TSA Moving X-ray Body Scanners To Smaller Airports

Perhaps rednecks by Ukab+the+Great · 2012-10-19 07:08 · Score: 3, Funny

Are vastly underrepresented in the mutant superhero business and the government has finally decided to do something about it.

Re:Perhaps rednecks by Culture20 · 2012-10-19 10:10 · Score: 1

I doubt that. The Guthrie family has produced a good percentage of Mutants.
Re:Perhaps rednecks by ehiris · 2012-10-19 10:39 · Score: 1

Mesa isn't full of Rednecks. It's full of Mormons.
Re:Perhaps rednecks by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-19 13:23 · Score: 0

If it's just targeted at the rednecks, white trash, uneducated, I say we fully expose the radiation source and sterilise everyone.

And... by Revotron · 2012-10-19 07:10 · Score: 5, Insightful

...politics has what to do with this, now? Just felt like throwing out blind accusations that the TSA is trying to give Republicans cancer?

Re:And... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-19 07:23 · Score: 4, Interesting

I think the implication is that Obama is moving the scanners to red states in an effort to increase his votes in those states and (possibly) flip one of them to blue. You would do this by impressing red voters with the "security technology" of the TSA and appearing to address the supposed security concerns of red voters. That's just my interpretation of the comment, I'm not saying I agree.
As far as I know, you'd have to be pretty delusional to think that anyone will be impressed with the scanners... but I guess it's possible.
I suspect the real reason is that TSA wishes to roll out something newer and more expensive to the country's major airports and needs to create space and need for them (by eliminating the older body scanners).
Re:And... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-19 07:34 · Score: 0

Possible implication: Only "blue" people are actually concerned about X-ray radiation harm, so they're moving the X-ray devices to areas less likely to care.
Re:And... by lorenlal · 2012-10-19 07:38 · Score: 1

Never attribute to malice what can easily be explained by the complete indifference of others?
Re:And... by Sally+Forth · 2012-10-19 07:39 · Score: 2

Among the people I know, the reds are far more likely to worry about the devices causing cancer than the blues.
Re:And... by Applekid · 2012-10-19 07:39 · Score: 3, Insightful

Possible implication: Only "blue" people are actually concerned about X-ray radiation harm, so they're moving the X-ray devices to areas less likely to care.
Or, rather, areas less likely to contain people with a voice. There's a reason why so many unethical human experiments were conducted in the South.

--
More Twoson than Cupertino
Re:And... by rrohbeck · 2012-10-19 08:06 · Score: 1

It's very obvious that people in red states are more tolerant of environmental degradation so this makes perfect sense. If it's intentional is a different question. It might just be that airport managers in other places push back more.

--
thegodmovie.com - watch it
Re:And... by HaZardman27 · 2012-10-19 08:23 · Score: 1

I'm pretty sure the implication was that moving them to areas that were absolutely red would make people happier in areas that are more undecided.

--
Apparently wizard is not a legitimate career path, so I chose programmer instead.
Re:And... by frosty_tsm · 2012-10-19 08:24 · Score: 1

I think it's simpler than that.

Statistically speaking, people who live in big cities are more against TSA than people who live in smaller cities in fly-over states (who are pro-TSA because it protects their barn from getting rammed by a 737). They are simply moving their equipment to serve the "customers" who are demanding it.

I hope this results in the small-town and rural population becoming anti-TSA.
Re:And... by jkflying · 2012-10-19 08:24 · Score: 1

Hippies are republican?

--
Help I am stuck in a signature factory!
Re:And... by Firehed · 2012-10-19 08:31 · Score: 0

Also, they tend to believe more in the idea that our security theater is effective. Hypothetically it makes both sides happier.

--
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
Re:And... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-19 08:35 · Score: 0

You think that's delusional? Wait until I say that this is only one small move before they are at train and metro/bus stations, then on to the shopping malls. Before long we will have check points every mile in the major cities. And ultimately they will be integrated into the overhead lights and cameras that dot almost every part of civilization in the United States.

But no... I am sure this is just to impress and gain votes or gain space for new scanners at airports.

http://www.vizfact.com/tsa-agents-take-to-the-streets-of-houston/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1362588/New-documents-reveal-TSA-wanted-body-scan-pedestrians-city-streets.html
Re:And... by scot4875 · 2012-10-19 08:52 · Score: 1

Except if that's their goal, why bother moving them? Just disable them and store them wherever they are to make the undecided areas "happier", then bring them back after the elections.
The whole implication is fucking stupid. The TSA is already fucking stupid enough without trumped up political implications. Article submission deserves to be modded troll.
--Jeremy

--
Jesus was a liberal
Re:And... by mabhatter654 · 2012-10-19 08:55 · Score: 1

No, the TSA is above even the President ordering them around... They are their own special beastie now. Congress never had control of them.
Their mandate is TOTAL SECURITY. They pull old machines off the busy airports and move them to smaller, slower airports... Then they'll need to cover Trains (have you serm Galaxy Railways) and Busses (think of Speed) too.
Re:And... by PeanutButterBreath · 2012-10-19 09:54 · Score: 1

Or, rather, areas less likely to contain people with a voice. There's a reason why so many unethical human experiments were conducted in the South.
These days, if anything, the South has a disproportionately loud voice in politics thanks to the GOP and the various iterations of its "Southern Strategy".
Re:And... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-19 10:08 · Score: 0

Youd get more republican support for obama-care as soon as republicans start finding out about the shortcomings of private health insurance when they get cancer.
Re:And... by ohnocitizen · 2012-10-19 10:13 · Score: 1

If that implication were to have any merit:
1. Obama would have had to have done this earlier.
2. We'd need evidence conservative voters respond to evidence rather than affiliation.
3. Voters would have to believe Obama was against the scanners - as far as I know he hasn't done anything to fight them. If anything, he's been yet another proponent. This is one thing that isn't likely to change at all based on who is in the oval office.
Re:And... by ehiris · 2012-10-19 10:44 · Score: 1

Phoenix airport (sky harbor) was one of the first to use those scanners.
I hate them because they keep making me lift my hands up while not wearing a belt and unlike the rest of this state, my pants are not securely fastened by fat ass and gut.
That said, Mesa airlines will start flying for cheap to the bay area,.... which will actually have the opposite effect.
Re:And... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-19 11:36 · Score: 0

That was more or less my though. Apart from the fact that most of the objectors seem to be located in blue states, I can't imagine that it's just blue states where it's objected to. And moving these devices will take months to physically install and however long to train the personnel on how to use them.
If this were a political move, they've waited way too long. They should have gotten these devices up and running for October. As it is, I've already voted my vote and most people won't see a difference until after the elections are already over.
Re:And... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-19 11:51 · Score: 0

how does a racist ass comment like that get modded insightful here?
Re:And... by Sally+Forth · 2012-10-19 14:14 · Score: 2

Not all people who are concerned with cancer risk are hippies. But yes, there is a strong branch of conservative Republicans who are concerned with things like hormones fed to milking cows, pesticides, 'unnecessary' medical interventions, and various things that may raise cancer risk. They tend to work towards 'sustainable living'. They often have large gardens, raise animals in a mini-farm, and choose to hire a midwife for home births instead of going to the hospital to have a baby... unless the pregnancy is actually high-risk. There are several of them who homeschool primarily because they believe that it is a more natural way of learning... some of them do unschooling, which I am wary of... I think it can sometimes be done correctly, but the parent and the kid have to have the right kind of personality and learning style.

I'm not quite that far along those lines. But I do use unbleached flour and aluminum-free baking powder in my cooking, buy beef from a local farmer (a quarter cow at a time, about 175-200lbs, hormone-free and half grain-fed, half grass-fed), pick my own produce as possible from local farms (who use *fewer* pesticides - though nothing I buy is *fully* "organic") and used to keep chickens before I got pregnant the third time.
Re:And... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-19 15:52 · Score: 0

Like Guatemala?
America is two continents... we need a new word meaning "US Citizen".
Re:And... by AssholeMcGee+ · 2012-10-19 17:09 · Score: 1

would have agree with your comment, have not heard a damn thing from either candidate over this, only showing how stupid these debates are. Lets not ask "real questions, lets have set-up donkeys to ask the obvious..
Re:And... by mevets · 2012-10-19 17:30 · Score: 1

A less sinister reason is found in genetics. Ethics not withstanding, reducing the number of variables increases the reliability of any experiment.
For example, laboratory rats are, as nearly as possible, genetically identical.
This is accomplished through inbreeding.
Re:And... by pod · 2012-10-19 18:25 · Score: 1

I don't get it... do you normally hold your pants up with your hands?

--
"Hot lesbian witches! It's fucking genius!"
Re:And... by nobaloney · 2012-10-20 05:50 · Score: 1

I think the implication is that Obama is moving the scanners to red states in an effort to increase his votes in those states and (possibly) flip one of them to blue.
No, you've missed it. The implication is that by moving them to red states then those who get cancer from them and die before they can vote will be likely republican voters instead of likely democrat voters.
Re:And... by jkflying · 2012-10-20 22:59 · Score: 1

You've basically described hippies. In touch with nature, avoid artificial everything, use midwives and acupuncture instead of going to doctors. Homeschooling to prevent government indoctrination. Eat everything organic if possible, locally grown, go to farmers markets. I guess the only difference is that hippies are more socially progressive and lax on drugs?

--
Help I am stuck in a signature factory!
Re:And... by Sally+Forth · 2012-10-21 06:18 · Score: 1

Basically. Not just socially, though. These families are not only socially conservative, but economically conservative as well. Makes sense... they're more likely to be single-earner or small businesses, and both types tend to get disproportionately hit with any special tax rules "for the rich", even if they're making below 150% of the poverty level.

I'm guessing it's because they engage in the kind of behavior that liberals seem to think only the rich are prone to. There aren't just families who have a vegetable garden because it doesn't have pesticides. Chances are, they started that vegetable garden because, without it, they'll never make the food budget work. Liberals also have had a habit of mandating behaviors in the past couple of decades... they are against vouchers and often antagonistic to homeschooling, plus they try to force things like the HPV vaccine or, in some cases, government official visits of parents with infants (when no abuse has been reported or suspected!). This places these families in direct opposition to the Democrat Party, even without their typically conservative social values such as being pro-life.

So these new "conservative hippies" tend to vote Republican and then complain about how even the Republicans aren't small-government enough. I am not as conservative as they are, and that's saying something...

Oh yes, and the chances are high that these families are either Protestant Christian, Wiccan, Buddhist, or straight-up atheist. They are more likely to live in rural areas. They tend to have more children and produce less waste than the average American family.
Re:And... by jkflying · 2012-10-21 08:26 · Score: 1

Republicans haven't balanced a budget since before Reagan, so I can understand them being fed up with the "not small government enough" attitude. Interesting that you attribute the pro-life attitude to groups other than Catholic/Evangelist, from what I've seen it generally comes from bible thumper creationists.

kind of behavior that liberals seem to think ...... Liberals also have had a habit of mandating behaviors in the past couple of decades
It's not really fair to paint all liberals with the brush of the Democrats, just like it isn't fair to paint all conservatives with the brush of the Republicans. Often, it is somebody who thinks they have a good idea to help people, and then they get carried away. Everyone is just a person, remember that. Often people are out of touch or don't comprehend the full effects of their actions, even if they have the best intentions. Also, people see children in conditions they wouldn't want for their children and get worried, that is just cultural exposure.
HPV vaccine... not sure why that would be an issue, it's a worthy cause, and if we finally have a vaccine for it then I see no problem with mandating its application just like for polio back in the day. One less disease would be great, and especially considering HPV causes cervical cancer is surely about as pro-life as you can get. How can they be against HPV vaccine for themselves while also being anti-abortion even for people who want it? Surely anti-abortion is Big Government cracking down its laws? It seems like a contradiction to me.
Anyway, I don't live in the US any more, so its interesting to hear personal stories from the inside. Interestingly, in the rest of the world the Republicans are a bit of a (scary) joke party, nobody can even imagine voting for them or the policies they propose. It's very strange from an outside perspective when in the US they get +-50% every time. For the rest of the world, the Democrats are conservative, while the Republicans are a sort of Christian Taliban, intent on cracking down on women's rights and invading countries for oil.

--
Help I am stuck in a signature factory!
Re:And... by Sally+Forth · 2012-10-21 11:13 · Score: 1

The skewed perspective on the Republican Party and conservatism is mostly due to the major news media organizations, whose members are overwhelmingly Democrat. They have a bad habit of, well... As you can see from my description of these "conservative hippies", few Republicans are as they are represented!

The "women's rights" thing is something the Democrats are pushing as hard as they can, on the basis that President Obama decided to suddenly mandate that *all* employers, even Catholics and Evangelicals, even church organizations, must make a point of paying for the contraception (including chemical abortions) for all of their female employees. Now the Democrats are claiming that any removal of that mandate constitutes "sending women back to the Stone Age", despite the fact that most of us women do believe that we are actually capable of managing our own fertility, and not a few of us are affronted by the notion that our government needs to turn our bosses into our 'sugar daddies'. But you see how clever it is? Hand women something they have never had before, generally don't need, and several of them don't want (I'm off The Pill permanently due to medical problems, for instance, but the mandate doesn't cover condoms), and then they claim that any attempt to remove it is an Attack Against Women.

As for the HPV vaccine, this is what it does: For an unknown period of time and with a barely-understood level of effectiveness, it may prevent a woman from contracting four out of over a hundred strains of HPV. These two strains in particular "make up for 70% of HPV-caused cervical cancer". That's a fancy way of saying that if the body does not clear the HPV naturally from its system, as occurs in 90% of cases, the other 10% have increased their likelihood of developing cervical cancer later in life by about 2%. Unfortunately, the vaccine is being implicated in a rather large number of serious, permanent disabilities resulting from an allergic reaction. There are several lawsuits ongoing from victims, many of whom are now partially paralyzed and likely to remain so for the rest of their lives.

To make matters worse, one recent study showed that roughly 25% of young girls who received the vaccine were under the impression that it reduced or eliminated their chances of catching *any* STD, so they believed that they would no longer have to use a condom or practice any form of safety in sex.

So these conservative families (and in this area I have to agree with them) are not happy about any effect to have the government force their daughters to be given the vaccination. The government's efforts in this area are doubly interesting since none of the other vaccines, not even polio, measles, rubella, tuberculosis, etc. are currently mandated by law.

"It's not really fair to paint all liberals with the brush of the Democrats, just like it isn't fair to paint all conservatives with the brush of the Republicans. Often, it is somebody who thinks they have a good idea to help people, and then they get carried away. Everyone is just a person, remember that. Often people are out of touch or don't comprehend the full effects of their actions, even if they have the best intentions. Also, people see children in conditions they wouldn't want for their children and get worried, that is just cultural exposure."

Alright, I do agree with you on that one.
Re:And... by Sally+Forth · 2012-10-21 11:30 · Score: 1

One more note (or several) on the supposed "War on Women"...

In just the past few months, I've seen a number of things put out by the Democrat Party that concern me as a woman. They released this "Story of Julia", for starters, which explained in detail how a woman cannot expect to succeed in America without numerous government programs basically replacing the husband or father as the patriarchal entity that smooths her path, gives her free stuff, and basically makes it possible for the poor little muddle-headed woman to live her life. Is independence truly an unfeminine trait to them?

The Obama Campaign assistant manager claimed that women do not look at the past when evaluating a candidate - they only look "ahead". I'm sorry, but I for one am capable of viewing both the past *and* the future when deciding where my vote goes. In that same week, the Obama Campaign website released an "e-card" encouraging women to basically vote with their "lady parts". Sorry for the crudity, but what would you imagine would happen if Republicans released an "e-card" encouraging men to vote with their dicks? That little beauty caused plenty of indignant "I vote with my brain!" responses and was quickly taken off the site.

Of course, it didn't help that one liberal (quickly disavowed by the campaign) claimed that Ann Romney couldn't speak for women because she "never worked a day in her life", which pretty much means that she didn't have a high-paying career. (Ann Romney has taken many prestigious positions within charitable organizations, where she performed many career-like duties, but without compensation.)

And then there is the contraception mandate. You'd think that would be a 'slam-dunk' for women, right? Well, as it happens, the 'contraception' includes an abortifacient. Over half the women in this country believe that an abortion kills a living human being, so you could imagine how it goes over for them to be forced to pay for other women to do it. (Even women who are pro-choice are generally averse to being forced to fund other women's abortions, as many of them believe that it is *personally* wrong.) Add in the number of women who aren't happy about their husbands having to pay for other women's contraception... it's generally considered a private thing here, so there are many women who feel rather as if their husbands (or themselves, for that matter) were being forced to buy lacy underwear for other women.

Here's something that may put this into perspective: 80% of women have used artificial contraception at some point in their lives, but over half of them want to see this contraception mandate ditched. It is not, as I'm sure it is being portrayed in places like Europe, a tiny holdout of "religious freaks" who are objecting to this.

In the United States, 20% call themselves "liberal", 40% call themselves "moderate", and 40% call themselves "conservative". From the media, though, you could easily get the impression that the percentage of conservatives in this country is so small that half of them have the last name of "Duggar".
Re:And... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-22 00:51 · Score: 0

" and used to keep chickens before I got pregnant the third time"
would love to know how these things are connected :)

I'm confused... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2012-10-19 07:10 · Score: 5, Funny

The last sentence suggests that I should come up with a frothing political conspiracy theory; but I don't know which one I'm supposed to latch on to...

Are the jackbooted Obamunist gestapo making a last-ditch move to irradiate freedom loving Real Americans in order to ensure their demographic victory even in the event of electoral defeat? Or are the jackbooted Rethuglicans of the police state amping up the fear machine in order to increase the effectiveness of traditional 'democrats are weak on terror, especially ones that are secretly kenyan muslims' messages?

Help me out here, Slashdot!

Re:I'm confused... by j-beda · 2012-10-19 07:12 · Score: 0

The last sentence suggests that I should come up with a frothing political conspiracy theory; but I don't know which one I'm supposed to latch on to...
Are the jackbooted Obamunist gestapo making a last-ditch move to irradiate freedom loving Real Americans in order to ensure their demographic victory even in the event of electoral defeat? Or are the jackbooted Rethuglicans of the police state amping up the fear machine in order to increase the effectiveness of traditional 'democrats are weak on terror, especially ones that are secretly kenyan muslims' messages?
Help me out here, Slashdot!
Maybe both?
Re:I'm confused... by killmenow · 2012-10-19 07:18 · Score: 3, Interesting

After Obama wins the election, the most likely terrorist threat will come from these areas. They're just thinking...Forward.
Re:I'm confused... by Quiet_Desperation · 2012-10-19 07:18 · Score: 1

They joined forces, and are menacing us with their X-ray weapons of mass destruction! WE AMS TEH DOOMED!
Oh, no, wait. It's just more of Slashdot's slide into the World Net Daily sinkhole. Never mind.
Re:I'm confused... by Sally+Forth · 2012-10-19 07:40 · Score: 2

Maybe they think the chicks from red states are hotter.
Re:I'm confused... by dkleinsc · 2012-10-19 08:04 · Score: 5, Funny

Actually, what's happening is that the Bavarian Illuminati are using their control of Barack Obama, the NRA, the Ice-Capades, Mel Gibson, and the TSA to seize control of the Moral Majority from the opposing Adepts of Hermes.
Of course, everything I needed to learn about politics, I gleaned from playing Illuminati: New World Order.

--
I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
Re:I'm confused... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-19 08:04 · Score: 0

The political conspiracy is: invest heavily in stuff that fails, then invest to counter the damages. You see, the power of money is inversely proportional to its availability to the common man, so squandering money without getting any long term achievement is ideal.
Even considering politicians corrupt by default, there is plenty of evidence of conterproductive moves.
Re:I'm confused... by Sponge+Bath · 2012-10-19 08:05 · Score: 1

Yes
Re:I'm confused... by girlintraining · 2012-10-19 08:11 · Score: 2

Are the jackbooted Obamunist gestapo making a last-ditch move to irradiate freedom loving Real Americans in order to ensure their demographic victory even in the event of electoral defeat? Or are the jackbooted Rethuglicans of the police state amping up the fear machine in order to increase the effectiveness of traditional 'democrats are weak on terror, especially ones that are secretly kenyan muslims' messages?
It's the work of subversive poor people who have realized the wealthy tend to travel a lot, so they made a device that'll slowly give frequent fliers cancer but not pose any risk to occasional users such as people going to see the family for christmas, etc. They used their fear of the poor uprising to institute draconian security policies that are now slowly irradiating them to an early grave. Unfortunately, after some of the screeners started karking, they realized the plot, and are now moving to put the scanners on streets in vans and semitrucks and such "searching for drugs", while being able to apply for "premium/trusted/secure/low risk/etc" traveller status so they can avoid the machines.
Hey, if you're going to make a conspiracy theory, rule #1 is to make it believable and roughly matching up with the facts...

--
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Re:I'm confused... by guises · 2012-10-19 08:14 · Score: 2

Conspiracy? Sure - the TSA spends billions on useless scanners that kill more people than they save and then rather then just getting rid of the scanners they hustle them off to smaller airports where fewer people will be paying attention. Getting rid of the scanners entirely would be tantamount to admitting to either a mistake or corruption, depending on who you ask. Equally bad from the TSA's perspective, so better to just sweep them under the rug.

The red/blue thing is stupid and submitter should feel bad.
Re:I'm confused... by Dishevel · 2012-10-19 08:22 · Score: 1

They are.

--
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
Re:I'm confused... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-19 10:20 · Score: 0

Heh...
Get your Discordia from the real source: http://www.principiadiscordia.com/ or in hardcover from From the same publisher of the diluted version you referred to
Re:I'm confused... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-19 11:34 · Score: 0

The really sad part is that Illuminati: New World Order [sjgames.com].actually makes more sense than what I hear from Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, Alex Jones, the 9/11 truthers and the Area-51 people
Re:I'm confused... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-19 12:27 · Score: 0

It means that the democrats can tell locals in the Red states that they're improving security, while at the same time telling voters in the Blue states that they got rid of the scanners. Even better, if anyone calls them on it, they can say they're promoting local rights (which the republicans usually get to use) by responding to local opinion in the balance between security and privacy.
Re:I'm confused... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-19 17:23 · Score: 0

Missing from all this discussion I've seen so far, is the possibility that the TSA has determined that the terrorists out there have shifted their plans to smaller regional airports that had a lower level of security. The TSA may simply be taking this action as a well thought out, rational response to a real threat that will increase our countries safety.
Hey, stop laughing. Stop it!
Re:I'm confused... by dkleinsc · 2012-10-22 10:32 · Score: 1

Nah: as someone quite familiar with Discordianism, I chose to form my own sect, which just has one member, me. See, that ban on hot dog buns was just totally not cool.

--
I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/

Is this the latest Fox and Friends conspiracy? by GodfatherofSoul · 2012-10-19 07:10 · Score: 3, Insightful

Obamanation is moving TSA scanners to affect the election? Haven't seen the morning show recently to get my monthly dose of crazy.

--
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!

Re:Is this the latest Fox and Friends conspiracy? by Mashiki · 2012-10-19 07:33 · Score: 1

Obamanation is moving TSA scanners to affect the election? Haven't seen the morning show recently to get my monthly dose of crazy.
I guess you haven't watched NBC in the last month. If you want crazy, you only need to see what their flappy headed talkshow hosts are going on about.

--
Om, nomnomnom...
Re:Is this the latest Fox and Friends conspiracy? by fahrbot-bot · 2012-10-19 08:57 · Score: 2

I guess you haven't watched NBC in the last month. If you want crazy, you only need to see what their flappy headed talkshow hosts are going on about.
I watched one show last Tuesday night with some crazy old, rich, straight, white guy that still uses binders, of all things, for something. He was talking about trusting him to fix something or another with *magic* - I'm not sure, 47% of me wasn't really listening to him... Just one of the wacky things you see on TV these days.

--
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Re:Is this the latest Fox and Friends conspiracy? by Mashiki · 2012-10-19 16:07 · Score: 1

That's pretty good. I saw one where various people went on about if you don't vote for Obama you're automatically a racist. Then there was some other stuff about how if you're questioning the president it's unpatriotic. Then there was the black commentator who went on, and on, and on about how the tea party was full of racists.
Yeah, very funny stuff you see on TV. I guess bias is highly subjective within the reality distortion field.

--
Om, nomnomnom...
Re:Is this the latest Fox and Friends conspiracy? by fahrbot-bot · 2012-10-19 18:36 · Score: 1

...about how the tea party was full of racists.
I'm quite sure that one was a documentary.
You might find this entertaining and informative: The Truth About the Tea Party.

--
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .

Huh?!? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-19 07:12 · Score: 1

...or is TSA just moving potentially dangerous scanners from 'Blue' areas to 'Red' ones right before a presidential election?"

Yeah, it's a conspiracy to radiate the "Red" states and keep all the "Blue" states healthy and eventually we'll have this Socialist TSA run Utopia with Democrat Presidents for all eternity.

I guess Slashdot is going the way of Fox News ....

Re:Huh?!? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-19 08:18 · Score: 0

Or is it more likely that he is simply trying to placate concerns of his donors, which is not so far fetched, while sending a big F.U. to his opponents (as an added bonus). Seems like a much more plausible motive than your Colbert report fantasy.

You're probably right though. It probably is just another coincidence that only makes it appear that Obama is only concerned with his own tribe's issues. Just like the oil pipeline, gulf oil leases, illegal immigration, the space shuttle lotto, ambassadorships to shut-up critics, Solyndra, numerous loans to other donors' failed projects, fast and furious, lawsuits violating states' rights, justice dept. dropping charges against donors, election fraud committed by his campaign, redistribution of private property, broken government contracts, healthcare vouchers to unions and donors, monetary manipulation, etc..

But no, you are right because never before have we seen this complete lack of federal quid pro quo and this complete government transparency as we have right now.
Re:Huh?!? by operagost · 2012-10-19 08:49 · Score: 1

Wait-- did you just say Slashdot has a right-wing bias? Before you know it, Slate will be pushing prayer in schools.

--

Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.

What? by geekoid · 2012-10-19 07:15 · Score: 0

" 100 million people would develop 40 million cancers over the course of their lifetimes. "

what does that even mean?

And what the hell is with the politics? Here is how to know Obama is doing a pretty good job: Almost all major accusations against him are factually wrong, or nonsense.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Re:What? by Hatta · 2012-10-19 07:23 · Score: 4, Informative

Here is how to know Obama is doing a pretty good job: Almost all major accusations against him are factually wrong, or nonsense.
Bullshit. Obama has failed to faithfully enforce the laws of the United States by failing to prosecute anyone for the well documented torture under the Bush administration, or any of the well documented fraud that lead to the 2008 financial crisis. He continues to engage in warrantless wiretapping. He signed the unconstitutional NDAA. He has prosecuted government whistleblowers under the espionage act at a rate that exceeds all previous administrations combined.
No, Obama is not doing a pretty good job, unless you thought Bush was doing a pretty good job. In that case, Obama is doing a fantastic job by embracing and extending virtually all of Bush's abuses of power.

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-19 07:35 · Score: 0

The president has the power to issue presidential pardons you know. Prosecuting and then pardoning is just a waste of public resources, when you just pardon them right of the bat.
Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-19 07:41 · Score: 0

Don't forget about the promise not to raid medical marijuana operations that's been upheld... never.
Re:What? by Nethemas+the+Great · 2012-10-19 07:41 · Score: 5, Insightful

To the best of my recollection there has been no US president in history, regardless of affiliation, that has prosecuted past administrations for their actions. It's been traditionally viewed as a political landmine both with the citizenry and fellow politicians alike.

--
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
Re:What? by fustakrakich · 2012-10-19 07:49 · Score: 1

Obama has failed... at a rate that exceeds all previous administrations combined.
Well there you go. At least he does something better than anybody else.

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Re:What? by FatSean · 2012-10-19 08:00 · Score: 2

He's doing a pretty good job of not doing what John McCain wanted to do WRT wars and torture.

--
Blar.
Re:What? by dkleinsc · 2012-10-19 08:07 · Score: 3, Informative

The interesting thing about all that is that this argument has not once come up in the presidential debates. Why? Because it's safe to say that Mitt Romney and the Republican political establishment agrees wholeheartedly with all of those decisions.
And people wonder why I'm voting for a minor party this year in what everyone thinks is a critical swing state.

--
I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
Re:What? by dkleinsc · 2012-10-19 08:23 · Score: 1

It seems equally likely that the goal is to create an implicit deal between the 2 US ruling parties: We won't prosecute your past crimes if you don't prosecute ours.
I blame Gerald Ford, although it's quite possible it started earlier than that.

--
I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-19 08:35 · Score: 0

No, Obama is not doing a pretty good job, unless you thought Bush was doing a pretty good job. In that case, Obama is doing a fantastic job by embracing and extending virtually all of Bush's abuses of power.
Someone asked me how that "Hopey and Changey" thing was working out for me. Falling for his bait, I replied that I was hoping for some change in 2008 but have been somewhat disappointed. And this time around I'm hoping we don't get a change for the worse.
Re:What? by gorzek · 2012-10-19 08:36 · Score: 3, Insightful

I despised Bush. Obama is smarter but carries on most of the same policies, especially when it comes to foreign policy and economic intervention. About the only place where he really differs is on social issues and the role of government aid programs.
All this has done is make his opposition even more insane. So, now I get to choose between a guy who is mostly like Bush and a guy who seems to have no beliefs of his own, but is beholden to a base made up of lunatics. Awesome choice there.
I voted for Obama, again, because I could not in good conscience vote to further empower the deranged hysterics of the Republican Party.

--
Check out my world simulator thingy.
Re:What? by Hatta · 2012-10-19 08:44 · Score: 1

No, it's been viewed as a gentlemen's agreement between aristocrats that they will consider each other above the law.

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Re:What? by Nethemas+the+Great · 2012-10-19 08:46 · Score: 1

Well, I know that Lincoln pardoned Robert E. Lee...

--
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
Re:What? by Hatta · 2012-10-19 08:49 · Score: 2

You did the wrong thing. What you should be afraid of is not a bad president. What you should be afraid of is a never ending sequence of bad presidents that we can't do anything about because our electoral system is broken. By voting either D or R, you are casting a vote in favor of lack of choice. That has far worse consequences than just one bad president. Take the long view next time.

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-19 09:00 · Score: 0

I voted for Obama, again, because I could not in good conscience vote to further empower the deranged hysterics of the Republican Party.
Posting anonymously because I've been modding posts.... There are other choices besides Obama and Romney. Don't buy the garbage that you have to vote for one of them to prevent the disaster of the other one getting elected. Vote for the presidential candidate that you actually believe in! You might want to check out http://www.isidewith.com/ If it is going to be Obama or Romney I could hardly care less which one will win. I am voting for the person who is running that I agree the most with.
Re:What? by dkleinsc · 2012-10-19 10:06 · Score: 1

Robert E Lee was never president of the United States. He wasn't even president of the Confederacy.

--
I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-19 10:07 · Score: 0

Posting anon still removes your previous mods, just doesn't warn you.
Re:What? by Nethemas+the+Great · 2012-10-19 10:31 · Score: 1

If you wish to be pedantic then no the example isn't a good fit. However, if you allow for a slightly less precise brush stroke then you can see illustrated the same kind of political damage control that I was originally describing. He was a very prominent face in the Confederacy and arm of its administration. The people of which came from and returned to the US.

--
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
Re:What? by ganjadude · 2012-10-19 12:06 · Score: 1

obama sounds smarter, but he is not smarter. As shown during the first debate, if he does not have the words in front of him, he does not know anything.

bush was a horrible president, I think most can agree there. but with obama there is no excuse, the only promise he made that he kept was passing obamacare, which over 1/2 the country didnt even want. He continues to claim that the Rs will defund medicare when he took 3/4 of a TRILLION from medicare.
If you planned on voting for obama this time, because you cant stand the Rs, either do what I did and vote 3rd party, or stay home

--
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Re:What? by digitalsolo · 2012-10-22 06:02 · Score: 1

Lincoln was attempting to repair a massively fractured nation; pardoning one of their heroes (who was, by the way, a major figure in the US prior to the war) was pretty logical. Beyond that, making nice with the opposing nation's military is pretty typical after a war, assuming no massive war crimes on their part. This doesn't require a degree in history or politics to understand.

--
Just another ignorant American.

Re:am I the only one here... ? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-19 07:15 · Score: 0

Anything besides "please remove all articles of clothing" is a degraded way to see them. Move along. It is not difficult to see them in this way, they don't need to put all this money and politics into finding some way to kindof sorta see something that looks like boobs.

I think... by Antipater · 2012-10-19 07:17 · Score: 4, Insightful

I think that OverTheGeicoE's tinfoil hat reflected a few too many x-rays into his brain.

--
Everything is better with chainsaws.

Out of sight, out of mind by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-19 07:17 · Score: 0

This way, the machines can just fade away.

Hopefully this will let the judge forget that they are supposed to make public the process the brings us these things.

Hits and my prediction by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-19 07:22 · Score: 2, Insightful

Haven't seen the morning show recently to get my monthly dose of crazy.

In a couple of hours, you will see that this "article" will have hundreds of comments. Most of those comments will be two bit opinions; comments with "libtard", "bible thumping moron" and such; and plenty of poo flinging (purposeful reference to monkeys). Ad revenue for this "article" will be wonderful.

Fox News has shown that "crazy" sells. Getting people emotional, irrational and giving them an avenue for their two bit-opinions makes money. Allowing people to spout off and abuse the "other side" also sells very well.

P.T. Barnum would be envious.

Re:Hits and my prediction by CanHasDIY · 2012-10-19 07:29 · Score: 3, Insightful

Modern election politics has shown that "crazy" sells.
FTFY.

While FOX is well known for their... interesting and creative interpretations, they by no means have monopoly on irrational, bullshit fluff pieces.

--
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Re:Hits and my prediction by funwithBSD · 2012-10-19 07:49 · Score: 1

Week, the OP heard it on MSNBC.

--
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra

Obviously... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-19 07:23 · Score: 0

Obviously every airport both government-owned and private should have full TSA Security.

Infowars? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-19 07:28 · Score: 0

Did I miss the news of Alex Jones purchasing Slashdot?

this is about money by Dan667 · 2012-10-19 07:29 · Score: 1

you cannot sell naked scanners if you don't get rid of the ones you have. What a waste of resources and more importantly a huge violation of our rights.

Makes perfect sense! by frobbie · 2012-10-19 07:35 · Score: 4, Interesting

This makes perfect sense. These machines are slower than the new one, so they are moving them to smaller airports where there are less people, and shorter lines for security.

Re:Makes perfect sense! by Mitreya · 2012-10-19 08:52 · Score: 1

This makes perfect sense. These machines are slower than the new one, so they are moving them to smaller airports where there are less people, and shorter lines for security.
These machines were also banned in Europe
So it makes perfect sense that they'd move it to smaller airports, instead of maybe a warehouse while they are running a health study?
The conspiracy is only the fact that these machines were purchased and are/were deployed to begin with.

Broken Link by CanHasDIY · 2012-10-19 07:35 · Score: 2

Fixed:

No, they are instead moving them to smaller airports

--
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese

Political Slurs by Tenebrousedge · 2012-10-19 07:36 · Score: 2, Insightful

Obamination! Now that's a good one. Here I thought that the kind of trolls who made up slurs were just incapable of doing anything clever with the man's name: Obummer, Odumba are clearly failures.

I did think "Mittens" was kinda cute.

But overall, if you aren't pandering to senseless frothing morons, you may want to refrain from turning a person's name into some sort of slur. Given that this is a national election, it's politic to pander to the undecided voters, not the base. Didn't you get the memo?

--
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.

Re:Political Slurs by dkleinsc · 2012-10-19 08:21 · Score: 1

Given that this is a national election, it's politic to pander to the undecided voters, not the base. Didn't you get the memo?
The alternate theory is that the election turns on getting your base to show up and vote while actively discouraging the other guy's base from voting. So in that kind of environment, you'd pander to the frothing morons in your party, and disenfranchise the other party's voters by:
- passing laws requiring them to travel hundreds of miles and pay a fee to get an ID needed to vote,
- putting up billboards in neighborhoods that tend to vote for the other guy reminding them that attempted voter fraud will result in 3 years of jail time, or
- organizing groups of volunteers to stand around the precincts where these voters (who all seem to be a particular color, for some reason) are likely to be and challenge anyone they think is fraudulent.
Of course, to actually do any of those things would be un-American, so I'm sure no major political group would do that.

--
I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
Re:Political Slurs by jkflying · 2012-10-19 08:29 · Score: 1

I did think "Mittens" was kinda cute.
Not nearly as plausibly deniable as Rmoney.

--
Help I am stuck in a signature factory!
Re:Political Slurs by operagost · 2012-10-19 08:47 · Score: 1

You must only hang out with leftists if this is the first time you've heard "Obamanation".

--

Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Re:Political Slurs by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-19 09:01 · Score: 0

C'mon, insult me harder! Harder! Call me a socialist! Now hit me! Unnngh, that's the stuff!
I actually hang out with people who don't have the kind of problems with logic and self-expression that lead to such slurs, regardless of their politics.

Re:TSA is run by fucking cunts by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-19 07:37 · Score: 1

[...] Amazon semen swallowing [...]

I think you may need a calm, stern lesson either on biology or mythology, there...

OverTheGeicoE is full of shit and by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-19 07:40 · Score: 0, Insightful

there was absolutely no reason for that last sentence to be included with the lead in. Fuck you, you inflammatory asshole.

Re:OverTheGeicoE is full of shit and by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-19 08:10 · Score: 0

Mod this up. Dear Slashdot management, when most of your readers are telling your editors to shut the fuck up, they are doing a pisspoor job.
Please, get rid of festering shit brains like Soulskill and Timothy (although to be fair, Timothy has matured slightly).
Re:OverTheGeicoE is full of shit and by isorox · 2012-10-19 08:13 · Score: 2

there was absolutely no reason for that last sentence to be included with the lead in. Fuck you, you inflammatory asshole.
The editors left it in (or added it) to drive page impressions. Chill.
Re:OverTheGeicoE is full of shit and by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-19 10:16 · Score: 0

Fuck you, you inflammatory asshole.
Go fuck your own inflamed asshole

Of course they are by nurb432 · 2012-10-19 07:40 · Score: 1

Eventually you will find the at the entrance of every burgerdoodle and street corner.

Welcome to the 'new world', hope you enjoy your stay.

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----

Re:Of course they are by isorox · 2012-10-19 08:16 · Score: 1

Eventually you will find the at the entrance of every burgerdoodle and street corner.
Welcome to the 'new world', hope you enjoy your stay.
The only place I've seen metal detectors on every "street corner" (well, every mall), is Israel. Israel don't even bother with these detectors at their major airport TLV. They do have a MMW scanner at Erez for people coming from gaza, but that's the only non-metal detector device I've seen.

un-Wrong accusation by Okian+Warrior · 2012-10-19 07:41 · Score: 1

Here is how to know Obama is doing a pretty good job: Almost all major accusations against him are factually wrong, or nonsense.

Obama had an American killed without trial.

Care to explain the inaccuracy in that statement?

(Note: I don't care about "killed", we kill people all the time for good reason. The "without trial" part is illegal on its face.)

Re:un-Wrong accusation by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-19 07:48 · Score: 0

Italics is how Hatta quotes. Yes, I know it's almost as annoying as the people who use the 'tt' tag for quotes instead of the 'quote' tag that is so conveniently provided. Your outrage is properly pointed at the muted post that Hatta was replying to.
Re:un-Wrong accusation by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-19 07:51 · Score: 0

The explanation is simple, it was an accident.
Re:un-Wrong accusation by dkleinsc · 2012-10-19 08:27 · Score: 1

The "without trial" part is illegal on its face.
Not quite correct: The police are allowed to kill somebody who is resisting arrest with deadly force, for instance. The key is that there was no indictment, and no chance for the American citizens in question (Anwar Al-Awlaki's son was killed a couple of weeks later, also by a drone strike, and there's no evidence publicly available linking him to any crime other than being the wrong guy's son) to surrender himself peacefully to stand trial.
Not that the courts have been helping on this: Al-Awlaki's father sued to prevent the drone strike, arguing that they had to show probable cause before a grand jury, obtain an indictment, etc. The courts threw it out, claiming that Al-Awlaki had to return to the US to file suit himself, even though it acknowledged that there was a standing order to kill him if he attempted to enter the United States.

--
I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/

Risk Mitigation by Nethemas+the+Great · 2012-10-19 07:45 · Score: 3, Interesting

This sounds to me to be a case of risk mitigation. Take the more dangerous (medically and/or politically) devices out of heavily traveled airports and place them in less traveled ones. In so doing they are not throwing away the capital investment and at the same time reducing exposure to the general population.

--
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.

Re:Risk Mitigation by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · 2012-10-19 08:11 · Score: 1

The "investment" is a sunk cost whose continuing use is of negative value.
Re:Risk Mitigation by Nethemas+the+Great · 2012-10-19 08:44 · Score: 1

If not the already purchased machines, then newly purchased alternatives... Operating costs are not relevant unless one is substantially more expensive to operate.

--
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
Re:Risk Mitigation by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-19 09:17 · Score: 0

Take the more dangerous (medically and/or politically) devices out of heavily traveled airports and place them in less traveled ones.
Much better than running a health study, as they should have before exposing people
I am always maddened by watching the videos in the airport "these machines are perfectly to anyone including children and pregnant women". What do they base it on? But how much do they spend to train TSA workers in xray device calibration??

Small airports is where all the hot chicks are by cod3r_ · 2012-10-19 07:46 · Score: 1

Gota upgrade this x-ray porn!

Re:Small airports is where all the hot chicks are by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-19 07:51 · Score: 0

Lame comment. Yes, I'm posting anonymously.

Re:am I the only one here... ? by Nadaka · 2012-10-19 07:47 · Score: 1

No, the most degraded way to see them is to hire the visually impaired as TSA agents, they they have to inspect them in a hands on capacity.

Who's the criminal by SnarfQuest · 2012-10-19 07:59 · Score: 3, Insightful

I find it interesting that the TSA has caught more thieves (within their own ranks) than terrorists.

It seems like you hear about "airport personnel" (i.e. TSA employees) who would use their searches to locate and remove valuables from passenger luggage.

However, I have yet to hear about a single terrorist caught by the TSA.

It looks to me like the TSA is committing more criminal activity than they are preventing.

--
Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.

Re:Who's the criminal by OldGunner · 2012-10-19 08:14 · Score: 1

I find it interesting that the TSA has caught more thieves (within their own ranks) than terrorists.
It seems like you hear about "airport personnel" (i.e. TSA employees) who would use their searches to locate and remove valuables from passenger luggage.
However, I have yet to hear about a single terrorist caught by the TSA.
It looks to me like the TSA is committing more criminal activity than they are preventing.
I blame this whole thing more on Napolitano than on Obama, and I am no fan of Obama. I also think the parent (quoted) has been unfairly modded down -- it was the closest thing to a discussion item so far in this thread.

--
Vietnam Veteran / Former Postal Worker -- Use Caution When Taunting!
Re:Who's the criminal by HappyDrgn · 2012-10-19 11:26 · Score: 1

I find it interesting that the TSA has caught more thieves (within their own ranks) than terrorists.
Citation needed
Re:Who's the criminal by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-19 16:52 · Score: 0

Well, the number of terrorists they caught is probably around zero given how useless those inhuman freedom-violating pieces of garbage are. Given that, is that much of a surprise?
Re:Who's the criminal by cheekyjohnson · 2012-10-19 16:53 · Score: 1

It looks to me like the TSA is committing more criminal activity than they are preventing.
Their job requires them to violate people's rights to begin with. I'd say that's criminal in and of itself.

--
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Re:Who's the criminal by Solandri · 2012-10-19 18:14 · Score: 1

However, I have yet to hear about a single terrorist caught by the TSA.

It looks to me like the TSA is committing more criminal activity than they are preventing.
Far be it from me to defend the TSA - I think it represents a ridiculous misprioritization of security theater over civil rights. However, your criticism here is misguided. You're assuming the only success case for the TSA is if they catch a terrorist red-handed. It's not.

As you say in your last sentence, a success case for the TSA is when a terrorist incident is prevented. That's both when they catch a terrorist red-handed, and when they discourage a terrorist from even trying. The latter is rather difficult to pin a number on, which gets into the whole security theater-ness of it all. But it's highly unlikely to be zero.
Re:Who's the criminal by chrismcb · 2012-10-19 22:48 · Score: 1

However, I have yet to hear about a single terrorist caught by the TSA.
By their own admission they haven't caught any, yet they've let several through. But don't worry, they did find about 1000 guns that law enforcement officers forgot they had with them.
And they've managed to stop most (but not all) people from carrying a bottle of water into the airport!
Re:Who's the criminal by digitalsolo · 2012-10-22 06:08 · Score: 1

That's getting into specious reasoning. I'll save the Lisa Simpson lion prevention rock quotation.

--
Just another ignorant American.

I always opt out by Thagg · 2012-10-19 08:00 · Score: 4, Interesting

Yesterday, for example, I opted out of the microwave scanner at Burbank airport. I do this every time I encounter a machine like this, and have the time to still make my flight. I don't do it because I feel they are unsafe (this particular machine is a ambient-microwave imager, it emits no radiation whatsoever) but as a (albiet incredibly weak) political statement -- I feel that if nobody opted out, soon enough nobody would be able to.

--
I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.

Re:I always opt out by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-19 08:32 · Score: 0

I travel out of Burbank quite a lot as well, I usually opt out as well, especially one one of the cute sisters is performing the body searches.
Re:I always opt out by RavenChild · 2012-10-19 08:40 · Score: 2

I can relate to this. The first time I encountered one of these machines, I had no idea what was happening (this was a good while ago). Now I always opt out even if I'm running late. I've had people behind me in line follow me in opting out because they did not know they could. I've never missed a flight because of it and have even gotten through faster than the person behind me at least twice (they had a long line going through). I think that opting out is a small statement but the people who see you do notice.
Re:I always opt out by houghi · 2012-10-19 08:49 · Score: 2

You, sir, are a hero.
And I mean that not in how the media calls everybody a hero. I mean that as a man admired for his achievements and noble qualities

--
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Re:I always opt out by Pulzar · 2012-10-19 09:03 · Score: 1

(this particular machine is a ambient-microwave imager, it emits no radiation whatsoever) but as a (albiet incredibly weak) political statement -- I feel that if nobody opted out, soon enough nobody would be able to.
I don't think I understand what statement are you making? You are worried that we will never be able to choose to be hand-searched instead of machine-searched?
If you turned around and refused to be searched altogether, that would be a political statement. Choosing to be searched one way instead of the other, when you feel that they are both equally safe, is no statement at all, in my opinion.

--
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a 747 filled with CD-ROMs.
Re:I always opt out by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-19 10:34 · Score: 0

(this particular machine is a ambient-microwave imager, it emits no radiation whatsoever) but as a (albiet incredibly weak) political statement -- I feel that if nobody opted out, soon enough nobody would be able to.
I don't think I understand what statement are you making? You are worried that we will never be able to choose to be hand-searched instead of machine-searched?
If you turned around and refused to be searched altogether, that would be a political statement. Choosing to be searched one way instead of the other, when you feel that they are both equally safe, is no statement at all, in my opinion.
The point is that grope-searches are time consuming and annoying for the TSA as well. If everyone demanded to be grope-searched, it would cause delays and increase costs for the screening.
Essentially, it's a form of Slowdown protest
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slowdown
Re:I always opt out by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-19 11:20 · Score: 0

It is not microwave, it is millimetre wave. Big difference.
Re:I always opt out by turp182 · 2012-10-19 12:42 · Score: 2

If 5% opted out the system could come to a halt. I always ask to be manually searched and they also search my bag (large foot powder, I wear the finger shoes, they drug test it...).
Never submit to the machines. Make the people work.
And if they get close to your junk just say "Oh yeah" or groan a little. The search goes much more quickly after that.
I'm a guy by the way, I can understand a woman not wanting to do this, but they can ask for a woman to do the frisking, then it's game on.

--
BlameBillCosby.com
Re:I always opt out by turp182 · 2012-10-19 12:43 · Score: 1

I meant "would come to a halt", not could.
And I'm seriously considering removing my pants next time I pass through airport security. Just boxers.

--
BlameBillCosby.com
Re:I always opt out by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-19 13:14 · Score: 0

You're not the only one. There was the "Opt-Out Day", and I've never stopped opting out. I'll do my best to waste their time so they can't man those machine.
Re:I always opt out by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-19 18:21 · Score: 0

Try leaving Australia where you don't have a choice about opting out and try again.
Re:I always opt out by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-19 20:55 · Score: 0

These days the only way to opt out of both the body scanners and the patdowns is to not fly at all. Welcome to the USSA.

Why don't we by Captain.Abrecan · 2012-10-19 08:04 · Score: 0

Why don't we just build a armored chamber with radio waves or some other science shit that detonates the bombs, and just sends all the people through it one at a time? They got a bomb, we got a bomb shelter for them to die in. They don't got a bomb, they walk out the other end and get on the plane. No big deal.

What the, I don't even... by Reasonable+Facsimile · 2012-10-19 08:24 · Score: 1

I, for one, welcome our new... oh fuck it.

Darwinian selection at work... by Genda · 2012-10-19 08:33 · Score: 2

MMMmmmmmm, I love the smell of roasting fundies at the airport. It smells like the second coming!

This was a parody, this is only a parody, had it been a real malapropism, there would have been no disclaimer, only a pithy insult, once again, this was only a parody... for those too young to get the reference, please look up "Apocalypse Now" associated with the phrase "I love the smell"

Though folks willing to be nuked for "Security" reasons can't be surprised when successive generation get smaller and smaller, and more and more mutant... just saying life is full of trade-offs.

Re:Darwinian selection at work... by jpschaaf · 2012-10-19 08:56 · Score: 1

For an online community that largely values a scientific way of looking at things, I'm rather disappointed in slashdot every time the topic of airport scanners comes up. Unless my understanding of these scanners is dramatically incorrect, using the word "X-rays" is a misnomer. So far as I know, these scanners are using non-ionizing radiation. Nothing is getting 'nuked'. Even using these words in jest contribute to public fear of anything involving radiation.
Now, if you have objections to the TSA seeing you naked, that's a completely different topic. Likewise, if you think that non-ionizing radiation is more dangerous than it's generally thought to be, put down your cell phone and go live in the woods.
Re:Darwinian selection at work... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-19 09:15 · Score: 1

I am rather disappointed in you also, there are two types of scanners, MMW (millimeter wave aka microwaves) and X-Ray scanners, the X-Ray scanners are the two blue boxes you walk in between the MMW are the big round grey cylinders.
So people are getting irradiated with ionizing radiation. I always opt-out.

Yea or... by jameshofo · 2012-10-19 08:43 · Score: 1

I would say a more likely reason would be, they are moving scanners from larger airports were the staff is most likely a little bit more well trained (and funded) to filter a flood of passengers that are most likely constantly monitored when the enter the secure zone. To areas where security may not be taken quite so seriously, regional airports may have one plane coming in every 3 hours, maybe once a day. At that point the price of the 5 employees required to compensate for the absence of a scanner likely becomes burdensome. The monitoring site that would judge a passengers picture can be anywhere in "the cloud".

Surely though the safest way for all of this is to burn all the possessions of passengers and have everyone strip naked and stand in glass tubes during the flight, even the officers! Then all you have to worry about is the pilot surfing facebook, missing your airport and running out of fuel!

--
Good leaders run toward problems, bad leaders hide from them.

Obvious by Livius · 2012-10-19 08:47 · Score: 1

*Everything* the TSA does is political theatre.

Re:Obvious by kvnslash · 2012-10-19 11:34 · Score: 1

Absolutely. Fuck the TSA, more government waste... Don't they realize that a potential evil-doer should fear the passengers more than any security system which has its own loop holes and mistakes?

unfortunately the "wealthy" use private planes by Chirs · 2012-10-19 08:50 · Score: 2

It's only normal people that fly with other passengers.

Where is Assange when you need him? by WaffleMonster · 2012-10-19 09:51 · Score: 2

It would be soo awesome to have some internal memos detailing evidence of TSA playing security games for *political* reasons right now before the elections.

Re:am I the only one here... ? by modecx · 2012-10-19 09:55 · Score: 1

Looking on the bright side, as is often known to happen, the visually impaired booby inspectors will have better sensitivity to touch than your average normal-sighted person and thus may direct their screenees to call their local oncologist. Much more disturbing is Anthony "The Tongue" Turba, the bomb-detecting TSA agent who is without all senses but taste.

--
Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.

Yep, just went through one last week. by Nethead · 2012-10-19 10:08 · Score: 1

In the town of Belgrade Montana, population 7300. Beautiful log beam airport and with no security line wait. They have two of the machines there. Surprised the fuck out of me. But considering that, at least per capita, a red neck from the high country is more likely to forget to check his side arm, I can kind of see the reasoning.

Also consider it's not that far, at least in Montana miles, from where the Unibomber was found.

--
-- I have a private email server in my basement.

Re:Yep, just went through one last week. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-19 14:24 · Score: 0

What reasoning? Are they looking for terrorists or for people who forget to check their sidearms?

Imaging Rednecks by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-19 10:21 · Score: 0

At least there won't be an issue with their private parts showing up on a scanner.

It would be nice if by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-19 10:26 · Score: 0

the author actually included links that work. I couldn't even access the second one.

But it still doesn't work.... by NuttyBee · 2012-10-19 11:20 · Score: 1

I formerly flew for a living and got patted down atleast once or twice a week because I won't use the Rapidscan 1000 which is installed at Phoenix Airport. I have no idea whether 10 uRems of ionizing radiation is bad for me, but all the Rapidscan techs all wear radiation dosimeters. Clearly, someone is concerned. Alas, I get enough radiation as is - so why risk it? I don't have the same concerns about the Thz non-ionizing radiation units made by L3. However, I don't have that job anymore and won't get on an airplane unless someone is paying me!

These scanners are worthless though. I am an American citizen with provable birth record, gun licenses, completed KnownTraveler screening, and my strong dislike of Muslim fundamentalism is far from hidden. I am a member of multiple frequent flier programs and if I haven't tried to blow something up in 7 years, why would I start now? Could I go through the metal scanner instead? No. However, the black muslim immigrant in head scarf who works at the Starbucks is allowed to.

Who do you think is more likely to be a threat? According to the brain trust at the TSA, me.

How long before Al Qaeda has people terrorists board with Ebola or Hemoraggic Fever or some other horrendous disease that you can't treat? As long as we're focused on "things", we're doomed. Terrorists have proven to be smarter than the US government at every turn.

Besides, couldn't the terrorist just stick it up their ass and get through anyway? Our government should send the scanners to the same destination.

Re:But it still doesn't work.... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-19 14:27 · Score: 0

Serious question - why would the black muslim immigrant be a greater threat?
Your reasoning is precisely why profiling is a flawed approach.
Re:But it still doesn't work.... by chrismcb · 2012-10-19 22:51 · Score: 1

How long before Al Qaeda has people terrorists board with Ebola or Hemoraggic Fever or some other horrendous disease that you can't treat?

Basically never. WHY bother? There are much juicer targets.
This isn't about Al Qaeda, this isn't about Muslims, this isn't about terrorism. This is about control, and money, and finding drug smugglers.

Sure, if you like that peacock family look. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-19 13:08 · Score: 0

X-files reference.

341 Spark by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-19 14:47 · Score: 0

That is a good thing to do. :)

Re:341 Spark by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-19 14:51 · Score: 0

A serious bomber can tailor the ED to be ignited by X-Rays.
The purpose of said ED is to ... deplete Airports of TSA of bodies and fill hospitals with TSA bodies thus causing a draw-down of resources and increase of Federal money expenditures!
Simple.
Correct.
Re:341 Spark by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-19 15:01 · Score: 0

This suggests, strongly, a 'group' is targeting TSA and TSA employees!
Re:341 Spark by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-19 15:15 · Score: 0

Evidence suggest TSA communications have been compromised.
Such as has happened suggests 'insider' compromise ... passwords ... passphrase ... and such given to a 'Third Man'.
These ... would NEED authorization by ... and given from ... the highest administrative level ... Homeland Security.
Extrapolation
Why is Homeland Security planning and executing the killing of TSA personnel, i.e. TSA employees?
Hmmmmmm...........??????????

slashdot post jumps the shark by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-19 16:22 · Score: 0

Politics run out of real shit to write about.

representing? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-19 17:16 · Score: 0

Maybe he's showing appreciation for the people who elected him by removing the scanners from blue states and dumping them in the red sheeple states in small cities, not big ones like Dallas etc.

Protest by opting out by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-20 02:51 · Score: 0

I always opt out of body scanners. If everyone did this, TSA would be forced to change its approach as their staff would be effectively overwhelmed.

Re:horsecock by DrStoooopid · 2012-10-20 04:31 · Score: 1

Negative, Sir..... ....rednecks don't fly in those heathen devil witchcraft machines.

--
There are 2 groups of people you can make fun of on the Internet without fear of attack. The illiterate, and the Amish.

Hilo, HI, has one by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-20 05:28 · Score: 0

The poor TSA wahine didn't know how to examine my bags, so I am not sure about the scanner

Slashdot Mirror

TSA Moving X-ray Body Scanners To Smaller Airports

168 comments