Skip to comments.
Airport Screeners May Get X-Ray Vision
NewsDay ^
| 06/25/03
| LESLIE MILLER
Posted on 06/26/2003 6:40:11 AM PDT by bedolido
Edited on 06/26/2003 6:42:34 AM PDT by Admin Moderator.
[history]
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100, 101-104 next last
To: bedolido
These images are produced by computer analysis and a program could be written to eliminate the display of anything other than objects of interest. It would be like the green screen used for digital effects in movies.
61
posted on
06/26/2003 8:25:09 AM PDT
by
js1138
To: js1138
a program could be written to eliminate the display of anything other than objects of interest.Who (or whom) would make the decision as to what was "of interest"? Depending upon the weight, age and gender of the subject, it would be nice to set the standards.
62
posted on
06/26/2003 8:29:39 AM PDT
by
bedolido
(please let my post be on an even number... small even/odd phobia here)
To: sheik yerbouty; Frank_Discussion
You want into the deal too!!
WOOHOOO...
Frank... another potential investor.
To: bedolido
Who (or whom) would make the decision as to what was "of interest"? Just looking at the sample pic makes it clear that there is a sharp difference in brightness and contrast between skin and hard objects. Just boosting the contrast would be a start, but computer imaging can be much more sophisticated.
Compared to what NASA does to images this is simple.
64
posted on
06/26/2003 8:33:49 AM PDT
by
js1138
To: js1138
"These images are produced by computer analysis and a program could be written to eliminate the display of anything other than objects of interest. It would be like the green screen used for digital effects in movies."
Presumably, like every other such imager, each machine would need to be adjustable to select its display capabilities. The operator or manager would be twiddling the knob (even for each image) to have the capability to discern objects of different densities. Don't try to convince me that no one would be tempted to get the best look at private parts, or that the factory could (or would) lock out such capabilities.
To: Beelzebubba
I think you are mistaking a TV with a digitally produced image. This is not a television. There is no image to adjust except that produced by a computer program. The device will not go into production with the controls you imagine, for the very reasons you state. People would stop flying.
Until someone involved in the development of the device says otherwise, I say the privacy problem can be fixed. And will be fixed if the device is ever to be used.
66
posted on
06/26/2003 8:47:39 AM PDT
by
js1138
To: Frank_Discussion
How about stealth underwear? Fly in under the wire, so to speak...
67
posted on
06/26/2003 8:50:24 AM PDT
by
plusone
To: plusone
All those weird angles would be awfully uncomfortable...
68
posted on
06/26/2003 8:54:29 AM PDT
by
Frank_Discussion
(May the wings of Liberty never lose a feather!)
To: NittanyLion
It would be considered an act of terrorism, interfering with the functioning of the air port screeners. Remember the guy that put a note in his baggage lambasting the screeners?
69
posted on
06/26/2003 8:54:48 AM PDT
by
plusone
To: Frank_Discussion
LOL!!
70
posted on
06/26/2003 8:57:07 AM PDT
by
plusone
To: crazykatz
Somebody post a picture of Daffy Duck...
71
posted on
06/26/2003 8:58:33 AM PDT
by
plusone
To: eno_
"If God had meant us to fly naked, we'd have been born that way, with wings. Naked wings. Or something."
I gotta tell you, that made me giggle!
72
posted on
06/26/2003 9:04:22 AM PDT
by
b-cubed
To: bedolido
Comrade, you are hereby charged with the "criminal omission of a "BARF ALERT" as outlined in Section 8-4U of the FR Code.
On a different note, I will now seek to obtain radio-opaque letters to spell out "TSA-SUX" and "SCAN THIS" under the front of my shirt and trousers, respectively.
First Amendment rights, you know.......... 8~)
73
posted on
06/26/2003 9:10:12 AM PDT
by
tracer
(/b>)
To: Frank_Discussion
Careful with those metallic letters - especially "I," "Y," and "L."
Don't give the TSAstitutes an excuse to bust you for attempting to smuggle through their checkpoint metallic objects which "might be used as weapons".....
74
posted on
06/26/2003 9:13:22 AM PDT
by
tracer
(/b>)
To: js1138
" And will be fixed if the device is ever to be used."
Your optimism is quite admirable. Are you perchance a Dale Carnegie graduate?? 8~)
75
posted on
06/26/2003 9:15:19 AM PDT
by
tracer
(/b>)
To: plusone
Sufferin' succatash!! pssst!
To: tracer
Comrade, you are hereby charged with the "criminal omission of a "BARF ALERT" as outlined in Section 8-4U of the FR Code.I am new to FR (about 3-4 months) and was not aware of the code. I throw myself on the mercy of the FR-Court.
77
posted on
06/26/2003 9:19:06 AM PDT
by
bedolido
(please let my post be on an even number... small even/odd phobia here)
To: tracer; Frank_Discussion
Hey, wait a minute.... frank discussion and I are starting a company to make wonderful decorative and verbally descriptive underwear for folks...JUST LIKE YOU!!
Frank...potential CUSTOMER on post!!
To: bedolido
LOL!
To: meandog
"What about er, uh, "package" challenged males...I can just hear the giggles and snickers behind the x-ray counter!"
You're seeing the glass as half-full. The full-glass perspective features a plastic enhancement prosthesis of a density that enables it to blend in with (usually) soft tissue on the scan....
80
posted on
06/26/2003 9:20:17 AM PDT
by
tracer
(/b>)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100, 101-104 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson