Y2HH Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 26, 2011 -> 05:02 PM) 17 posts ahead of you. Oh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 Undercover TSA Agent Sneaks Gun Through Airport’s Full-Body Scanners Five Times Surprisingly, none of the agents responsible for letting the firearm slide through security were disciplined. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted February 24, 2011 Author Share Posted February 24, 2011 QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Feb 23, 2011 -> 04:02 PM) Undercover TSA Agent Sneaks Gun Through Airport’s Full-Body Scanners Five Times Security theater at its finest. I'm going to add a cut in homeland security spending to that argument in the other thread - if you're serious about fiscal responsibility and fixing our economy, medicare/ss/defense/TSA spending all have to be on the table. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 24, 2011 -> 09:58 AM) Security theater at its finest. I'm going to add a cut in homeland security spending to that argument in the other thread - if you're serious about fiscal responsibility and fixing our economy, medicare/ss/defense/TSA spending all have to be on the table. If we don't know what you're talking about in your phone calls, we can't sell that information and make money off of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted February 24, 2011 Author Share Posted February 24, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 24, 2011 -> 01:15 PM) If we don't know what you're talking about in your phone calls, we can't sell that information and make money off of it. I'm lost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 24, 2011 -> 02:21 PM) I'm lost. Just think...if facebook and Google are worth billions of dollars because of the marketing data they can get from your acquaintances and your searches...think about how much money the government can get by selling information about what's in your emails and phone calls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted February 24, 2011 Author Share Posted February 24, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 24, 2011 -> 01:34 PM) Just think...if facebook and Google are worth billions of dollars because of the marketing data they can get from your acquaintances and your searches...think about how much money the government can get by selling information about what's in your emails and phone calls. I'm still confused. How does this relate to guns getting through security and/or adding TSA to the list of agencies that need to be cut and/or gutted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 24, 2011 -> 02:44 PM) I'm still confused. How does this relate to guns getting through security and/or adding TSA to the list of agencies that need to be cut and/or gutted? Because my brain is so wiped that I read NSA instead of TSA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted February 24, 2011 Author Share Posted February 24, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 24, 2011 -> 01:46 PM) Because my brain is so wiped that I read NSA instead of TSA? lol. I thought maybe that was it, but wasn't sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 Wow, the things you miss when there are multiple nuclear meltdowns. The Transportation Security Administration announced Friday that it would retest every full-body X-ray scanner that emits ionizing radiation — 247 machines at 38 airports — after maintenance records on some of the devices showed radiation levels 10 times higher than expected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 13, 2011 -> 01:12 PM) Wow, the things you miss when there are multiple nuclear meltdowns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted March 14, 2011 Author Share Posted March 14, 2011 Government saves! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 14, 2011 -> 02:08 PM) Government saves! How on Earth is that your reaction? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted March 14, 2011 Author Share Posted March 14, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 14, 2011 -> 01:10 PM) How on Earth is that your reaction? Because the government always knows best and never lies to the public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 14, 2011 -> 02:30 PM) Because the government always knows best and never lies to the public. You don't see why I'm asking this at all do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted March 14, 2011 Author Share Posted March 14, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 14, 2011 -> 01:33 PM) You don't see why I'm asking this at all do you? lol, i guess not. Why did you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 14, 2011 -> 01:33 PM) You don't see why I'm asking this at all do you? I'm not sure why you are surprised by the reaction... With all of the preaching that the private sector can't police itself, and that the government ought to be doing it in all of these areas, the fact that the federal government in many cases is more inept that the private sector is going to be a common reaction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 14, 2011 -> 02:43 PM) lol, i guess not. Why did you? Because there happens to be a private company involved in the case as well...Rapiscan, who builds the things. If they sold the government scanners that emit a factor of 10x the radiation that the scanners are supposed to emit and that the original test scanners emitted, that's a product liability issue for the company. But that doesn't even register... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted March 14, 2011 Author Share Posted March 14, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 14, 2011 -> 01:50 PM) Because there happens to be a private company involved in the case as well...Rapiscan, who builds the things. If they sold the government scanners that emit a factor of 10x the radiation that the scanners are supposed to emit and that the original test scanners emitted, that's a product liability issue for the company. But that doesn't even register... But it's still on the government to know that when it says these things don't emit radiation, they actually know that it's true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 14, 2011 -> 03:00 PM) But it's still on the government to know that when it says these things don't emit radiation, they actually know that it's true. If you buy a doll for your kid, and it's laced with lead paint, is it your responsibility as the purchaser to have tested it or is it the manufacturer's responsibility? Especially if the specs for the item say "Does not contain lead paint"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 14, 2011 -> 02:51 PM) If you buy a doll for your kid, and it's laced with lead paint, is it your responsibility as the purchaser to have tested it or is it the manufacturer's responsibility? Especially if the specs for the item say "Does not contain lead paint"? Because the government has an agency that deals with those kind of things, the answer is yes. If our tax dollars are going to it, then they have the responsibility for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 There's zero case where you guys will accept the existence of any sort of corporate responsibility for anything. That's what I take from this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 14, 2011 -> 02:54 PM) There's zero case where you guys will accept the existence of any sort of governmental responsibility for anything. That's what I take from this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 TSA was great on my way back into the states from Toronto. I get to the security line and the thing beeps because I am randomly selected for one more level of tests. The TSA guy asks me which one I want to do: 1. Full body scanner 2. Full body pat down 3. Swab my hands for explosives I ask him which one I should do. He replies "get your hands swabbed, its faster and easier for us." Appreciate the feedback buddy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 Really 2k5...if Rapiscan said "These things are safe", produced test models that were safe, and then the production line ones weren't safe, you'd think Rapiscan has zero liability there? Yes, the government needs to catch it, and it appears that they might well have done so. But come on...seriously, what more would they have to do? If they installed guns in the things that shot every other person who walked through, but those weren't in the test versions, you'd still say that the company bears no liability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts