Law School Discussion

Law Students => Current Law Students => Topic started by: we are watching you on July 02, 2008, 10:44:58 AM

Title: "Laptops must be removed from their cases and placed on the belt."
Post by: we are watching you on July 02, 2008, 10:44:58 AM
Get ready for a change.

The TSA has given the go-ahead for passengers to use newly designed carry-on bags that will let them pass through security without having to take their laptops out for the X-ray inspection. Kip Hawley, the agency's director, told me Monday that the T.S.A. would accept the new laptop cases as soon as they come on the market. Two of the biggest luggage manufacturers — Pathfinder Luggage and Targus — say they are rushing to produce the new "checkpoint friendly" laptop cases and expect them to be available by late September or early October. Two problems with the existing laptop cases are that security officers have difficulty seeing inside them with X-ray equipment, and many of the cases are so crammed with extra gear — power cords, a mouse and the like — that the computer is obscured. The new cases include either a fold-down section in a bigger briefcase or a stand-alone protective sleeve that contains no extra clutter and can be readily viewed through the scanner.

More than a half-dozen luggage manufacturers, among about 60 that initially responded to a T.S.A. request for proposals about three months ago, have submitted prototypes for testing at checkpoints at three airports: Dulles, outside Washington; Austin-Bergstrom in Texas; and Ontario, near Los Angeles. The agency says that more than a quarter of all air travelers carry laptops through security. Along with having to remove shoes, the requirement to take a laptop out of its protective case has long rankled business travelers, who worry about damage to exposed computers as well as potential loss in the pileup of various travelers’ possessions on the other side of the X-ray station. Mr. Hawley, meanwhile, has often said that confusion at checkpoints is itself a security problem. Designing laptop cases that can improve customer service while keeping security at a high level is a way to better ensure a "calm and predictable" checkpoint environment, he said. "Threats have a hard time hiding in a calm environment," he said. "Chaos is great camouflage."

Mr. Hawley said the agency had been working with various manufacturers to develop the new luggage designs. He predicted that various new laptop cases that conform to government requirements would be in wide use by the holidays in December. "On a conference call with industry representatives, I said that the T.S.A. will not be your gatekeeper on this," Mr. Hawley said. "It all depends on how fast you can get to market. We won't slow you down." Ron Davis, the executive vice president of Pathfinder Luggage, said that his company had just started producing its two new cases at a plant in the Philippines. He said both had been tested at checkpoints to ensure that they met government specifications. "They don't want anything obscuring the view of the laptop,” he said. “In our case, the material is nylon and foam, and the X-ray machine will see right through that." Pathfinder is making two models but plans others. One is a briefcase in which the attached laptop holder is exposed when the case is unzipped. The other is a wheeled carry-on with a removable laptop case. Mr. Davis estimated that the briefcase version would sell for $100 to $150 and the wheeled version for $150 to $200. Targus, the largest maker of cases for laptops and notebook computers, is about to begin production at factories in China of four new models of checkpoint-compatible bags, said Al Giazzon, the vice president for marketing.
Title: Re: "Laptops must be removed from their cases and placed on the belt."
Post by: brag on July 04, 2008, 01:34:32 PM
hahaha ;)
Title: Re: "Laptops must be removed from their cases and placed on the belt."
Post by: Yanni on July 05, 2008, 01:53:31 PM

Raz, dva, tri, i!

Hup hup hup hup hup hup, davaj davaj davaj!
Ohhh, hup hup hup hup hup hup,
Ohhh, hup hup hup hup hup, ohhh


Ha - Arsenium/Love Me Love Me!
Title: Re: "Laptops must be removed from their cases and placed on the belt."
Post by: doubtie on July 08, 2008, 05:52:39 AM
One of the reasons they make you place the laptop on the belt is that they want to be able to turn on the computer if they want to. Also, the computer blocks the other items in the computer bag, so you remove it so the screener can see the rest of the bags contents. You may also be asked to log in if the security guy "feel" a "security concern" about you (translation: your skin is too dark). There are many report of people being force to give *ALL* their passwords. Keep your laptop safe...Many airports in their "Terror Paranoia" keep confiscating laptops and cell pones and many electronics from travelers that don't look "blond-blue-eyed Americans".

As far as X-rays are concerned: they can see thru it, but it could be tough to know if it is a laptop or a bomb hidden in a laptop. They are supposed to make you take them out and power them up so they know they are real laptops. Otherwise you could hide bomb material inside (wires and such) and they would be none the wiser. If you make someone take it out and power it up, any problems with it powering up might give them a reason to take a much closer look.
Title: Re: "Laptops must be removed from their cases and placed on the belt."
Post by: notmikejones on July 09, 2008, 09:59:57 AM
One of the reasons they make you place the laptop on the belt is that they want to be able to turn on the computer if they want to. Also, the computer blocks the other items in the computer bag, so you remove it so the screener can see the rest of the bags contents. You may also be asked to log in if the security guy "feel" a "security concern" about you (translation: your skin is too dark). There are many report of people being force to give *ALL* their passwords. Keep your laptop safe...Many airports in their "Terror Paranoia" keep confiscating laptops and cell pones and many electronics from travelers that don't look "blond-blue-eyed Americans".

As far as X-rays are concerned: they can see thru it, but it could be tough to know if it is a laptop or a bomb hidden in a laptop. They are supposed to make you take them out and power them up so they know they are real laptops. Otherwise you could hide bomb material inside (wires and such) and they would be none the wiser. If you make someone take it out and power it up, any problems with it powering up might give them a reason to take a much closer look.

Pretty sure they can't actually force you to give them your passwords...  I know its wikipedia but you can look the case up in an official source yourself:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Boucher
Title: Re: "Laptops must be removed from their cases and placed on the belt."
Post by: no free haircuts on July 10, 2008, 11:20:36 AM
mike, the case you cite focuses on "criminal defendants" -- whether they can be compelled to reveal their encryption passphrase. People with laptops being checked in airports are not considered "defendants" until after they are arrested for something.
Title: Re: "Laptops must be removed from their cases and placed on the belt."
Post by: notmikejones on July 12, 2008, 03:39:15 PM
no free haircuts: I do agree that it is not directly on point, but I think it is related and informative to this issue.

This case found that "entering the password" (at least in this limited circumstance) was testimonial.  The case also referenced a case which said the fifth amendment applies when communications are testimonial, compelled, and incriminating. 

It is interesting to think even if it were held that it is always testimonial to enter your password, you may not enjoy protection against being forced to do so unless you actually have something illegal on your computer.  Still,  it seems questionable whether you could be prosecuted for refusing to give your password to a TSA person, especially if you later claimed doing so would incriminate yourself.  I will be the first to admit, I don't know nearly as much about the fifth amendment as I would like to, but it seems like you would have some protection (from prosecution at least) unless "compelled" refers only to judicial proceedings, which seems unlikely.  It does seem like they could just prevent you from traveling if you were unwilling to comply.

I think I am going to have to look for some articles or something about this issue, it is pretty interesting.
Title: Re: "Laptops must be removed from their cases and placed on the belt."
Post by: QIR on July 19, 2008, 04:38:54 PM

Raz, dva, tri, i!

Hup hup hup hup hup hup, davaj davaj davaj!
Ohhh, hup hup hup hup hup hup,
Ohhh, hup hup hup hup hup, ohhh


Ha - Arsenium/Love Me Love Me!


I don't mean to be a cynic, but I have not heard even little children say "Love me"...
Title: Re: "Laptops must be removed from their cases and placed on the belt."
Post by: goda on July 19, 2008, 05:23:42 PM

Raz, dva, tri, i!

Hup hup hup hup hup hup, davaj davaj davaj!
Ohhh, hup hup hup hup hup hup,
Ohhh, hup hup hup hup hup, ohhh


Ha - Arsenium/Love Me Love Me!


I don't mean to be a cynic, but I have not heard even little children say "Love me"...


LOL QIR! ;)
Title: Re: "Laptops must be removed from their cases and placed on the belt."
Post by: godo on July 22, 2008, 04:39:56 PM

Raz, dva, tri, i!

Hup hup hup hup hup hup, davaj davaj davaj!
Ohhh, hup hup hup hup hup hup,
Ohhh, hup hup hup hup hup, ohhh


Ha - Arsenium/Love Me Love Me!


I don't mean to be a cynic, but I have not heard even little children say "Love me"...


Sounds exactly Joan Crawford shouting over Christina "Love me!!!" after she nearly killed her:

(http://www.badmovies.org/othermovies/mommiedear/mommiedear5.jpg)
"Why can't you give me the respect that I'm entitled to? Why can't you treat me like I would be treated by any stranger on the street?"
"Because I am not one of your fans!"


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-rkh-0S6q4
Title: HAHAHA - LOVE ME! ;)
Post by: hit her on July 22, 2008, 05:28:38 PM

Ha - Arsenium/Love Me Love Me!


I don't mean to be a cynic, but I have not heard even little children say "Love me"...


(http://img66.imageshack.us/img66/1346/lovemexn0.jpg)(http://img66.imageshack.us/img66/1346/lovemexn0.jpg)(http://img66.imageshack.us/img66/1346/lovemexn0.jpg)(http://img66.imageshack.us/img66/1346/lovemexn0.jpg)(http://img66.imageshack.us/img66/1346/lovemexn0.jpg)(http://img66.imageshack.us/img66/1346/lovemexn0.jpg)(http://img66.imageshack.us/img66/1346/lovemexn0.jpg)(http://img66.imageshack.us/img66/1346/lovemexn0.jpg)(http://img66.imageshack.us/img66/1346/lovemexn0.jpg)(http://img66.imageshack.us/img66/1346/lovemexn0.jpg)(http://img66.imageshack.us/img66/1346/lovemexn0.jpg)(http://img66.imageshack.us/img66/1346/lovemexn0.jpg)
Title: Re: "Laptops must be removed from their cases and placed on the belt."
Post by: aroma on July 23, 2008, 02:13:14 PM

Ha - Arsenium/Love Me Love Me!


I don't mean to be a cynic, but I have not heard even little children say "Love me"...


Sounds exactly Joan Crawford shouting over Christina "Love me!!!" after she nearly killed her:

(http://www.badmovies.org/othermovies/mommiedear/mommiedear5.jpg)
"Why can't you give me the respect that I'm entitled to? Why can't you treat me like I would be treated by any stranger on the street?"
"Because I am not one of your fans!"


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-rkh-0S6q4


Here it is an even more complete review of the case

(http://www.avatarhosting.net/pics/4932/yuhfyjh.jpg)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGkjmUsIFR0&feature=related
Title: Re: "Laptops must be removed from their cases and placed on the belt."
Post by: sigh mere on July 25, 2008, 05:49:21 PM
popping the thread up
Title: Re: "Laptops must be removed from their cases and placed on the belt."
Post by: thegayismine on July 28, 2008, 10:54:40 AM
hahaha sighmere ;) try to be a bit more discreet next time..
Title: Re: "Laptops must be removed from their cases and placed on the belt."
Post by: head phone on August 19, 2008, 05:33:39 PM

Sounds exactly Joan Crawford shouting over Christina "Love me!!!" after she nearly killed her:

(http://www.badmovies.org/othermovies/mommiedear/mommiedear5.jpg)
"Why can't you give me the respect that I'm entitled to? Why can't you treat me like I would be treated by any stranger on the street?"
"Because I am not one of your fans!"


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-rkh-0S6q4


Here it is an even more complete review of the case

(http://www.avatarhosting.net/pics/4932/yuhfyjh.jpg)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGkjmUsIFR0&feature=related


"Mommie Dearest" is what Joan Crawford insisted her adopted daughter, Christina, call her. This film is based on their life together from Christine's perspective. Many folks got mad when this hit the scene, claiming it shed Joan in a horrible light as an abusive mother to her two adopted kids. Christina says it's truth as she remembers it. I figure the real deal is somewhere in between, with me tending to fall closer to Christina's view. A lot of things ring very true in her behavior and reactions to circumstances... In any case, it does make for a very entertaining movie.

Don't @ # ! * with me fellas. This ain't my first time at the rodeo.

Trying to portray a Hollywood legend has got to go from a challenge to terrifying, but Faye Dunaway does a spectacular job with the role. Every nuance from the hair pats, nervous jewelry tinkering, and false smile to the absolute rage in her eyes lying underneath it all was just perfection. There were parts here that reminded me hauntingly of my own mother, and I hate to say it, but after all these years I watched it again this morning and was a bit taken aback to see a few of my own child rearing moments in her too. I'm sorry Azure. (I never hit Azure, but I did get rather volatile verbally from time to time). 

You are a lousy substitute for someone who really cares

A 'must see' for any fan of old movies and those into psychological deconstruction. There's a lot to keep you interested here.
Title: Re: "Laptops must be removed from their cases and placed on the belt."
Post by: PersonalAssistant on August 26, 2008, 12:59:34 PM

mike, the case you cite focuses on "criminal defendants" -- whether they can be compelled to reveal their encryption passphrase. People with laptops being checked in airports are not considered "defendants" until after they are arrested for something.


In the United States there is a fine line between a free citizen and a criminal defendant - you can find yourself arrested in a heartbeat. On nothing more than, say, you a suspect in some crime.
Title: Re: "Laptops must be removed from their cases and placed on the belt."
Post by: grand/grand on August 26, 2008, 02:16:33 PM

You are a lousy substitute for someone who really cares


So was this smth she said to Christina, or was it the other way around?
Title: Re: "Laptops must be removed from their cases and placed on the belt."
Post by: ParkOperationsSupervisor on August 27, 2008, 10:29:43 AM

You are a lousy substitute for someone who really cares


So was this smth she said to Christina, or was it the other way around?


Joan said it to Carol Ann when the latter being helped by Christina was trying to put her to bed.
Title: Re: "Laptops must be removed from their cases and placed on the belt."
Post by: small talk on August 28, 2008, 08:02:06 PM

[...]

(http://www.badmovies.org/othermovies/mommiedear/mommiedear5.jpg)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-rkh-0S6q4


The superposition of the beating scene upon the happy family one (the two voices) is indeed a great feature of the video.
Title: Help-wanted ad for nanny: 'My kids are a pain'
Post by: in lieu of on August 29, 2008, 06:57:15 PM
Mothers in bad mood, I guess! Take a look here:

NEW YORK - It was an unusually honest ad for a live-in nanny, a 1,000-word tome beginning, "My kids are a pain." But it worked, attracting a brave soul who's never been a nanny before. "If you cannot multitask, or communicate without being passive-aggressive, don't even bother replying," Rebecca Land Soodak, a mother of 4 on Manhattan's Upper East Side, wrote Aug. 19 in her advertisement on Craigslist. "I can be a tad difficult to work for. I'm loud, pushy and while I used to think we paid well, I am no longer sure." This being the age of instant communications, the ad took on a life of its own, making the rounds of parenting blogs and e-mail inboxes and inspiring an article in Thursday's New York Times.

Soodak, a 40-year-old painter whose husband owns a wine store, eventually hired Christina Wynn, a 25-year-old University of Virginia graduate, to take care of Rubin, 12; Ellis, 9; and Shay and Cassie, both 6. "I made a commitment to stay in the job for at least a year," Wynn told the Times. "I met the oldest child, but not the others, which my mother said was crazy — to accept the job without meeting all the kids. So we'll see." She noted that one of the pluses is that the children are all in school for several hours each day. Some other excerpts from the listing: "If you are fundamentally unhappy with your life, you will be more unhappy if you take this job, so do us all a favor and get some treatment or move to the Rockies, but do not apply for employment with us."

And this: "Also, if you suspect all wealthy women are frivolous, we are not for you." And this: "I have all sorts of theories on how to stack my dishwasher, and if you are judgmental about Ritalin for ADHD, or think such things are caused by too much sugar, again, deal-break city." No word yet on whether a sequel to "The Nanny Diaries" is in the works. Meanwhile, Soodak tells the Times: "I hope she likes it here. I sent the ad to one of my old sitters and she said she felt it was pretty accurate, which sort of stung a little bit."
Title: Caylee's mom gets out of jail again
Post by: u s ehe r n a m e on September 06, 2008, 02:07:48 PM
Meantime that we're talking here,

Caylee's mom gets out of jail again

ORLANDO, Florida (CNN) -- For the second time in 15 days, a Florida woman suspected in the disappearance of her 3-year-old daughter walked out of jail, this time after somebody anonymously posted the $500,000 bond. Wearing the same "Where Is Caylee?" T-shirt she had on when she was arrested, Casey Anthony was released from the Orange County Jail at 10:09 a.m. ET, officials said. She kept her head down and said nothing as attorney Jose Baez and two burly bodyguards dressed in black escorted her through a gathering crowd and into Dodge Durango that then sped away. Television news helicopters followed the sport utility vehicle during the short drive to the home of Anthony's parents. The SUV, its windows darkly tinted, nosed past a crowd of about 30 people and into the garage. Some carried signs supporting Anthony. Others had signs condemning her. The garage door closed, keeping Anthony out of sight of cameras and gawkers alike.

Anthony is confined to her parents' home and is wearing a monitor, officials said. She will receive weekly visits from a case manager from the Orange County Corrections Department. Anthony's 3-year-old daughter, Caylee, disappeared in mid-June, and her mother waited nearly a month before reporting the disappearance. Since then, evidence has mounted that Caylee is dead. Police have labeled the mother "a person of interest." CNN law enforcement analyst Mike Brooks said that while it may appear that Anthony keeps going through a revolving jailhouse door, authorities would prefer she remain in custody. "I think law enforcement would rather keep her in jail, putting pressure on her to break her," Brooks said.

Anthony initially explained that she didn't report her daughter missing because she was conducting her own investigation. Later, she told police she gave Caylee to a babysitter. But investigators soon learned that the address she gave them was an apartment that hadn't been occupied for months. Anthony's mother -- Caylee's grandmother -- continues to insist that the toddler is alive. Brooks said that authorities may try again to jail Anthony as the forensic evidence continues to suggest a grim outcome. "They may make another move to keep her behind bars," Brooks said. "The Anthonys keep saying they are looking for Caylee alive, but all the evidence points to not finding her alive, that she's deceased."

Authorities have not revealed who posted the bail, which allowed Anthony's release on the original charges -- child endangerment, obstructing an investigation and giving false statements to police.  Anthony also faces recently filed theft charges. The story of Anthony and her missing daughter has garnered national headlines, been the nightly fodder of cable TV crime shows and brought a stampede of reporters to stake out the home of Anthony's parents. As Anthony was arrested, bonded out of jail, was rearrested and bonded out again, investigators disclosed that they have uncovered some evidence in the case. Authorities said they have found traces of chloroform in the car Anthony drove and Internet searches of chloroform Web sites on her computer. Investigators said they had found evidence of human decomposition in the trunk of Anthony's car. Law enforcement sources also suggested that a strand of hair found in the trunk of the car was Caylee's.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/09/05/fla.missing.girl/
Title: Re: "Laptops must be removed from their cases and placed on the belt."
Post by: cosinger on September 08, 2008, 04:07:50 PM

[...]

(http://www.badmovies.org/othermovies/mommiedear/mommiedear5.jpg)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-rkh-0S6q4


The superposition of the beating scene upon the happy family one (the two voices) is indeed a great feature of the video.


Joan's hypocrisy had really no limits!
Title: Re: "Laptops must be removed from their cases and placed on the belt."
Post by: n o r m an on September 10, 2008, 01:14:59 PM
Oh please, stop it - it's not worth it discussing in so much detail a movie about a mother who beats her child! This is www.lawschooldiscussion.org not www.childrenfightfortheiright .org
Title: Re: HAHAHA - LOVE ME! ;)
Post by: Poni on November 18, 2011, 09:22:09 PM

Ha - Arsenium/Love Me Love Me!


I don't mean to be a cynic, but I have not heard even little children say "Love me"...


(http://img66.imageshack.us/img66/1346/lovemexn0.jpg)(http://img66.imageshack.us/img66/1346/lovemexn0.jpg)(http://img66.imageshack.us/img66/1346/lovemexn0.jpg)(http://img66.imageshack.us/img66/1346/lovemexn0.jpg)(http://img66.imageshack.us/img66/1346/lovemexn0.jpg)(http://img66.imageshack.us/img66/1346/lovemexn0.jpg)(http://img66.imageshack.us/img66/1346/lovemexn0.jpg)(http://img66.imageshack.us/img66/1346/lovemexn0.jpg)(http://img66.imageshack.us/img66/1346/lovemexn0.jpg)(http://img66.imageshack.us/img66/1346/lovemexn0.jpg)(http://img66.imageshack.us/img66/1346/lovemexn0.jpg)(http://img66.imageshack.us/img66/1346/lovemexn0.jpg)

Joan was indeed a movieland monster who adopted 4 children to burnish her image and then proceeded to tyrannize them as her career faded and she slipped into alcoholism and paranoia.

To be sure, some of Joan Crawford's friends disputed the version of events presented in Mommie Dearest. Van Johnson, Ann Blyth and in particular, Myrna Loy, Joan's friend since 1925, became staunch defenders. While acknowledging that Joan Crawford was highly ambitious and an alcoholic for much of her life, they have suggested that Christina embellished her story.

However, Joan's friends Helen Hayes, James MacArthur, June Allyson, Liz Smith, Rex Reed and Betty Hutton have verified some of the stories in Christina's book and claimed they also witnessed some of the abuse firsthand. Hutton had previously lived near Crawford's Brentwood, California, home and has stated that she saw the children during or after various moments of abuse. Hutton stated she would often encourage her own children to play with Christina and Christopher to draw them away from their challenges at home. Crawford's best friend, actress Eve Arden, sided with Christina about Crawford's parenting abilities, saying that Crawford suffered from bipolar disorder; a good woman in many ways but, as an alcoholic with a violent temper, simply unfit to be a mother.
Title: Europe Bans X-Ray Body Scanners Used at U.S. Airports
Post by: two feasts on February 02, 2012, 02:10:57 PM
Get ready for a change.

The TSA has given the go-ahead for passengers to use newly designed carry-on bags that will let them pass through security without having to take their laptops out for the X-ray inspection. Kip Hawley, the agency's director, told me Monday that the T.S.A. would accept the new laptop cases as soon as they come on the market. Two of the biggest luggage manufacturers — Pathfinder Luggage and Targus — say they are rushing to produce the new "checkpoint friendly" laptop cases and expect them to be available by late September or early October. Two problems with the existing laptop cases are that security officers have difficulty seeing inside them with X-ray equipment, and many of the cases are so crammed with extra gear — power cords, a mouse and the like — that the computer is obscured. The new cases include either a fold-down section in a bigger briefcase or a stand-alone protective sleeve that contains no extra clutter and can be readily viewed through the scanner.

More than a half-dozen luggage manufacturers, among about 60 that initially responded to a T.S.A. request for proposals about three months ago, have submitted prototypes for testing at checkpoints at three airports: Dulles, outside Washington; Austin-Bergstrom in Texas; and Ontario, near Los Angeles. The agency says that more than a quarter of all air travelers carry laptops through security. Along with having to remove shoes, the requirement to take a laptop out of its protective case has long rankled business travelers, who worry about damage to exposed computers as well as potential loss in the pileup of various travelers’ possessions on the other side of the X-ray station. Mr. Hawley, meanwhile, has often said that confusion at checkpoints is itself a security problem. Designing laptop cases that can improve customer service while keeping security at a high level is a way to better ensure a "calm and predictable" checkpoint environment, he said. "Threats have a hard time hiding in a calm environment," he said. "Chaos is great camouflage."

Mr. Hawley said the agency had been working with various manufacturers to develop the new luggage designs. He predicted that various new laptop cases that conform to government requirements would be in wide use by the holidays in December. "On a conference call with industry representatives, I said that the T.S.A. will not be your gatekeeper on this," Mr. Hawley said. "It all depends on how fast you can get to market. We won't law you down." Ron Davis, the executive vice president of Pathfinder Luggage, said that his company had just started producing its two new cases at a plant in the Philippines. He said both had been tested at checkpoints to ensure that they met government specifications. "They don't want anything obscuring the view of the laptop,” he said. “In our case, the material is nylon and foam, and the X-ray machine will see right through that." Pathfinder is making two models but plans others. One is a briefcase in which the attached laptop holder is exposed when the case is unzipped. The other is a wheeled carry-on with a removable laptop case. Mr. Davis estimated that the briefcase version would sell for $100 to $150 and the wheeled version for $150 to $200. Targus, the largest maker of cases for laptops and notebook computers, is about to begin production at factories in China of four new models of checkpoint-compatible bags, said Al Giazzon, the vice president for marketing.


Are you kidding me? They're putting people thru X-rays, you talk about laptops and the like!

Here it is an article talking about X-Ray Body Scanners:

Quote

by Michael Grabell
ProPublica, Nov. 15, 2011, 3:45 p.m.

The European Union on Monday prohibited the use of X-ray body scanners in European airports, parting ways with the U.S. Transportation Security Administration, which has deployed hundreds of the scanners as a way to screen millions of airline passengers for explosives hidden under clothing. The European Commission, which enforces common policies of the EU's 27 member countries, adopted the rule "in order not to risk jeopardizing citizens' health and safety."

As a ProPublica/PBS NewsHour investigation detailed earlier this month, X-ray body scanners use ionizing radiation, a form of energy that has been shown to damage DNA and cause cancer. Although the amount of radiation is extremely low, equivalent to the radiation a person would receive in a few minutes of flying, several research studies have concluded that a small number of cancer cases would result from scanning hundreds of millions of passengers a year.

European countries will be allowed to use an alternative body scanner, on that relies on radio frequency waves, which have not been linked to cancer. The TSA has also deployed hundreds of those machines – known as millimeter-wave scanners – in U.S. airports. But unlike Europe, it has decided to deploy both types of scanners. The TSA would not comment specifically on the EU's decision. But in a statement, TSA spokesman Mike McCarthy said, "As one of our many layers of security, TSA deploys the most advanced technology available to provide the best opportunity to detect dangerous items, such as explosives. We rigorously test our technology to ensure it meets our high detection and safety standards before it is placed in airports," he continued.

Body scanners have been controversial in the United States since they were first deployed in prisons in the late 1990s and then in airports for tests after 9/11. Most of the controversy has focused on privacy because the machines can produce graphic images. But the manufacturers have since installed privacy filters. As the TSA began deploying hundreds of body scanners after the failed underwear bombing on Christmas Day 2009, several scientists began to raise concerns about the health risks of the X-ray scanner, noting that even low levels of radiation would increase the risk of cancer. As part of our investigation, ProPublica surveyed foreign countries' security policies and found that only a few nations used the X-ray scanner. The United Kingdom uses them but only for secondary screening, such as when a passenger triggers the metal detector or raises suspicion (probably the policy to be adopted in the US too).

Five-hundred body scanners, split about evenly between the two technologies, are deployed in U.S. airports. The X-ray scanner, or backscatter, which looks like two large blue boxes, is used at major airports, including Los Angeles International Airport, John F. Kennedy in New York and Chicago's O’Hare. The millimeter-wave scanner, which looks like a round glass booth, is used in San Francisco, Atlanta and Dallas. Within three years, the TSA plans to deploy 1,800 backscatter and millimeter-wave scanners, covering nearly every domestic airport security lane. The TSA has not yet released details on the exact breakdown.


http://www.propublica.org/article/europe-bans-x-ray-body-scanners-used-at-u.s.-airports
Title: Re: HAHAHA - LOVE ME! ;)
Post by: sed cena on February 07, 2012, 01:06:34 PM

Joan was indeed a movieland monster who adopted 4 children to burnish her image and then proceeded to tyrannize them as her career faded and she slipped into alcoholism and paranoia.

To be sure, some of Joan Crawford's friends disputed the version of events presented in Mommie Dearest. Van Johnson, Ann Blyth and in particular, Myrna Loy, Joan's friend since 1925, became staunch defenders. While acknowledging that Joan Crawford was highly ambitious and an alcoholic for much of her life, they have suggested that Christina embellished her story.

However, Joan's friends Helen Hayes, James MacArthur, June Allyson, Liz Smith, Rex Reed and Betty Hutton have verified some of the stories in Christina's book and claimed they also witnessed some of the abuse firsthand. Hutton had previously lived near Crawford's Brentwood, California, home and has stated that she saw the children during or after various moments of abuse. Hutton stated she would often encourage her own children to play with Christina and Christopher to draw them away from their challenges at home. Crawford's best friend, actress Eve Arden, sided with Christina about Crawford's parenting abilities, saying that Crawford suffered from bipolar disorder; a good woman in many ways but, as an alcoholic with a violent temper, simply unfit to be a mother.


Whatever the case may be, I would not put too much blame on Joan - I mean, she was supposed to survive in cutthroat environment such as that of the movie business, fighting monsters like the L.B - she was indeed horrible, but she was the natural by-product of a horrible culture/environment. So, in a way she's a bit - just a little bit - justified for the way she was and treated others.

She should have not been allowed to adopt any children.
Title: Re: "Laptops must be removed from their cases and placed on the belt."
Post by: Frank s on March 24, 2012, 03:11:27 PM

Quote

Tom Cruise is nothing when it comes to closet cases. Have you heard about Elvis Costello?

And to think he's a bigot and a racist (but what I am talking about -- is it not that the biggest bigots are those who can easily be bigoted)

During a drunken argument with Stephen Stills and Bonnie Bramlett in a Columbus, Ohio, Holiday Inn hotel bar, in the late 1970s Costello referred to James Brown as a "jive-ass n i g g e r," then upped the ante by pronouncing Ray Charles a "blind, ignorant n i g g e r."

A contrite Costello apologized at a New York City press conference a few days later, claiming that he had been drunk and had been attempting to be obnoxious in order to bring the conversation to a swift conclusion, not anticipating that Bramlett would bring his comments to the press. According to Costello, "it became necessary for me to outrage these people with about the most obnoxious and offensive remarks that I could muster." In his liner notes for the expanded version of Get Happy!!, Costello writes that some time after the incident he had declined an offer to meet Charles out of guilt and embarrassment, though Charles himself had forgiven Costello ("Drunken talk isn't meant to be printed in the paper"). In a Rolling Stone interview with Greil Marcus, he recounts an incident when Bruce Thomas was introduced to Michael Jackson as Costello's bass player and Jackson said, "I don't dig that guy..."


Elvis Costello is an old fart ... no one cares to talk about him anymore ..


Hahaha - Yanni - your avatar is so funny!

No shaving or anything like that, huh?! ;)
Title: Re: Tales of tales
Post by: shameless on March 27, 2012, 04:46:55 PM
Quote

[...]

One final point: among those who support the doctrine of Eternal Recurrence some say, it has an ethical and moral dimension. If one is to come and live this very life over and over again, one should try to live it in a way that one wants to come and relive it. That is, they tell us: "One should live it to the utmost, and without leaving anything regrettable." [...] However, it is not even necessary to conduct a controlled social experiment to see how this doctrine affects the majority of mankind. A social experiment several millenniums old, is still going on. Just look at India, a country that has lived under the shadow of karma and reincarnation for the longest time. It is a nation where Brahmins, the highest caste, have systematically ruled and dominated the whole society and kept the Sudra or chandala, (untouchables) as their footstools, without any hope, or dream of salvation.

Fatalism, or karma, does not tell people to live life to the fullest. It simply states one must accept ones fate, unquestioningly, and live it. If one accepted this philosophy one would have to say: "If I have already lived this same life many times before, and there is nothing for me to change, why talk to me about living life to the fullest? If my previous life was lived to the fullest, I will live it to the fullest again this time. If I have not done so in previous lives, then there is nothing I can do about it now. I am totally powerless." This is the logical result of Eternal Recurrence, or what we might correctly rename as: The Doctrine of Despair, which reduces human life to that of a marionette or puppet, where the strings are forever held in the hands of fate, creating a total paralysis in the mind of the individual and society. So, from either the scientific, or the moral and ethical standpoint, this is a philosophy of doom, and there is nothing much going for this doctrine. It is a totally bankrupt worldview.

[...] As for the ethical view of this philosophy, Nietzsche might not have known what poverty and squalor this fatalistic religion had brought to India. Otherwise, we don't believe he would advocate such an evil system to be introduced into European thinking. If, however, he knew full well of the paralyzing social effect of this doctrine in India, and still advocated it, then this would further prove Nietzsche's evil genius. Since his whole philosophy was centered on weaving the myth of the "Superman" and the "Super race," to rule over the earth, was he perhaps paving the way and preparing a moral code for the rest of us, the chandala, to accept and live by -- Eternal Recurrence? This could perhaps, explain why he considered it as a very crucial part of his philosophy? In that case, he meant it to serve as the final nail that would hold down the lid of the coffin he created. History, however, bears witness to the fact that it was the very "Superman" and the "Super race" Nietzsche created with the myth of his philosophy that were buried in, and nailed in that very coffin -- Hitler and his followers.

http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/index.php?topic=3003617.msg3063017#msg3063017



Interesting take, grass! The Eastern religions undoubtedly rely much more on "non-existence" vs. "existence," "absence" vs. "presence," "holes" vs. "fullness," such that one begins to think what is the whole point of acting, of being "active," in life - I was reading the other day, a post here about that Sartre kind of philosopher, who's literally saying, "suicide is an option in the real sense of the word" - the guy who's writing during the days of being captured by the Nazis and @ # ! * e d in the ass regularly?!

I mean, don't get me started with the French, with Philippe Pétain proclaiming the defeat of France by Germany, without any resistance at all, offering that lousy excuse that "Paris would be destroyed"? With the French whores entertaining the German soldiers during the War years and then claiming they had "class"? So, I wouldn't be surprised with the idiotic Sartre contemplating suicide versus some kind of showing the other guy that he stood for something!

From what I see, there are, in fact, parallels between Eastern philosophy and existentialism! Western people are not used to this kind of stuff, are we?! The Western philosophy is more about "action," rather than "inaction," "doing," rather than "being done." Please tell me if I am wrong! 

Come on, they say Nietzsche was a repressed homosexual who could not act on his feelings, and went on to write tales of tales of stuff about the "ascetic" and the like ... doesn't that tell you something about someone who's trying to run from himself and is not fully able to?!