The internet has created a generation of whiny biatches. Farking shiat.

ThisNameSux: LOL yep, they clearly had airplanes and terrorism in mind when they wrote the Constitution.

Since they were themselves terrorists, they probably did have terrorism in mind.

5/10?

tacmakr:
Keep on herping that derp.


2.) There are inherent risks in most everything we do, particularly flying. Do a quick search for flying related pulmonary embolisms.

There is a difference between a risk I choose to take and one that is imposed on me by others.


4.)[...]Do over the top stuff or incur the wrath of the second guessers.

That's what you're concerned about?


/Not cherry-picking, just can't argue with your other points.

ThisNameSux: corronchilejano: According to what your founding fathers wanted, yes.

LOL yep, they clearly had airplanes and terrorism in mind when they wrote the Constitution.
I LOVE THAT ARGUMENT! They didn't have X therefore the entire constitution is null and void, it's so clever!

Perhaps you are an idiot, you should get that checked out.

ThisNameSux: corronchilejano: According to what your founding fathers wanted, yes.

LOL yep, they clearly had airplanes and terrorism in mind when they wrote the Constitution.

I only said they wanted you to be free to decide. I never said they where prepared for the 21st century. I also said ideally. Ideals aren't real, they're hopes certain people strive for.

BlippityBleep: ThisNameSux: corronchilejano: According to what your founding fathers wanted, yes.

LOL yep, they clearly had airplanes and terrorism in mind when they wrote the Constitution.

They did have a very clear idea on how much of a bad idea it is to treat your own citizens like criminals.

When the United States first created the Constitution, most of the black people in America were actually slaves.

Since women had no role in government, politics, or society other than as homemakers and supporters for their husbands or fathers, most did not feel that they should have the ability to vote. For over 100 years after the Constitution was ratified, women had no way to vote. In some places, it was actually illegal for women to vote.

One of the biggest reasons a lot of people opposed the original Constitution was because it lacked a bill of rights.

Yeah, the forefathers didn't even write the bill of rights in their first publication. It came after three other amendments.

God almighty folks, I'd think you guys would eventually run out of TSA energy by now after all the green-lit threads lately.

I could just leave it at that as a meaningless comment, but since I took the time out to say the meaningless comment, I may as well say something that's not so meaningless.

I do not get a kick out of the speculation regarding the radiation, because we don't know. We can't know what - if any - long term adverse health reactions will be. Anyone claiming otherwise is full of shiat.

It also doesn't help that when anyone tries to voice up about possible radiation harm (the high-tension power line crowds) they're instantly labeled as a nut and marginalized into the same crowd that thinks rainbows in sprinklers are caused by the government's evil conspiracies to poison everyone.

The same people touting the scientific methodology, ironically, are the ones that should also know that giving a rat 500 x the amount of normal ambient radiation in one hour is NOT THE SAME as slightly elevated doses of radiation conducted over prolonged periods of time, such as, you know, decades or even centuries.

The experiment IS NOT THE SAME, and therefore, any data collected that proves or disproves the danger(s) of radiation exposure should be categorically dismissed because the scientific method is not accurately adhered to: Test, observe, document, replicate. The whole "time" variable makes this difficult if not impossible.

Dismissing the politics of the TSA outright due to the enormous result of wharrgarbl, I find it particularly offensive that the same nation that's banning happy meals for safety, has no problem herding us through a radiation device without first conducting a thorough study on the affects of radiation on the human body over the span of many years. Somehow, "they", "magically" just "know" that it's "safe." They can't know -- it is scientifically impossible to know if the scientific method is rigorously followed.

No one studies this shiat because you instantly become a full-blown derp-infested tin-foil hat nutter if you even suspect it.

While it is highly unlikely rainbows are from chemical poisoning, it is true that radiation affects human tissue. The problem is with time; we do not have the data OVER TIME to draw any scientific conclusions, except, perhaps, remaining survivors from Japan. So, we're filling in that scientific shortcoming with educated guesses, and we all know those are never wrong, right?

There's a big farking difference between evolving natural protection against naturally occurring ambient cosmic radiation versus having your living tissue cells frequently bombarded by concentrated beams of unnaturally occurring radiation in unnaturally higher doses.

I expect to get murdered in the face now with a fork over the internet for posting this.

Think of it like this. Supposedly, the more often you play the Lottery, the better your odds of winning, right? Can't we also say that the more often you fly after getting scanned, the greater your odds of getting cancer? Perhaps someone who is better schooled on statistics could comment.

BlippityBleep: ThisNameSux: corronchilejano: According to what your founding fathers wanted, yes.

LOL yep, they clearly had airplanes and terrorism in mind when they wrote the Constitution.

They did have a very clear idea on how much of a bad idea it is to treat your own citizens like criminals.

The original Constitution had no bill of rights. Many of the Framers did not think it was necessary. But to get the Constitution to pass in some of the states, promises were made to add a bill of rights once the new government was up and running.

zabadu: ForgotMyTowel: "Kant added that the system has multiple safety mechanisms, and that "we have never had a problem."

You know what else had "multiple safety mechanisms and never had a problem"?

You're using a ship made in 1911 as a model?

I'm sure if you tried real hard you could come up with some modern examples of engineers and their spokesmen claiming their product never had a problem prior to their product having a catastrophic problem.

zabadu: One of the biggest reasons a lot of people opposed the original Constitution was because it lacked a bill of rights.

Yeah, the forefathers didn't even write the bill of rights in their first publication. It came after three other amendments.

Indeed, because they would fear that people would see that as the list of rights they had rather than ones the government COULD NOT INFRINGE ON. Unfortunately their pessimistic view seems to have come true; and despite holding those sacrosanct not only are they regularly infringed upon but idiots like you argue that it's A-ok!

zabadu: Yeah, the forefathers didn't even write the bill of rights in their first publication. It came after three other amendments.

Thanks for the history lesson?

How does that make outlawing unreasonable searches and seizures a bad idea? That's what this is about... you know this, right?

microlith: zabadu: One of the biggest reasons a lot of people opposed the original Constitution was because it lacked a bill of rights.

Yeah, the forefathers didn't even write the bill of rights in their first publication. It came after three other amendments.

Indeed, because they would fear that people would see that as the list of rights they had rather than ones the government COULD NOT INFRINGE ON. Unfortunately their pessimistic view seems to have come true; and despite holding those sacrosanct not only are they regularly infringed upon but idiots like you argue that it's A-ok!


Don't I have a list of rights that the government can not infringe on? How is it two things?

corronchilejano: I only said they wanted you to be free to decide.

So you have the right to decide everything in your life? There isn't anything in your daily life where you've given the power to decide your actions to somebody else?

Rich Cream: Don't I have a list of rights that the government can not infringe on? How is it two things?

Err, literacy isn't your strong suit, I see. The Bill of Rights is the list of rights the government cannot infringe upon. They -feared- people would see it as a list of the only rights they had.

ThisNameSux: So you have the right to decide everything in your life? There isn't anything in your daily life where you've given the power to decide your actions to somebody else?

To decide your actions to somebody else?

ThisNameSux: So you have the right to decide everything in your life?

Yes.

There isn't anything in your daily life where you've given the power to decide your actions to somebody else?

Generally no, unless it was considered mutually beneficial. The TSA is not proving itself to be beneficial in any way, these scanners much more so.

ThisNameSux: corronchilejano: According to what your founding fathers wanted, yes.

LOL yep, they clearly had airplanes and terrorism in mind when they wrote the Constitution.

No kidding. Those guys had real problems to deal with. They had just won a war against the most powerful empire on earth. If they wanted to travel anywhere, they dealt with the very real threat of privateers and deadly storms. They would have laughed themselves silly at our fear of terrorism.

Take me to your scanner.

jingks: ThisNameSux: You can drive to your destination so we need to ban all air travel.

And obviously a troll since I just explained there are reasons the cost of air travel would outweigh the risks of air travel. Oh, I got one:

Millimeter wave scanners are non-genotoxic, so all backscanner X-ray machines should be banned.

They also have crappy penetration.

microlith: Generally no, unless it was considered mutually beneficial.

Did you have to apply for a drivers license? Did you have to register your vehicle? Did you have to register for the draft? Do you have to be 21 to drink? Do you need a passport to travel outside of the US? I can go on all farking night.

Breygon: A Fark Handle: fizzix_is_fun: that's a known unknown i believe...thanks dick cheney

I thought that was Rumsfeld

yeah, i think you're right. whatever same breed of neocon stupid trying to enrich themselves off government action.

Rich Cream: tacmakr:
Keep on herping that derp.


2.) There are inherent risks in most everything we do, particularly flying. Do a quick search for flying related pulmonary embolisms.

There is a difference between a risk I choose to take and one that is imposed on me by others.

4.)[...]Do over the top stuff or incur the wrath of the second guessers.

That's what you're concerned about?

am I accused of derpitiness? not sure how to read that.

anyhow. 1.)most people aren't aware of the vast majority of the risks they are taking (see embolisms) so is the foul in actually telling them or in the risk itself? Doesn't bother me either way, there are far to many of them out there, voluntary and otherwise. Vaccines for example. Not a conspiracy theorist by any definition. Just saying, we live in a world where certain things do have to be done for the greater good. Which leads nicely into...

4.) yeah, that does scare me. The people we elect are not allowed to make rational, informed decisions. They absolutely have to react to opinion polls. So I'm left with not knowing with any certainty if things like the scanners are actually needed or done to quell the fears of people who think they know something. Conversely, they may well be needed and have their use minimized for the same reasons. Mix in disinformation campaigns, pundits and partisans.. man... we're screwed

/reasonable discourse will be punished.

jmaster306: Yes, I'm being a dick here but c'mon. The scanners are designed to be about as idiot proof as possible for just the reasons you listed. Then again, so are most cars. Arguably a rapidly propelled 2 ton box of steal and plastic containing a large amount of flammable liquid has a far more realistic chance of causing serious mayhem compared to a full body scanner. Consider this for a moment, even if somebody was exposed to 100x the dose of a regular scan, it still wouldn't be a big deal for 99.9% of the population.

You do realize how many people drive the 'idiot proof' cars into the ground because they don't change their oil, don't you?

ThisNameSux: Did you have to apply for a drivers license?

Yes, but I don't have to consent to a search at any time I'm on the road.

Did you have to register your vehicle?

Yes. What does that have to do with anything?

Did you have to register for the draft?
Yes, as is required by law. However, I don't see how any of those violate the constitution.

Do you have to be 21 to drink?
Yes, and as we've seen it's a mostly ineffective law.

Do you need a passport to travel outside of the US?
Yes, but what does that have to do with anything? I'm not asking my government permission to travel, I'm providing identity so the OTHER country will give me permission.

I can go on all farking night.
Rambling like an idiot? I can believe it.

iq_in_binary: jmaster306:

Cars aren't capable of instantly and irrevocably giving someone cancer. And the people driving around you went through a licensing procedure. I guarantee none of these TSA agents have been certified to operate these machines by an accredited institute that also trains X-Ray techs. At least you were licensed by someone that also licenses other drivers.

This made me smile - thank you

zabadu: darth_shatner: jshine:

But only an idiot would assume a risk -- even a small one -- if there is absolutely no benefit to be had.

Don't mind the scanners, but agree the whole "we're going to risk your health by a tiny amount so we can protect your health by an even smaller amount" isn't terribly bright.

And yet both of you will get however many 20 min x length of your flight zapped, because the benefit is seeing grandma.

Your logic makes no sense. Okay to zap if it benefits me, but if it benefits the whole country, fark it.

as someone with dwindling love, and no faith to speak of in, his fellow countrymen anymore that sounds about right...

ThisNameSux: microlith: Generally no, unless it was considered mutually beneficial.

Did you have to apply for a drivers license? Did you have to register your vehicle? Did you have to register for the draft? Do you have to be 21 to drink? Do you need a passport to travel outside of the US? I can go on all farking night.

to show the minimum ability to operate a dangerous vehicle. to show minimum maintenance of a several ton machine and to allow for taxation to cover negative externalities. for the defense of the nation in case of major war. to prevent "the children" from harming themselves (though it's clearly a failed policy). to prove you're a citizen when dealing with foreign governments. i can go on all farking night...

do you still not realize that the difference is that scanners provide NO benefit and are solely being used as security theater while more effective options are available? they are a simply a plan to transfer tax dollars into the hands of the homeland security industrial complex and have possible health risk and clear violate the 4th amendment since no probable cause is needed and done just so the TSA can say they are doing something.

people like you are way we have so many issues in this nation. "oh look they are doing something, that's great." well, maybe we should ask some more questions: is it effective? is it safe? is it needed? is it a waste of limited resources? but no the tards are happy that there's something being done. sometime doing nothing is appropriate. sometimes doing something low tech is appropriate.

ForgotMyTowel: "Kant added that the system has multiple safety mechanisms, and that "we have never had a problem."

You know what else had "multiple safety mechanisms and never had a problem"?


Yep.

Chimperror2: They also have crappy penetration.

What do you need to penetrate other than clothing? If the person has a odd looking, high density object on them, I'm guessing it would be checked by hand.

LiteWerk: Think of it like this. Supposedly, the more often you play the Lottery, the better your odds of winning, right? Can't we also say that the more often you fly after getting scanned, the greater your odds of getting cancer? Perhaps someone who is better schooled on statistics could comment.

Do a search for 'jshine' and read all of his posts below.

ThisNameSux: The anti TSA crowd has not made one valid argument in any of the treads and all I'm getting from them is "waaaaaaaaaah I don't wanna".

Sorry kids, this isn't 2nd grade.

SECURITY THEATER, you dolt.

Are those of you who oppose the scanners on 3rd amendment grounds also against random police road blocks/checkpoints? The Arizona "make sure you have your papers" law?

Just curious cause I can't stand the thought of a random police checkpoint (unless they're lookin for someone specific), but don't have a problem with the public safety search at an airport.

torch: 1) NOBODY flies just once.

Suicide bombers do.

LouDobbsAwaaaay: PlatypusPuke: The problem is with time; we do not have the data OVER TIME to draw any scientific conclusions, except, perhaps, remaining survivors from Japan. So, we're filling in that scientific shortcoming with educated guesses, and we all know those are never wrong, right?

How about we ask retired airline pilots? They're exposed to many times more radiation over a longer time from just being in a plane all of the time than someone getting hit up by one of these useless scanners five times per year.

There's a big farking difference between evolving natural protection against naturally occurring ambient cosmic radiation versus having your living tissue cells frequently bombarded by concentrated beams of unnaturally occurring radiation in unnaturally higher doses.

What, different flavors? We're exposed to natural radiation over the entire spectrum of frequencies.

True.

However, if I put a thimble full of chocolate syrup in an 8oz glass of milk, and then put a thimble full of milk in an 8oz glass of chocolate syrup, stir them both, I could argue (and still be technically correct) that I'm selling "chocolate milk" from both glasses.

My point is, drinking the glass that's mostly chocolate syrup in one sitting is not equal to drinking a glass a day of the other over the course of a year, and whether it's strawberry or banana is moot.

If you moved closer to the sun, that "same" benign sunlight you've evolved against would start feeling a little different and tingly, and by that, I mean all hurty and disintegraty.

Same fundamental shiat, yes. Same result? How about no.

tacmakr: Are those of you who oppose the scanners on 3rd amendment grounds also against random police road blocks/checkpoints? The Arizona "make sure you have your papers" law?

1) 4th amendment, not 3rd.
2) You mean verifying citizenship after being stopped/arrested for another unrelated crime? Just like Mexico's own laws require? That one?

1/10

Wow. So many farking idiots the mind boggles.

The 1 in 30 million estimate is a number pulled out of a hat. The risk could be better, or it could be a whole lot worse. And that says nothing about the health risk of going into one of these machines if it is malfunctioning.

A software bug in this thing could give you a dose orders of magnitude stronger what you're supposed to have. And just how the fark are you to knoow that there is no bug in the software running these things?

We really are a nation of pussies. You win, Osama.

tacmakr: Are those of you who oppose the scanners on 3rd 4th amendment grounds also against random police road blocks/checkpoints? The Arizona "make sure you have your papers" law?

Just curious cause I can't stand the thought of a random police checkpoint (unless they're lookin for someone specific), but don't have a problem with the public safety search at an airport.

FTFY...and yeah i actually do have a problem with the checkpoints. but at least those checkpoints can claim to stop drunk driving, unlike the useless security theater that happens at airports. further, they don't search the car they just check the driver. you can have the naughtiest porn imaginable in the trunk, and if you're sober the cops won't know. as for 'zona, i'm ok with the law. basically it's only when there's cause or the individual has committed another crime. of course i'm concern it will cause people in need not to reach out the police because of fear. but if you've committed a crime and might not be here legally that would be good to determine.

/again, my main objection to the scanners/gropings is that they do not secure and can possibly harm while wasting tax dollars

ocschwar: A software bug in this thing could give you a dose orders of magnitude stronger what you're supposed to have.

It could? Show me one shred of evidence to back that up. Oh wait, you're one of the idiots who thinks there's a big dial and all it takes to give you cancer is for the TSA guy to turn it to 11.

"
It could? Show me one shred of evidence to back that up. Oh wait, you're one of the idiots who thinks there's a big dial and all it takes to give you cancer is for the TSA guy to turn it to 11."

You spend 10 seconds in the machine, at least. You are supposed to get scanned for only around 50 miliseconds. If the beam fails to turn off at the end of the programmed pulse (oops) and you get scanned continuously, congratulations, you've just 200 scans.

That's just the pulse duration, whcih is easy to fark up. If the beam intensity is also messed up, you really lose.

Xrays and software are very, very easy to ffark up. It's happened before. People have died.

ocschwar: you've just 200 scans.

Accidentally the whole thing?

ThisNameSux: ocschwar: A software bug in this thing could give you a dose orders of magnitude stronger what you're supposed to have.

It could? Show me one shred of evidence to back that up. Oh wait, you're one of the idiots who thinks there's a big dial and all it takes to give you cancer is for the TSA guy to turn it to 11.

yeah machines never malfunction. but as a TSA suck up troll (or zabadu)...i would love to hear your take on any of the following non-irradiation, non-4th amendment objections:

cost a tremendous amount of tax dollars for no security gain.
in order to detect explosives dogs are much more cost effective.
cause security lines, which make juicy terrorism targets.
will cause more deaths and injuries from auto accidents.
are clearly an sign of corruption on behalf of the homeland security industrial complex (see chertoff, michael).
the actual threat of terrorism is minimal.
and are done solely as security theater because americans are tards that want action.

/troll that...

zahadum party planner: lennavan: I like how everyone just seems to have accepted this guy's 1 in 30 million number.

Peter Rez, a professor of physics at Arizona State University, said that when a scanner is working properly the amount of radiation exposed is very low.

"The probability of getting a fatal cancer is about one in 30 million, which puts it lower than the probability of being killed by being struck by lightning in any year in the United States, which is about one in 5 million," he said.

Spoken like a true physicist with know biology training or knowledge of cancer whatsoever. Nice.

spoken a derp who can't spell.

biology training? is that, like, a college course or sumthin'? i assume you can take that after your Noledge of Cancer 301 class.

I think that comes after "Cells n' Stuff 101". :)

A Fark Handle: yeah machines never malfunction.

What's your proof, the scene from Watchmen where Dr Manhattan comes to be?