A new ways to find models and porn stars

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
The new full-body scanners now at some airports can see through clothing and construct detailed images of someone's full body, including private parts. The images are black and white, but they are so detailed, you can see the sweat on someone's back.



http://www.cnn.com/2008/TRAVEL/04/28...ner/index.html
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 21
    nvidia2008nvidia2008 Posts: 9,262member
    But that's just one step in being a pr0n star. You still gotta know how to *ahem* "get jiggy wid it" in front of the camera. Not as easy as it looks, I would think...
  • Reply 2 of 21
    icfireballicfireball Posts: 2,594member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post


    But that's just one step in being a pr0n star. You still gotta know how to *ahem* "get jiggy wid it" in front of the camera. Not as easy as it looks, I would think...



    You would *think* or you would know? Are you hiding something?
  • Reply 3 of 21
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 31,011member
    Just more inane security measures. Remember, the hijackers on 9/11 only had box cutters and their military training. I'd expect any further attempts (however unlikely at this point) to use materials at hand and overwhelming numbers.
  • Reply 4 of 21
    mydomydo Posts: 1,888member
    That's old news.



    http://www.cnn.com/2007/TRAVEL/03/06...ray/index.html





    http://www.cnn.com/2007/TRAVEL/10/11...ing/index.html



    http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TRAVEL/....airport.xray/





    I suspect that the company that makes these keeps trying to remarket it to the public in hopes of it gaining acceptance and selling thousands of theses. This technology is best used in a prison.
  • Reply 5 of 21
    icfireballicfireball Posts: 2,594member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post


    Just more inane security measures. Remember, the hijackers on 9/11 only had box cutters and their military training. I'd expect any further attempts (however unlikely at this point) to use materials at hand and overwhelming numbers.



    I think all of these extra security measures are sort of irrelevant because I don't think hijacking an airplane to use as a weapon is possible anymore. The reason why the hijacking on 9/11 worked was because no one knew what to expect, airplanes had never been hijacked as weapons before. What allowed terrorists to maintain control of the people ON the plane for 9/11 was that the people had no clue what would have happened. If a plane got hijacked now, people on board would not allow the terrorists to maintain control. How are a few terrorists with ANY kind of weapon going to take on a large plane full of people? Also, when the FAA and government got wind of the hijack they would have fighter jets up in the air in minutes to shoot the plane down.
  • Reply 6 of 21
    areseearesee Posts: 776member
    Right.

    Prior to 9/11 the instructions on what to do during a highjacking was to stay calm, collected and do what you were told. The high jackers would eventually get what they wanted and let everybody go. And this is what happened on three of the planes. On the fourth plane word got back to the passengers that they were dead anyway so the went down fighting.
  • Reply 7 of 21
    nvidia2008nvidia2008 Posts: 9,262member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by aresee View Post


    Right. Prior to 9/11 the instructions on what to do during a highjacking was to stay calm, collected and do what you were told. The high jackers would eventually get what they wanted and let everybody go. And this is what happened on three of the planes. On the fourth plane word got back to the passengers that they were dead anyway so the went down fighting.



    Yeah because the "rules" of hijacking changed. It don't work anymore when they say:



    "Ladies and gentlemen, please stay calm and collected. There has been a temporary change here in the cockpit, we are proud to announce our new co-pilot...



    <muffled voice>I KILL YOU ALL!!!</muffled voice>



    ...Er, yeah, way to win the crowd over there dude... Anyways, ladies and gentlemen, please stay in your seat, strap in, and we'll be smashing into etc etc..."




    Terrorism sucks. I sympathise with all that have been affected by stupid fanatic attacks around the world.



    Now for no reason with these new scanners the security guards will laugh at me when I walk through the ol' peep-o-rama scanners. Or maybe they'll be impressed. Depends on the country...
  • Reply 8 of 21
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    Oddly, these scanners don't bug me. They really don't. So they can see me pseudo-nekkid. Whoopdedingdongdoo.



    Being refused access to the secure area because I refuse to show ID, as has been ruled by the Supreme Court as my right... but being allowed in if I tell them I lost it instead... *THAT* offends me on a level I can't even begin to describe. It's security theatre at its worst. Is a terrorist going to refuse to show them ID? Hell no. They'll either happily show them a fake one, and get through, or say "I lost it". Duh. This isn't about security, it's about punishing people who show initiative and speak up. God forbid we have that, or we might loose are freedums. Asshats.



    *waves at TSA, fully expects cavity search prior to next flight*
  • Reply 9 of 21
    splinemodelsplinemodel Posts: 7,311member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Kickaha View Post


    Oddly, these scanners don't bug me. They really don't. So they can see me pseudo-nekkid. Whoopdedingdongdoo.



    I'm pretty much with you on this one. One of my co-workers who travels a lot recently became apart of the "clear" program: he says it's pretty good. Honestly, anything that may be able to speed up the search process os a plus. I'm sick of taking off my shoes and half of my clothing in the middle of an airport line.
  • Reply 10 of 21
    icfireballicfireball Posts: 2,594member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Splinemodel View Post


    I'm pretty much with you on this one. One of my co-workers who travels a lot recently became apart of the "clear" program: he says it's pretty good. Honestly, anything that may be able to speed up the search process os a plus. I'm sick of taking off my shoes and half of my clothing in the middle of an airport line.



    I don't have a problem with the scanners either personally, but I think it's an unnecessary and overly costly measure to prevent terrorism, especially since what happened on 9/11 can never happen again.
  • Reply 11 of 21
    royboyroyboy Posts: 446member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by icfireball View Post


    I don't have a problem with the scanners either personally, but I think it's an unnecessary and overly costly measure to prevent terrorism, especially since what happened on 9/11 can never happen again.



    Thanks for the info. I feel much better now and can sleep better. Now we can call off the invasion of Iran.
  • Reply 12 of 21
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Royboy View Post


    Thanks for the info. I feel much better now and can sleep better. Now we can call off the invasion of Iran.



    If you're having any trouble sleeping because of 9/11 then you're a mental case (and another Rovean dream voter). Unless you were personally affected, of course.



    You have an exponentially higher chance of being struck by lightning...twice... than being injured by terrorist action against an airplane.
  • Reply 13 of 21
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 31,011member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    If you're having any trouble sleeping because of 9/11 then you're a mental case (and another Rovean dream voter). Unless you were personally affected, of course.



    You have an exponentially higher chance of being struck by lightning...twice... than being injured by terrorist action against an airplane.



    You do know that Royboy was being sarcastic, right?
  • Reply 14 of 21
    royboyroyboy Posts: 446member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    If you're having any trouble sleeping because of 9/11 then you're a mental case (and another 1..Rovean dream voter). Unless you were personally affected, of course.



    You have an exponentially higher chance of 2..being struck by lightning...twice... than being injured by terrorist action against an airplane.





    1...And here I thought Cheney was pulling the puppet's strings.



    2..Does being shocked by electricity more than twice count? And "yes" I do have respect for lightning; living as I do in the "lightning capitol of the world".
  • Reply 15 of 21
    icfireballicfireball Posts: 2,594member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Royboy View Post


    Thanks for the info. I feel much better now and can sleep better. Now we can call off the invasion of Iran.



    You should read the thread before posting. You obviously missed the context of what I said. I didn't say that what happened 9/11 could never happen again out of ignorance. I said what happened on 9/11 could never happen again because...



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by icfireball View Post


    The reason why the hijacking on 9/11 worked was because no one knew what to expect, airplanes had never been hijacked as weapons before. What allowed terrorists to maintain control of the people ON the plane for 9/11 was that the people had no clue what would have happened. If a plane got hijacked now, people on board would not allow the terrorists to maintain control. How are a few terrorists with ANY kind of weapon going to take on a large plane full of people? Also, when the FAA and government got wind of the hijack they would have fighter jets up in the air in minutes to shoot the plane down.



  • Reply 16 of 21
    icfireballicfireball Posts: 2,594member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Royboy View Post


    1...And here I thought Cheney was pulling the puppet's strings.



    2..Does being shocked by electricity more than twice count? And "yes" I do have respect for lightning; living as I do in the "lightning capitol of the world".



    1)

    Tonton's reference to "Rovean dream voter" is accurate. Karl Rove was Bush's chief political strategist during his election and re-election. Karl Rove was largely responsible for getting Bush elected, especially by utilizing the negative tactics and dirty campaigning pioneered by Lee Atwater.



    2)

    Real Florida: Our boast is toast. Florida is no longer the "lightning capital of the world."
  • Reply 17 of 21
    royboyroyboy Posts: 446member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by icfireball View Post


    You should read the thread before posting. You obviously missed the context of what I said. I didn't say that what happened 9/11 could never happen again out of ignorance. I said what happened on 9/11 could never happen again because...



    1..I'm not sure that the brave souls on the one plane you mentioned exist on most hijacked planes.



    2..And I wonder at what point does the person in charge(?) decide to shoot down a hijacked plane carrying 500 "innocent" people. Is it to be shoot down as soon as it is known to be hijacked? Shoot it down over a city with many thousands of people below?
  • Reply 18 of 21
    royboyroyboy Posts: 446member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by icfireball View Post


    1)

    Tonton's reference to "Rovean dream voter" is accurate. Karl Rove was Bush's chief political strategist during his election and re-election. Karl Rove was largely responsible for getting Bush elected, especially by utilizing the negative tactics and dirty campaigning pioneered by Lee Atwater.



    2)

    Real Florida: Our boast is toast. Florida is no longer the "lightning capital of the world."





    I definitely have to give Karl Rove congratulations on doing what he does best and that is getting people elected. Politics is a dirty business, but being Mr. Nice Guy means you sit at home and watch the other person implement the polices you opposed.



    On the Lightning Capitol link, you have to take that with a "grain of salt". You have to remember that NASA is a government agency and with the current administration's privatization and outsourcing jobs to other countries, then NASA was just protecting its interest and not wanting to have NASA outsourced to Rwanda. Simple self protection.
  • Reply 19 of 21
    icfireballicfireball Posts: 2,594member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Royboy View Post


    1..I'm not sure that the brave souls on the one plane you mentioned exist on most hijacked planes.



    2..And I wonder at what point does the person in charge(?) decide to shoot down a hijacked plane carrying 500 "innocent" people. Is it to be shoot down as soon as it is known to be hijacked? Shoot it down over a city with many thousands of people below?



    1. It doesn't take everybody on the airplane... just a handful of brave souls. This was demonstrated by United Airlines Flight 93 where some passengers learned the plane was to be used as a weapon and managed to successfully fight off the terrorists. And you don't really have to be all that brave. If you're options are dying being crashed into a building or possibly surviving and landing the plane safely, most would choose the ladder.



    2. Yes. If the hijacker refuses to make radio contact, you shoot the plane down. The alternate solution, which of course, would me much preferable if implemented, would be to offer a remote pilot or auto-pilot override in the case of a plane hijacking so the plane can be landed safely.
  • Reply 20 of 21
    icfireballicfireball Posts: 2,594member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Royboy View Post


    I definitely have to give Karl Rove congratulations on doing what he does best and that is getting people elected. Politics is a dirty business, but being Mr. Nice Guy means you sit at home and watch the other person implement the polices you opposed.



    It was once true that negative elections worked very (extremely) well, but negative campaigning seems to be backfiring heavily in the 2008 election. Case in point: Hillary Clinton.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Royboy View Post


    On the Lightning Capitol link, you have to take that with a "grain of salt". You have to remember that NASA is a government agency and with the current administration's privatization and outsourcing jobs to other countries, then NASA was just protecting its interest and not wanting to have NASA outsourced to Rwanda. Simple self protection.



    haha
Sign In or Register to comment.