Slashdot Mirror


The Hi-Tech Security at the Super Bowl

Hugh Pickens writes "As millions of fans sit glued to their sets next Sunday, one part of the game they will not see is the massive deployment of federal and local law enforcement resources to achieve what is being called the most technologically secure Super Bowl in history, an event that has been officially designated as a National Security Special Event (PDF). At the top of the list are gamma-ray cargo and vehicles scanners that can reportedly see through six inches of steel to reveal the contents of large vehicles. 'We can detect people, handguns and rifles,' says Customs and Border Protection Officer Brian Bell. 'You'd be a fool to bring something into that stadium that you shouldn't. We're going to catch it. Our goal is to look at every vehicle that makes a delivery inside the stadium and inside the secure perimeter.' Next is the 51-foot Featherlite mobile command center for disaster response that will support the newly constructed $18 million Regional Operations Center (ROC) for the Marion County Department of Homeland Security that will serve as a fusion center for coordinating the various federal agencies involved in providing security for the Super Bowl. One interesting security measure are the 'Swiveloc' explosion-proof manhole covers (video) that Indianapolis has spent $150,000 installing that are locked down during the Super Bowl. In case of an underground explosion, the covers lift a couple of inches off the ground — enough to vent gas out without feeding in oxygen to make an explosion bigger — before falling back into place. Finally the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI has installed a network of cameras that will be just a click away for government officials. 'If you had the right (Internet) address, you could set up a laptop anywhere and you could watch the camera from there,' says Brigadier General Stewart Goodwin."

65 of 265 comments (clear)

  1. Fear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You know the terrorists have won when...

    1. Re:Fear by jo42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The terrorists won when America stopped being "the land of the free and the home of the brave" and became a bunch of fearful, fat, money grubbing, bible humping, limp-wristed namby pambies.

    2. Re:Fear by FridayBob · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You know the terrorists have won when...

      Also:

      You know the establishment is winning when they've succeeded in using the fear of terrorism as an excuse to create the foundations of a police state...

    3. Re:Fear by symbolset · · Score: 2

      The terrorists I am worried about are the pigopolists raking in the dough on the video. I used to enjoy the game, but I can't in good concience watch it any more.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    4. Re:Fear by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      When we stopped hunting down and killing their leaders?

      When we start hunting down our own citizens and executing them without so much as a single accusation laid against them for nothing more than them exercising their free speech?

    5. Re:Fear by daspriest · · Score: 2

      NDAA, right to due process was damaged greatly if not lost by that particular act.

      The 9th and 10th amendment have died long ago.

      Need more?

      Oh, you said name one, so there you go.

    6. Re:Fear by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 2, Insightful

      reagan era was a definite shift to go backwards. I'd pin the start of america's first decline (in recent times) at the start of ronny's days in office.

      the guy did so much wrong for the country, its such a crying shame.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    7. Re:Fear by cold+fjord · · Score: 2

      When we stopped hunting down and killing their leaders?

      When we start hunting down our own citizens and executing them without so much as a single accusation laid against them for nothing more than them exercising their free speech?

      The men represented in this video, who were shot down en mass by the Federal government without benefit of indictment or trial, and Al-Awlaki, share a common trait. Do you know what it is?

      Al-Awlaki, like the Confederates, took up arms against the United States and made himself the enemy during wartime. He aided those trying to kill Americans. Killing Al-Awlaki was a completely legitimate act of war that did not require charges, indictment, trial, or sentencing. It isn't a question of criminal law, but war. And yes, the Congressional Authorization for Use of Military Force is the legal equivalent of a declaration of war - that is settled law. If he actually wanted to be judged in a court of law, he could have surrendered.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    8. Re:Fear by quenda · · Score: 2

      Name one constitutional freedom you have lost.

      - The right to a trial. Anyone who refuses to plea-bargain faces a heavy penalty. Perhaps years in jail for an offence that normally attracts a non-custodial sentence.
      - The right to a speedy trial. People can be locked up for years on remand. (This probably applies in most countries.)
      - warrantless wiretapping

      just for a start.

    9. Re:Fear by digitalsolo · · Score: 2

      Odd, I would bet that some of the jocks and jock sniffers may say the same about the nerds.

      I'm not a jock by any means, but I can still appreciate professional sports from time to time. In fact, I even enjoy occasionally (attempting) to play basketball, football, and especially hockey with friends. I certainly see no reason to despise someone because they made the most of society's obsession with the games they play.

      --
      Just another ignorant American.
    10. Re:Fear by alex67500 · · Score: 2

      bible humping

      All sorts of images just popped up in my mind. Weird. All of them. Very weird...

    11. Re:Fear by Hijacked+Public · · Score: 2

      An insightful mod on a person who feels they can assess the 'expendability' of a human being based on whether or not they attend a single sporting event. Only at Slashdot.

      Why a sporting event and not, say, which church they attend?

      --
      "Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
  2. Meanwhile... by omganton · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...budget cuts to space exploration. Good thing Football is safe.

    1. Re:Meanwhile... by king+neckbeard · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'd rather have the 'terrorists' than this war on terror garbage.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    2. Re:Meanwhile... by 1729 · · Score: 2

      ...budget cuts to space exploration. Good thing Football is safe.

      It's not just ensuring that "Football is safe." The Super Bowl will have on the order of 100k people in and around the stadium and more than 100 million people watching. We can argue about whether the specific measures will be effective, or whether they invade privacy, or whatever, but don't dismiss a high-value terrorism target as just a football game.

    3. Re:Meanwhile... by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 5, Insightful

      its about protecting people if anything

      It's about fearmongering and harassing red-blooded law-abiding citizens, conditioning them to accept government intrusion into their lives, and making work for low-rent thugs while scores of teachers are being laid off.

      You are the one who's trolling. Since when in history has an American football game ever been subject to a terrorist attack? Note: a drunken fan who throws a plastic cup of beer at a rival team's fan is not a "lone wolf" terrorist no matter what the government tells you.

    4. Re:Meanwhile... by geekoid · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If the NFL feels its a target, then the fucking NFL can pay the bill.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    5. Re:Meanwhile... by artor3 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's the government's job to protect its citizens. Even the most hardcore libertarians usually will at least concede that much. The Super Bowl is an obvious target for anyone who wants to kill a bunch of people to make some deluded point. If we follow your approach, then what does the government do?

      Besides, I feel much safer being looked after by the government (whose top concern is reelection) than a private, for-profit organization (whose top concern is saving money).

    6. Re:Meanwhile... by khellendros1984 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If something major was going to happen, it would've already, and at a venue with a large number of people and relatively little security. A concert. A sports game. In the unsecured portion of an airport. It doesn't make sense to me to spend this kind of money and instill this level of fear in America for an unproven threat. I'm more worried about unproven scanning technologies and abusive TSA agents than I am about a FUD-ridden possible attack that hasn't materialized in 10 years of this country cowering in fear.

      --
      It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
    7. Re:Meanwhile... by artor3 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That is some deeply flawed logic. You can always say "if it was going to happen, it would have", right up to the point where it does happen. And then a few years later, you start saying "if it was going to happen again..."

      The actuarial value of a human life is around $100k per remaining healthy year. Let's take the average age of Super Bowl attendees to be 40 years. The life expectancy of a 40 year old American male is 78 years, which puts their worth at $3.8M. If a hypothetical Super Bowl bombing kills 10k people, it's negative value is $38B.

      Therefore, if there is a 0.1% chance of an attack, it is worth spending up to $38M to prevent it. But such a likelihood only gives a 10% (1 - .999^100) chance of happening in a century, so your statement, "If something major was going to happen, it would've already" falls flat.

      Security theater is bad. But not all security is theater.

    8. Re:Meanwhile... by KhabaLox · · Score: 2, Informative

      Most top tier NCAA football games have more attendance. Aren't the stadiums at Michigan and Penn State the largest, and consistently sold out?

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
    9. Re:Meanwhile... by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      That they, the fans and the civic and state governments that bend to pressure from billionaire owners are, collectively, a bunch of fucking morons.

      But I'm all for keeping the Superbowel safe. Can you imagine if al Qaeda did kill a few thousand people at the game? Fuck, we'd have ten years with of awful tributes to the fallen as low IQ types chanted "USA USA USA" and presidents and congressman would give speeches of how they died for freedom and football.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    10. Re:Meanwhile... by Osgeld · · Score: 2

      it isn't the most watched event on American TV, fuck I have never even heard of Summerfest until now

      so which is really the bigger target if you wanted to cause a big fucking stink? An event that will pack 100,000+ in attendence with 106.5 million watching every single second? Or some music festival that a lot of people have never heard of?

    11. Re:Meanwhile... by pla · · Score: 2

      The Super Bowl is an obvious target for anyone who wants to kill a bunch of people to make some deluded point.

      The government response to any other private "too big to secure" event consists of "okay then, if you can't secure it, you can't hold the event". So, following your (entirely true) statement, the government should simply ban the superbowl.


      If we follow your approach, then what does the government do?

      Roads. Schools. Water. National defense (stress both the "national" and the "defense" parts of that). And although I'll throw "police" in there as well, I do so with the caveat that providing police protection for the populace at large does not equate to providing security for a private, for-profit event.


      Besides, I feel much safer being looked after by the government.

      I feel much safer looking after myself. And damned good that I do, because apparently during the superbowl, all the Big Eyes will look just that much less closely at all the other prime targets.

      Al Qaeda didn't attack the WTC with an airplane to show the holes in our impenetrable airport security screening procedures; they did it because no one thought they'd use the airplanes themselves as weapons, only as a bargaining chip for hostages or money or guns.

      So, if Al Qaeda attacks on superbowl Sunday, you can bet your eyeteeth they'll go for Six Flags Texas, or the Mall of America, or the Golden Gate bridge. Something totally unexpected, rather than walking into a highly visible trap.

    12. Re:Meanwhile... by element-o.p. · · Score: 2

      You're entitled to your own views. You are not entitled to force them on the majority.

      You know, those of us who are sick of this "security at any cost!!!" crap could say the same thing to you. After all, we have to help foot the bill for it, we have to acquiesce to the "security" searches (in violation of the 4th Amendment, no less). What gives you the right to force your opinion (fear) on me?

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    13. Re:Meanwhile... by element-o.p. · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Who, exactly, are you still afraid of? In his State of the Union speech, Obama claimed that Osama bin Laden no longer threatens the U.S. (natch) and al Qaeda's leaders have been defeated. How much money are we spending to protect the Super Bowl from an enemy that our Commander in Chief claims has already been defeated?!?!

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    14. Re:Meanwhile... by Seumas · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It isn't a war on Osama. It's war (well, not actual war as we haven't had one since WWII) on terror. As soon as terror signs a peace treaty with us and surrenders, we'll get back to all that stupid freedom garbage. Any day now, surely. Pick an enemy that you can fight indefinitely and have all the time in the world to shape the country as you see fit under the threat of "terror".

    15. Re:Meanwhile... by misexistentialist · · Score: 2

      But why is the government paying to protect ticket-holders at a private event? I doubt it spends an adequate amount securing elementary schools.

    16. Re:Meanwhile... by SDrag0n · · Score: 2, Informative

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucas_Oil_Stadium

      It's a giant ugly-ass box right in the middle of downtown Indianapolis surrounded by a lot of one way streets with no great parking.

      --
      I don't have time to make a sig
    17. Re:Meanwhile... by chrismcb · · Score: 2

      If something major was going to happen

      It HAS happened. Look at several past Olympics

      I'm more worried about unproven scanning technologies and abusive TSA agents than I am about a FUD-ridden possible attack that hasn't materialized in 10 years of this country cowering in fear.

      I'm against things like TSA. Personally I don't think they need any kind of security for boarding a plane. But this is a little bit different. For one thing you are not required to attend the super bowl. Unlike air travel, you really are there by choice.

      There is always security at large scale sporting events. Did you know that most large arenas have their own holding cells? Sure it is mostly for drunk spectators, but still. While this may be overkill, this is not the same security theater you see at the airport.

    18. Re:Meanwhile... by zippthorne · · Score: 2

      Ok, first of all.. the only sport where hundreds of thousands are in the stadium at once is auto racing. Someone can chime about whether or not they have that kind of security.

      Secondly, "most of us" are quite willing to spend a few tens of millions of dollars of other people's money, to reduce an already low chance to of terrorist activity to an imperceptibly low chance. How magnanimous of us.

      Frankly, I don't care how much is spent to make the event "safe" from terrorists, as long as that money comes exclusively from the pockets of the promoters and sponsors of the event. Indianapolis should not have to spend one cent of public money for a private, for-profit event that only a small fraction of its citizens can attend, or are even interested in attending.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    19. Re:Meanwhile... by million_monkeys · · Score: 2

      I assume he defines an "actual war" as one that involved Congress declaring war, which hasn't happened since WWII.

    20. Re:Meanwhile... by daspriest · · Score: 2

      With a capacity of 70,000...

      Far less then many college stadiums that hold over 100,000 almost every saturday during the season.

    21. Re:Meanwhile... by MagusSlurpy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The actuarial value of a human life is around $100k per remaining healthy year. Let's take the average age of Super Bowl attendees to be 40 years. The life expectancy of a 40 year old American male is 78 years, which puts their worth at $3.8M. If a hypothetical Super Bowl bombing kills 10k people, it's negative value is $38B.

      Isn't actuarial value the amount that life insurance companies pay out? So why are you multiplying that by life expectancy? Shouldn't it just be $100K * 10K people, i.e. $1B? And if I'm misunderstanding, if you mean something along the lines of annual profit produced, your number still has an RIAA-level of inflation. 10,000 people gone, sure, but there are 20 million people in this country that are unemployed, with a current production value of 0, just waiting to fill those jobs. In six months, there would be almost 100% job placement in those empty positions.

      Yes, I am a heartless Darwinist.

      --
      My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells by the seashore.
    22. Re:Meanwhile... by Killall+-9+Bash · · Score: 2

      The only good thing about the war on terror is that it has de-emphasized the importance of the war on drugs.

      --
      "Prediction: within 10 years, Windows will be a Linux distribution." Me, 7-6-2016
    23. Re:Meanwhile... by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      The only difference between a dictatorship and a democracy is that in a democracy, the power hungry need the support of the stupid.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    24. Re:Meanwhile... by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Still watch? Hell, given how sensationalist we are, people would tune in just for the small chance to see people die!

      In a nutshell, a terrorist attack would be a bonus.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    25. Re:Meanwhile... by million_monkeys · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Thanks for the clarification. Excuse my ignorance, I am not a US citizen and don't know so much about this. I'm curious though: what difference does it make when the Congress declares war, other than symbolic?

      Apparently not a whole lot in practical terms. As you noted, we've attacked lots of countries without declaring war.

      The U.S. Constitution gives only Congress the power to declare war, but it doesn't specify the means of doing so or the effect of that declaration. So that's not particularly helpful. Since the early 1970s, there are strict limits on how long the president can commit forces without a declaration of war or 'authorization of force'. In the time since that law was passed, Congress has always opted for the authorization. There is a diplomatic difference as an authorization of force is perceived as less extreme. Whether there is any function difference, I don't know. An authorization of force has certainly been sufficient for us to attack a bunch of countries.

      So why the hang up over an actual declaration? I assume it's mostly a political issue. Undeclared conflicts have always been controversial, but lately it is being brought up more often due to Ron Paul trying to make it an issue in the upcoming presidental election. Americans who are tired of being at war - or tired of spending money to be at war - are picking up on it as well.

    26. Re:Meanwhile... by Skater · · Score: 2

      The problem with this line of logic is that those events (Olympics, prince wedding, world cup) all have very good security too - check '72 Munich Olympics to see why. So trying to say the Super Bowl isn't a high-value target because there are others, and so doesn't deserve good security, doesn't make sense.

    27. Re:Meanwhile... by MagusSlurpy · · Score: 2

      You expect those people to show up to work Monday?

      --
      My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells by the seashore.
    28. Re:Meanwhile... by DarkOx · · Score: 2

      Isn't actuarial value the amount that life insurance companies pay out?

      No.

      The actual value of a citizen to society is their economic contribution. This is the value tax dollars might reasonably be used to protect. Most of us are not insured to that amount because the beneficiary do not enjoy our total economic contribution.

      Also I don't think it makes sense to break the economic value out by simply dividing by life span to get a per year figure. If anything 40+ year olds are worth MUCH LESS than 20 somethings. They have far fewer productive years remaining and many costly ones in most cases.

      If the state is going to focus resources on security for any group of citizens it should be those in their late teens through perhaps mid 40s. Unlike children most of the investment in their development is sunk and unlike the middle aged and elderly the greatest amount taxable productivity is to be derived.

      So yes the typical College bowl game should recieve this type of security treatment before the Superbowl does.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
  3. Re:One question by sexconker · · Score: 4, Informative

    Hand egg.

  4. The FBI webcam network by supersat · · Score: 4, Interesting

    'If you had the right (Internet) address, you could set up a laptop anywhere and you could watch the camera from there,' says Brigadier General Stewart Goodwin."

    CHALLENGE ACCEPTED.

    Who sets this kind of thing up without any authentication?!

    1. Re:The FBI webcam network by Swanktastic · · Score: 5, Funny

      Brigadier General Stewart "Bareback" Goodwin

  5. Re:One question by Kenja · · Score: 4, Funny

    What happens is that two football clubs football at each other and the one that footballs the hardest wins at football. That and something about Michael Jackson's sisters nipple.

    --

    "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
  6. Let's 'ope nobody tweets "destroy Super Bowl" by sehlat · · Score: 4, Funny

    Or they'll cancel the 'ole bleedin' lot!

  7. Fuck all this by ArchieBunker · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Make the NFL foot this whole security bill.

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    1. Re:Fuck all this by geekoid · · Score: 2

      This ^^^

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  8. The manhole covers weren't for the stupidbowl. by mrmeval · · Score: 5, Informative

    They were because they KEEP EXPLODING!!!

    http://www.theindychannel.com/news/29819089/detail.html

    --
    I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
    1. Re:The manhole covers weren't for the stupidbowl. by pnot · · Score: 4, Funny

      If you don't want your manhole to explode, stop eating vindaloo.

  9. FInally by geekoid · · Score: 2

    we won't have those constant superbowl terrorist attacks!

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  10. Re:A challenge by Phrogman · · Score: 2

    And then when a thousand /. geeks go looking for the hidden "internet address" and find it - the Government can say "Look we have 1000 internet terrorists attacking us, we need to have better control over the internet!." :(

    --
    "The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
  11. Meanwhile by sjames · · Score: 3, Funny

    Someone mixes tiny nitroglycerin tablets with breadcrumbs and the Super Bowl is canceled due to pigeon poop.

    1. Re:Meanwhile by turing_m · · Score: 4, Funny

      That would be a fowl deed.

      --
      If I have seen further it is by stealing the Intellectual Property of giants.
  12. Neckbeards, that's your cue by Beerdood · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Oh boy!" thought Milton, "A article on football! And not the soccer version, the American football kind!" He could barely contain his troll-citement. He never fully recovered from the traumatizing memories of high school where the sports jocks viciously bullied him, and this was a perfect opportunity to remind the world how stupid the concept of this sport was! He put his fingers together, pondering on what kind of "insightful" comment would get modded up by his fellow neck-beards. A reference to hand-egg and the stupidity of the name? Nah.. been done before.. Perhaps a comment on the overall barbaric nature of the sport and a jab to all the rednecks and jocks that enjoy it? Better.. but maybe...

    "Wait a minute..." he thought. "Maybe I should be contributing to the contents of the article? Perhaps I should mention how government funds shouldn't be involved here, but they'll be there anyway due to close ties between football and the military. Maybe something on security theater and a reference to airports and perhaps a lack of any terrorist related activities in football games?" But the thought quickly left his mind, as there was too much bitterness towards those jock types he worked with in marketing (and couldn't stand) and instead posted "HURRR maybe they should up the radiation on the metal detectors so the in-breed hicks that attend the game get sterilized!!"

    --
    Global warming and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking number of pirates - Gospel of the FSM
    1. Re:Neckbeards, that's your cue by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 2, Insightful

      4/10, condescending without being offensive. Briefly going over your comment history, I suggest you stop trying to be funny. Humor is not one of your strengths.

      Though I must commend you for being able to sum up Slashdot in entirety with just one post.

  13. Re:I just have to ask since everybody so far has.. by Trepidity · · Score: 3, Informative

    It's a thing, and yes, what it sounds like: they have a radioactive source that gives off gamma rays, which pass through a truck, and then gamma ray detectors that look at what passed through. Sort of like a heavy-duty xray machine, except at these sizes/energies, the gamma-ray machines are actually safer than getting blasted with xrays.

  14. Irony by Bonker · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And while all this fear mongering, submission to armed authority, 'convenience arrests', and security theater is happening, thousands of Americans will be singing

    "mumble mumble mumble something something Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave!"

    *shakes head sadly*

    Yeah. Enjoy the game. Really. There's not a lot else left now, is there?

    --
    The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
  15. Meanwhile...ROTCryingMEyesO by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "Many of us are far too willing to sacrifice freedom for the illusion of security."

    It took some major editing, but I fixed that for you.

    "You're entitled to your own views. You are not entitled to force them on the majority."

    Clearly, that is exactly what a few people are allowed to do. And worse, they are allowed to throw the US Constitution out the window in the process.

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  16. I want the superb-owl to go away by SatanClauz · · Score: 2, Interesting
    NFL, please just go away.

    Sincerely,

    Indianapolis resident that works downtown.

    just fucking go away please

  17. Re:Bogus numbers by Animats · · Score: 2

    A gamma source used for X-raying that is powerful enough to go through 6 inches of steel would require a radiation exclusion zone around the vehicle. The driver would have to exit the truck and move outside the zone.

    It really is a radioactive gamma source mounted on a truck. It's supposed to be used only on uninhabited vehicles. SAIC's "terms and conditions" for the thing are posted. Here's SAIC's disclaimer:

    "Since VACIS inspection products use radioactive sources in this process, the End User is responsible for obtaining and abiding by all necessary and appropriate approvals from the applicable cognizant regulatory agencies or authorities in their country of use. Buyer/End User is responsible for safely operating the system in accordance with all SAIC instructions/manuals and training and any applicable regulations/requirements of the jurisdictions in which the system will be operated. Buyer/End User shall consult with the relevant licensing authority regarding whether and in what manner disclosures (including signage) should be made to persons who may be scanned by VACIS inspection products as incidental occupants of vehicles. SAIC is not responsible for any claims, actions or liabilities associated with the improper installation, operation or maintenance of the products. Improper operation would include, but not be limited to, failure to comply with any conditions, requirements, safety measures and procedures provided or required by SAIC and/or any cognizant regulatory agency."

    Their video shows someone driving a car through the thing.

  18. Re:Bogus numbers by Animats · · Score: 2

    Los Alamos tried one out. They were satisfied with the radiation safety. Of course, their people wore their routine three dosimeters (cumulative, short term, and alarming.)

  19. Re:Problem with dollar values. by thegarbz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The problem with numbers is that you're assigning them to a single arbitrary time period. The correct way of saying that would to spend $38b on ensuring those very people are safe at all times in all parts of their lives.

    If a hypothetical super bowl bombing doesn't occur then statistically several of your 10k people won't live to the end of the year anyway due to other problems. We spend ludicrous amounts of money against an unknown and unpredictable threat that is likely to affect only a minuscule percentage of our population, and given the current state of security is likely to remain a threat despite everyone's best efforts. All the while we can clearly see statistically people die every year and they don't get a dime spent on them.

    Take the $38bn and put it into some basic healthcare if you want return on investment, not fighting the maybe terrorists.

  20. Re:One question by thegarbz · · Score: 5, Funny

    No dude, sports are named after what they do the least during the game.

    Basket Ball - The ball is in the basket for only a very small portion of the game.
    Base Ball - The ball touches the base for only a very small portion of the game.
    Foot Ball - The ball touches the foot for only a very small portion of the game.

    Hand Egg would following this convention be Soccer, and only for the very short period of time where one team picks a fight with Manchester United and some poor striker ends up getting punched in the eggs.

  21. Re:Obligatory right wing nut job post by EmagGeek · · Score: 2

    The person who owns the stadium, or having legal control and authority over it, is well within their rights to tell you that you may not possess a firearm. They can impose whatever conditions of occupancy they wish, and you must abide by them.

    Whether or not a "no guns" sign has force of law depends on the State. But, at the end of the day, if it can be demonstrated in court that you knew or should have known that you were bound by the owner's "no guns" policy, and you are caught with one, it'll be criminally defiant trespass (or the particular State's equivalent). That happens to be a prohibiting offense in my State.

    I love my right to keep and bear arms, but I love my private property rights even more. The former exists in part to protect the latter, so do not be surprised if you find yourself eating lead one day because you think you can CCW anywhere you please despite the property owner's terms and conditions.