| Accept fate and proceed through body scanner | 22% | 22% - 12 | ||||
| Opt out for pat down | 26% | 26% - 14 | ||||
| Express discontent and proceed through scanner | 5% | 5% - 3 | ||||
| Opt out for pat down after making self hard. | 22% | 22% - 12 | ||||
| Leave the airport sans screening, take ship down under | 5% | 5% - 3 | ||||
| Other | 5% | 5% - 3 | ||||
| FU Brinson | 11% | 11% - 6 | ||||
| Total: 53 | ||||||
I can pretend.11 Bravo wrote:
well you are a woman
Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-11-24 08:28:04)
I was in London a few months back and a girl in front of me was felt up by a guy.11 Bravo wrote:
well you are a woman
that wont happen in mericaTicia wrote:
I was in London a few months back and a girl in front of me was felt up by a guy.11 Bravo wrote:
well you are a woman
I'm sure some women wouldn't mind...11 Bravo wrote:
that wont happen in mericaTicia wrote:
I was in London a few months back and a girl in front of me was felt up by a guy.11 Bravo wrote:
well you are a woman
I would be gentle.Ticia wrote:
I'm sure some women wouldn't mind...11 Bravo wrote:
that wont happen in mericaTicia wrote:
I was in London a few months back and a girl in front of me was felt up by a guy.
If you knew the women I was thinking about I'm not sure you'd be as eager.JohnG@lt wrote:
I would be gentle.Ticia wrote:
I'm sure some women wouldn't mind...11 Bravo wrote:
that wont happen in merica
This is what I don't get. How is it all these outraged bloggers are constantly getting patted down? You've gotta be selected to go through the naked machine, it's not everyone that has to. So how is it every trip they're getting pulled out of the queue?Kmar wrote:
Here is some perspectives. Less than 2% of fliers are pat down. You'd never know that by the amount of media generated around this.Turquoise wrote:
Very true. It puts screening somewhat in perspective.Poseidon wrote:
Nor should it. It takes up 10 minutes of your fucking time. 10 minutes out of the most likely half an hour+ you're going to be waiting anyways for your flight to come in.
Maybe they're the kind of douches that throw a fit at the security checks. It would explain their whiny natures.ghettoperson wrote:
This is what I don't get. How is it all these outraged bloggers are constantly getting patted down? You've gotta be selected to go through the naked machine, it's not everyone that has to. So how is it every trip they're getting pulled out of the queue?Kmar wrote:
Here is some perspectives. Less than 2% of fliers are pat down. You'd never know that by the amount of media generated around this.Turquoise wrote:
Very true. It puts screening somewhat in perspective.
Good. This shit needs to end. I don't think anyone would stand for having to drive through checkpoints every time they tried entering a highway. We have a 4th Amendment for a reason.ghettoperson wrote:
Presumably. Or more worryingly there's just that many douchey bloggers out there that just 2% of passengers getting screened still results in hundreds of articles.
Here's a question. As I've said before, I think the checks are mostly useless, however, I don't think they're going away anytime soon. Do you believe that, if the system was purely private, they would actually go away?JohnG@lt wrote:
Good. This shit needs to end. I don't think anyone would stand for having to drive through checkpoints every time they tried entering a highway. We have a 4th Amendment for a reason.ghettoperson wrote:
Presumably. Or more worryingly there's just that many douchey bloggers out there that just 2% of passengers getting screened still results in hundreds of articles.
I can't say I agree with the pat downs, but I also don't really see how the body scanner is any different from getting metal detected. Other than that as Adam Savage accidentally proved, you can get 12" saw blades past the body scanner.JohnG@lt wrote:
Good. This shit needs to end. I don't think anyone would stand for having to drive through checkpoints every time they tried entering a highway. We have a 4th Amendment for a reason.ghettoperson wrote:
Presumably. Or more worryingly there's just that many douchey bloggers out there that just 2% of passengers getting screened still results in hundreds of articles.
Last edited by ghettoperson (2010-11-24 09:27:07)
Whoever owns the airport should be providing security. In many cases the airports are owned by the municipality they are located in. Let them charge higher rent to pay for security. It's not a question of it being private or public because for the most part, they are civilian contractors being paid by the government. Whether it's public or private, they're still at the mercy of public opinion and/or judgements.Turquoise wrote:
Here's a question. As I've said before, I think the checks are mostly useless, however, I don't think they're going away anytime soon. Do you believe that, if the system was purely private, they would actually go away?JohnG@lt wrote:
Good. This shit needs to end. I don't think anyone would stand for having to drive through checkpoints every time they tried entering a highway. We have a 4th Amendment for a reason.ghettoperson wrote:
Presumably. Or more worryingly there's just that many douchey bloggers out there that just 2% of passengers getting screened still results in hundreds of articles.
ghettoperson wrote:
I can't say I agree with the pat downs, but I also don't really see how the body scanner is any different from getting metal detected. Other than that as Adam Savage accidentally proved, you can get 12" saw blades past the body scanner.JohnG@lt wrote:
Good. This shit needs to end. I don't think anyone would stand for having to drive through checkpoints every time they tried entering a highway. We have a 4th Amendment for a reason.ghettoperson wrote:
Presumably. Or more worryingly there's just that many douchey bloggers out there that just 2% of passengers getting screened still results in hundreds of articles.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3yaqq9Jjb4&t=1m15s
EDIT: Start at 1:12 to avoid irritating audience noises.
Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-11-24 09:47:39)
Yeah I know there's stuff like that. I read something recently about a knife with a crystal blade. Presumably that stuff would still be caught by a body scanner because of the size/shape though. I'm not sure what your point is though, that we can't stop people getting shit on to airplanes?JohnG@lt wrote:
http://www.williams-sonoma.com/wsimgs/a … /img1m.jpgghettoperson wrote:
I can't say I agree with the pat downs, but I also don't really see how the body scanner is any different from getting metal detected. Other than that as Adam Savage accidentally proved, you can get 12" saw blades past the body scanner.JohnG@lt wrote:
Good. This shit needs to end. I don't think anyone would stand for having to drive through checkpoints every time they tried entering a highway. We have a 4th Amendment for a reason.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3yaqq9Jjb4&t=1m15s
EDIT: Start at 1:12 to avoid irritating audience noises.
These are ceramic and sharper than steel. If you remove the piece of metal that the factory places in the handle you can get through any metal detector in the world (The factory places the metal in the handle precisely so you can't avoid detection).
Well, I guess my question is... do you believe there will be less abuses that way? I don't. I think abuses will occur no matter what and people will continuously go back and forth about wanting more security measures or less.JohnG@lt wrote:
Whoever owns the airport should be providing security. In many cases the airports are owned by the municipality they are located in. Let them charge higher rent to pay for security. It's not a question of it being private or public because for the most part, they are civilian contractors being paid by the government. Whether it's public or private, they're still at the mercy of public opinion and/or judgements.Turquoise wrote:
Here's a question. As I've said before, I think the checks are mostly useless, however, I don't think they're going away anytime soon. Do you believe that, if the system was purely private, they would actually go away?JohnG@lt wrote:
Good. This shit needs to end. I don't think anyone would stand for having to drive through checkpoints every time they tried entering a highway. We have a 4th Amendment for a reason.
Williams-Sonoma is porn for rich housewives.ghettoperson wrote:
Yeah I know there's stuff like that. I read something recently about a knife with a crystal blade. Presumably that stuff would still be caught by a body scanner because of the size/shape though. I'm not sure what your point is though, that we can't stop people getting shit on to airplanes?JohnG@lt wrote:
http://www.williams-sonoma.com/wsimgs/a … /img1m.jpgghettoperson wrote:
I can't say I agree with the pat downs, but I also don't really see how the body scanner is any different from getting metal detected. Other than that as Adam Savage accidentally proved, you can get 12" saw blades past the body scanner.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3yaqq9Jjb4&t=1m15s
EDIT: Start at 1:12 to avoid irritating audience noises.
These are ceramic and sharper than steel. If you remove the piece of metal that the factory places in the handle you can get through any metal detector in the world (The factory places the metal in the handle precisely so you can't avoid detection).
On an unrelated note, the grilled cheese on the homepage of that website looks fucking delicious.
The courts need to stomp on these people, hard, and posthaste.Turquoise wrote:
Well, I guess my question is... do you believe there will be less abuses that way? I don't. I think abuses will occur no matter what and people will continuously go back and forth about wanting more security measures or less.JohnG@lt wrote:
Whoever owns the airport should be providing security. In many cases the airports are owned by the municipality they are located in. Let them charge higher rent to pay for security. It's not a question of it being private or public because for the most part, they are civilian contractors being paid by the government. Whether it's public or private, they're still at the mercy of public opinion and/or judgements.Turquoise wrote:
Here's a question. As I've said before, I think the checks are mostly useless, however, I don't think they're going away anytime soon. Do you believe that, if the system was purely private, they would actually go away?
Perhaps... They probably will, but I'm not sure if that actually will stop the abuses.JohnG@lt wrote:
The courts need to stomp on these people, hard, and posthaste.Turquoise wrote:
Well, I guess my question is... do you believe there will be less abuses that way? I don't. I think abuses will occur no matter what and people will continuously go back and forth about wanting more security measures or less.JohnG@lt wrote:
Whoever owns the airport should be providing security. In many cases the airports are owned by the municipality they are located in. Let them charge higher rent to pay for security. It's not a question of it being private or public because for the most part, they are civilian contractors being paid by the government. Whether it's public or private, they're still at the mercy of public opinion and/or judgements.
Sure it will. They become chargeable crimes at that point.Turquoise wrote:
Perhaps... They probably will, but I'm not sure if that actually will stop the abuses.JohnG@lt wrote:
The courts need to stomp on these people, hard, and posthaste.Turquoise wrote:
Well, I guess my question is... do you believe there will be less abuses that way? I don't. I think abuses will occur no matter what and people will continuously go back and forth about wanting more security measures or less.
Well, isn't it true that charges are already being applied? I mean, there's certainly room for improvement, but as far as I know, molesting someone even under the guise of security is illegal.JohnG@lt wrote:
Sure it will. They become chargeable crimes at that point.Turquoise wrote:
Perhaps... They probably will, but I'm not sure if that actually will stop the abuses.JohnG@lt wrote:
The courts need to stomp on these people, hard, and posthaste.
So true...Hunter/Jumper wrote:
Now can we ask for proof of citizenship on the border States ? Please ?
f*ckin hypocrites - ~
