If it detects some problems / suspicious items, it is better than nothing.
And they don't even claim they can detect every item - if they did claim this, that would be fake protection.
But I think you'll find that the airports treat this seriously and spending large sums of money of a device that did nothing, to reduce fear but still damage their reputation if something got through would not be a course of action that they took.
Suppose someone did successfully smuggle a bomb on board via a terminal that didn't use such a scanner and the scanner was perfectly capable of detecting the object. What would you think of that terminal?
It should be made compulsory that all air passengers travel in the nude, thus making it more difficult for them to conceal weapons and explosives.
No doubt Obama will be issuing a statement, shortly.
After he's told the world about the aliens, of course.
and we'll need to move the thread...
It wouldn't be the first time you've had to do that!
It would be nice if it didn't need to be done this decade.
What are the chances of that happening?
Very Slim to None
I was reading something today and it said this is the start of a new decade
Yes, that's correct, a new decade always starts at zero.
If you owe someone a "decade" of dollars, will he be happy if you count out his payment:
0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 Okay, that's it, with the ninth dollar, you have all that's owed you.
Or, does zero not count as numbering the first dollar of your payment, so that you have to pay
The twentieth century, including the last decade of the twentieth century, was not over until the year 2000 was completed. The year 2000 was part of the 20th century (indeed, that is where the century gets its name), not the 21st century.
It is the same with decades.
Umar's attempt at terrorism was pretty much a failure.
Then, as a direct result of his effort, $160 million was spent on scanners.
So, his attempt caused $160 million in damage to the economy, just in the cost for the scanners. Those who made the decision snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. Umar did not succeed in causing the harm he wished--then, government officials handed $160,000,000 worth of financial harm to him as a gift with a bow on top.
The US doesn't need terrorists to harm us. Our government does it for them.
Perhaps this may help
Wiki, to decide a disagreement?
This is the same wiki that reported Rush Limbaugh died in Hawaii last week, right?
The link you presented, O Waffler gives lots of examples of people speaking of a decade as if the years ending in zero went with the next 9 years. But the question is not whether people ever speak or write this way. The question is, when they do so, are they speaking accurately or making an error?
Dr. Walter E. Williams took some time in a radio show he hosted to explain that the usage, though common, is in error.
It's not me that's in trouble with the IRS for tax evasion!
If you don't believe me, just ask Obama, he'll tell you!
Damn, my hotline has been deactivated...
I neglected to pay the bill it seems...!
Actually, Scholar's right.
There was, don't forget, no year "0".
So, the first decade A.D. ended on Dec. 31st. 0010, NOT 0009.
So, 1970 was part of the 60's decade, I'm glad you've cleared that up.
Anyway - back on topic - as countries fall over themselves to buy airport scanners liquid explosives still won't show up, nor will explosives carried within the body. Apparently someone carried in explosives in their rectum to try and kill one Saudi leader.
The UK Borders Agency is looking to the government for definitive guidance/a change in the law on profiling. Until then ex-GPO workers are just as likely to be scanned as Musthav Abomb.
I have been hearing on the radio news that, after the Americans announced that new security measures are in place starting today, the Euopean airports are refusing to cooperate.
Try tellin Scholar
There are many arguments on the net as to wether it is or isn't , and I cannot find anything official , but most posts I find seem to point to it being a new decade
I'd rather argue about something more important to be honest. It is a new decade - believe it or not.
I read about a Nigerian spokesperson who said something along the lines of:
* 1 Nigerian out of 150 million
* educated outside of Nigeria
* radicalised outside of Nigeria
* reported to the authorities by a Nigerian
is being used as an excuse to discriminate against millions of Nigerians who fly every year.
Quite a good point I thought.
I didn't realise that millions of Nigerians were being discriminated against, was it in the news?
One version of the complaint.
From the link -
The complaint is that they are being unfairly judged based on the actions of one man as they are not a State that sponsors terrorism as the others are
reputed to do.
I don't disagree that America should take reasonable measures to protect people on their own soil. The scanners, by all accounts, are not going to improve security however.
I'd be quite interested to know who is going to benefit financially from these scanners being compulsorily installed in so many airports.
Yes, but who are they?
For example one of the Republicans who frequently spoke about loving his mother when trying to convince others to support a healthcare amendment a few years ago left government almost immediately after its successful adoption for a salary of $2,000,000 with the compaany who had most to gain from the amendment.
I'm just wondering if there is a similar agenda this time around.
I don't know, but I know a man that might.
Over to you, scholar, who's making money from these machines?
Two American companies funnily enough:
There's not necessarily anything sinister with that, a large proportion of high tech equipment is manufactured in America.
However, there are still important questions to be answered concerning it's effectiveness and whether it was a wise use of taxpayers money to purchase it.
That's all very well, but what's it got to do with airport security?
It's bound to, isn't it?
He's to blame for everything that happens in the world, including us being invaded by aliens!
Don't forget, giron, he's also to blame for a USA Politics and Healthcare forum, too.
I'll think you'll find it was scholar that was responsible for that.
As Arthur C. Clarke, allegedly, once said - " If the scale on your grocer's weighing machine began at 1 instead of 0, would you be happy when he claimed he'd sold you 10 kg of tea?"
But if one says I'm in my fifties, and that person was exactly 60 years old, doesn't that sound kind of strange
Body scanners - anyone, anyone?
I'll tell you what, it's about time Sir Clive Sinclair designed an air port scanner based on ZX81 technology, not only would it detect all these jonnie foreigner chappies with explosive devices concealed in their underpants, it would only cost 50 quid to produce.
You may be on a good point there, giron!