction with girls. he is busy being a professional scbw in korea so.. it isn't like I am holding it against his life. Just offering some perspective on why I feel he may not understand the other side of the argument quite as much.
"I'm sorry" but you don't know greg and me.. don't assume my intent. Especially when I make it pretty clear I am NOT trying to be "mean."
|
All credit for this picture goes to Schnake, off of whom I shamelessly stole from his previous post. But it gives a much more disturbing picture of whats possible... makes me think that the video is slightly misleading.
- Also, sorry for the double post, I thought this was a new thing...
|
On October 15 2009 23:31 Ho0ps wrote:
Im fine with it. Only problem i see with it is children.
interesting point.
Was not brought up at all. Good job sir.
|
I accept I don't know your and Idras tendencies but it did look like an unfriendly put down whether you said it was or not.
However as it's quite pointless arguing on that, could you also answer the rest of my points (in the first post); this is a debate after all and I would like to know your oppinion on those things.
edit* "Im fine with it. Only problem i see with it is children." - Totally hadn't thought of that, very good point indeed.
|
damn I thought the title was Naked Soccer for some reasonn when I saw it on the sidebar and I was very intrigued.
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
On October 16 2009 01:51 Kwark wrote:
People saying that they don't mind but that woman might really have a problem with it haven't thought this through. You see women have internal genitals. They'd not appear on the outline of their body this scan shows.
Your mom like men looking at her tits?
Look at that scanned picture and tell me I wouldn't know what your mom's tits look like after seeing the scan.
But beyond the physical.. would she mind? More than a little?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,1335269,00.jpg)
