Airport of full body scanners and enhanced pat-downs >>VOTE???

Which do you want about the TSA's new full body scanners and enhanced pat-downs?

  • Both acceptable

    Votes: 5 14.7%

  • Pat downs body

    Votes: 3 8.8%

  • Scanners

    Votes: 5 14.7%

  • Hate both the scanners and the pat downs!

    Votes: 16 47.1%

  • Other opinion.. which I will post below

    Votes: 1 2.9%

  • Not decided yet!

    Votes: 4 11.8%
  • Total voters
    34
Amtrak don't have any of these so travel on Amtrak! Less headache and more relaxing that way on trains.
 
Jiro said:
as a security scanner, what i will witness is what women should look like :eek3:
Click to expand...

If i knew you were working there then i will ask someone else who doesnt know me then make you leave and let someone else to take a free show. LOL
 
Frisky Feline said:
If i knew you were working there then i will ask someone else who doesnt know me then make you leave and let someone else to take a free show. LOL
Click to expand...

the saddest day of my life... ever....
 
i will wear my speedo's. should show i am not carrying weapons
 
DDU said:
i will wear my speedo's. should show i am not carrying weapons
Click to expand...

are you sure?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kU0XCVey_U]YouTube - This Is My Rifle. This Is My Gun[/ame]
 
If you look at the statistics, flying is one of the safest form of transportation there is. Only elevators are safer. So from a mathematical perspective, I don't really see a reason as to why additional money should be spent on more intrusive security devices, especially when those devices and methods are obviously inconvenient for people who fly I voted neither, in case you didn't guess from my argument.

It seems like a lot of these decisions are made emotionally though - people like having the illusion of safety and are willing to give up more concrete factors to achieve it.
 
wowser

rraja said:
If you look at the statistics, flying is one of the safest form of transportation there is. Only elevators are safer. So from a mathematical perspective, I don't really see a reason as to why additional money should be spent on more intrusive security devices, especially when those devices and methods are obviously inconvenient for people who fly I voted neither, in case you didn't guess from my argument.

It seems like a lot of these decisions are made emotionally though - people like having the illusion of safety and are willing to give up more concrete factors to achieve it.
Click to expand...

I sure wish I was living on your parallel universe. This one blows.
As has been demonstrated with disheartening regularity so called terrorist still target passanger planes.

Just one small bnomb, one big enough to puncture a plane flying at 30,000 feet would be enough to send the world into a tailspin. As happened 9/11 all planes would be shut down for days if not weeks. The economy would take yet another nose dive.
All this because your junk is precious?
Beam me outta here scotty


Ps
Jirp . My TSA approved fishnet speedo's will let 99% of TSA agents approve me. The other 1% is iSign, the AD fave TSA. I can rub up on her and attest that the stake is actually only explosive in female company
 
I just gave up flying totally. Now, if I were to go somewhere that required flying, then I guess I would deal with the scanner, but I don't see myself going anywhere.
 
DDU said:
I sure wish I was living on your parallel universe. This one blows.
As has been demonstrated with disheartening regularity so called terrorist still target passanger planes.

Just one small bnomb, one big enough to puncture a plane flying at 30,000 feet would be enough to send the world into a tailspin. As happened 9/11 all planes would be shut down for days if not weeks. The economy would take yet another nose dive.
All this because your junk is precious?
Beam me outta here scotty


Ps
Jirp . My TSA approved fishnet speedo's will let 99% of TSA agents approve me. The other 1% is iSign, the AD fave TSA. I can rub up on her and attest that the stake is actually only explosive in female company
Click to expand...

It's been proven that people tend to let emotion cloud their judgment when they are reasoning about the probability of events occuring. That is, they look at the events in which they might lose something and overemphasize the part of the sample space where those outcomes happen. In this case the outcome in question is the one in which a terrorist manages to make it through fairly stringent security (that was in place even before the implementation of full body scanners) and execute an attack without being stopped. This has not happened in the US for the last nine years. My argument is that this bias, more so than any logical interpretation of the facts, is what is motivating the increases in airport security.

However, if you impartially look at the statistics, they show that events as rare as being struck by lightning are still more likely to occur than your being in a plane during an attack. It is true that the loss associated with this event is catastrophic, but it has such a low chance of occurring that it doesn't really factor as much as you think it does.

All security measures have costs associated with their design and implementation, and the resources with which to pay those costs are limited. As such, it would be more sensible to instead attempt to increase the security of much more dangerous forms of transportation or other things that are actually at risk.
 
rraja said:
It's been proven that people tend to let emotion cloud their judgment when they are reasoning about the probability of events occuring. That is, they look at the events in which they might lose something and overemphasize the part of the sample space where those outcomes happen. In this case the outcome in question is the one in which a terrorist manages to make it through fairly stringent security (that was in place even before the implementation of full body scanners) and execute an attack without being stopped. This has not happened in the US for the last nine years. My argument is that this bias, more so than any logical interpretation of the facts, is what is motivating the increases in airport security.

However, if you impartially look at the statistics, they show that events as rare as being struck by lightning are still more likely to occur than your being in a plane during an attack. It is true that the loss associated with this event is catastrophic, but it has such a low chance of occurring that it doesn't really factor as much as you think it does.

All security measures have costs associated with their design and implementation, and the resources with which to pay those costs are limited. As such, it would be more sensible to instead attempt to increase the security of much more dangerous forms of transportation or other things that are actually at risk.
Click to expand...
Ooooooook. I cede the debate to your resourceful argument. Their are no terrorist. There are no terrorist. There are no terroist. ( click heels 3x. Toto where are you)
 
One thing is certain. The world is f*(ked up these day's. It used to be $5 you could drive all week to and from work. Leave your door's unlocked. Never have to worry like we do these day's. I wonder where things took a turn for the worse.
 
Deaffy said:
One thing is certain. The world is f*(ked up these day's. It used to be $5 you could drive all week to and from work. Leave your door's unlocked. Never have to worry like we do these day's. I wonder where things took a turn for the worse.
Click to expand...
Too true. I actually pity the poor kids 10 tears old and under. What do they have to look forward to? Health care? Jobs? Polar shift? China as the new world power? Or worse possible thing,, matajan as president. Please shoot me
 
Back
Top