New Airport X-Ray's In Use

Interesting..................... I have to fly out of there in about 10 days.

Note to self: Do not wear rhinestone G-string. :hairraise:
 
The guys of PoA would like me to inform you that we are not opposed to your posting pics of said "G-String" LOL
 
You've got a better chance of getting it from Sky Harbor ...... :rofl:
 
Ah, yes, the virtual strip-search.

There was a passenger quoted in one article I read that actually said "I trust the TSA..."
 
I heard a piece on the radio about a technology to distort the picture like a funhouse mirror on the display in order to protect people's privacy. I thought that was a great idea. You'd still see any weapons or whatever, but the body proportions would be out, so you can't really tell anything about somebody's body.

Chris
 
I'm afraid if I wore one I would be charged ith the death of TSA agents (they would die of laughter):dunno:
 
wsuffa said:
Ah, yes, the virtual strip-search.

There was a passenger quoted in one article I read that actually said "I trust the TSA..."
Click to expand...

What's not to trust? It's not like they actually know what they're doing. One must first be clever in order to be un-trustworthy. :D
 
cwyckham said:
<snip> I heard a piece on the radio about a technology to distort the picture like a funhouse mirror on the display in order to protect people's privacy.
Chris
Click to expand...

The funhouse mirrors I recall made things larger. Maybe this isn't such a bad thing after all :rofl::goofy:
 
N6399A said:
What's not to trust? It's not like they actually know what they're doing. One must first be clever in order to be un-trustworthy. :D
Click to expand...

Cleverness is not a required element of untrustworthiness, at least not in my opinion. :rolleyes: Cluenessness can be an equally significant componant of untrustworthiness....

The full quote was:

"It seems faster. I'm not uncomfortable with it," said Kelsi Dunbar, 25, of Seattle, who chose the machine. "I trust TSA, and I trust that they are definitely trying to make things go quickly and smoothly in the airport.
Click to expand...

Attribution: AP news story, various outlets.
 
wsuffa said:
Cleverness is not a required element of untrustworthiness, at least not in my opinion. :rolleyes: Cluenessness can be an equally significant componant of untrustworthiness....

The full quote was:



Attribution: AP news story, various outlets.
Click to expand...


Point well taken.................. but then Kelsi Dunbar is 25. What could she possibly know?


OK......... here's where the young-ens yell at me. :eek: So my disclaimer is that I'm referring to average 25 year olds, of which I am stepmother to a couple, and employer to several.
 
CapeCodJay said:
Sheri, you can't make us believe you are a day over 27 yourself :)
Click to expand...

If you ask my 22 year old he'll tell you I'm 29. That, however, is purely a Pavlovian response. And I don't even have the hasp and the padlock on the closet door anymore. :D
 
Funny how they're making it "optional," making it sound like we've got such great choices. But the other choice is a pat-down?
 
skyflyer8 said:
Funny how they're making it "optional," making it sound like we've got such great choices. But the other choice is a pat-down?
Click to expand...

Yep.

Just wait, though, it'll be the frog-in-pot situation. Something will happen, someone will say "everybody should do that", and presto! it'll be mandatory.

Look at the shoe carnival.
 
LENO had the best line: ....."where the X-Ray machine should really be is on the red carpet at the Oscars."
 
I worked on FLIR development at Texas Instruments during the 70s. There was much talk about the titillating nature of the images, but it was grossly overdrawn. I have seen no FLIR images since that would change my mind about the level of detail they give.

First, the picture was like streaming video, with jerky motion, etc. The only revealing images came by chance or if the subject posed, moving very slowly until the image was just right. Even then, the detail was very poordue to the nature of the image. Most things around the naughty bits were at or near the temperature of the naughty bit, so definition was poor to non-existant.

Considering that x-rays give very poor images of soft tissue, any titillating image would have to be largely in the viewers imagination, not on the screen. Personally, I don't see bone structure as very titillating.
 
CapeCodJay said:
Offered for comment..


PHOENIX - Sky Harbor International Airport became the country’s first to begin testing a controversial new federal screening system that takes X-rays of passenger’s bodies in an effort to find concealed explosives and other weapons


Full story here:

http://business.bostonherald.com/businessNews/view.bg?articleid=184730
Click to expand...


The Old Man said:
I worked on FLIR development at Texas Instruments during the 70s. There was much talk about the titillating nature of the images, but it was grossly overdrawn. I have seen no FLIR images since that would change my mind about the level of detail they give.

First, the picture was like streaming video, with jerky motion, etc. The only revealing images came by chance or if the subject posed, moving very slowly until the image was just right. Even then, the detail was very poordue to the nature of the image. Most things around the naughty bits were at or near the temperature of the naughty bit, so definition was poor to non-existant.

Considering that x-rays give very poor images of soft tissue, any titillating image would have to be largely in the viewers imagination, not on the screen. Personally, I don't see bone structure as very titillating.
Click to expand...

So many jokes to make. So very, very many.
 
The Old Man said:
Considering that x-rays give very poor images of soft tissue, any titillating image would have to be largely in the viewers imagination, not on the screen. Personally, I don't see bone structure as very titillating.
Click to expand...

No bone structure. These are a shorter wavelength than that used for medical x-rays so that they see through clothes but not through skin. They basically make you naked. Hence the controversy.

Chris
 
cwyckham said:
No bone structure. These are a shorter wavelength than that used for medical x-rays so that they see through clothes but not through skin. They basically make you naked. Hence the controversy.

Chris
Click to expand...
I'd have to see the actual pictures made. I find it hard to accept that they can penetrate synthetic fibers (most clothing has some level of synthetics from a little to 100%) and not skin with enough resolution to see anythings except broad masses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top