Airport Express - Share Wireless Connection
in [Mac Systems]
|
From: JF Mezei on 30 Jun 2010 18:23 George Kerby wrote: > travel, it is a blessing. Wouldn't know about you, but I get tired of some > geezer sticking his hands down my pants at the airport and having an > audience watching. As opposed to the audience in the viewing room where they see you naked? If you do a good job of emptying your pockets and going though the metal detector without sounding the alarm, you don't get the pat down stuff.
From: George Kerby on 30 Jun 2010 18:36 On 6/30/10 5:22 PM, in article justin-5D5C42.18221330062010(a)62-183-169-81.bb.dnainternet.fi, "Justin" <justin(a)nobecauseihatespam.org> wrote: > In article <C850EAA1.49125%ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com>, > George Kerby <ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> On 6/30/10 8:26 AM, in article 00A9FBBE.BC83D035(a)SendSpamHere.ORG, "VAXman- >> @SendSpamHere.ORG" <VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG> wrote: >> >>> In article <michelle-6AC190.04572430062010(a)62-183-169-81.bb.dnainternet.fi>, >>> Michelle Steiner <michelle(a)michelle.org> writes: >>>> In article <i0eicp$64s$4(a)news.eternal-september.org>, >>>> Justin <justin(a)nobecauseihatespam.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> One in each room. >>>>> Some of us arrive/leave before the others. >>>> >>>> You can afford expensive hotels in separate rooms. You can afford to >>>> travel to other countries. You can afford to do this multiple times a >>>> year. But you're too cheap to pay $15/day each for internet access? >>> >>> Others have said the same... this has to be a troll. >> >> To be frank (not THAT Frank), maybe he should build that little extra >> expense into his fee(s) that he charges to whomever he provides the >> services? > > Great idea! > Then we can lose customers to competitors. Competition. The name of the game...
From: George Kerby on 30 Jun 2010 18:37 On 6/30/10 5:23 PM, in article justin-FAA9E2.18233030062010(a)62-183-169-81.bb.dnainternet.fi, "Justin" <justin(a)nobecauseihatespam.org> wrote: > In article <300620101327229033%nospam(a)nospam.invalid>, > nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > >> In article <C8511198.4920F%ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com>, George Kerby >> <ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>> The TSA goons really hassle you if you have any sort of implants as well. I >>> can't wait until the full body scanners are installed everywhere. If >>> anything else, it will make my travels a lot smoother. >> >> the body scanners will result in a *lot* more hassles, invasive >> procedures and humiliation. worse, they're slower and they don't detect >> explosives. it's actually *easier* to slip something through. > > I actually look forward to the body scans. > Its what nature gave me. You'd be surprised.
From: George Kerby on 30 Jun 2010 18:40 On 6/30/10 5:23 PM, in article 4c2bc3f5$0$21164$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com, "JF Mezei" <jfmezei.spamnot(a)vaxination.ca> wrote: > George Kerby wrote: > >> travel, it is a blessing. Wouldn't know about you, but I get tired of some >> geezer sticking his hands down my pants at the airport and having an >> audience watching. > > As opposed to the audience in the viewing room where they see you naked? If you would read, you would know that there is a single person offsite that cannot see anything but a form without detail. > > If you do a good job of emptying your pockets and going though the metal > detector without sounding the alarm, you don't get the pat down stuff. > Maybe you don't. You are not everybody. Also, you must enjoy tying shoes, replacing belts and every metal object one normally wears when traveling. Knock yourself out, my man!
From: nospam on 30 Jun 2010 18:47
In article <C8512BE2.49232%ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com>, George Kerby <ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> The TSA goons really hassle you if you have any sort of implants as well. I > >> can't wait until the full body scanners are installed everywhere. If > >> anything else, it will make my travels a lot smoother. > > > > the body scanners will result in a *lot* more hassles, invasive > > procedures and humiliation. worse, they're slower and they don't detect > > explosives. it's actually *easier* to slip something through. > > Sorry, you are wrong. what part? the link you cited confirms what i said. > Most likely you never have been through the Tulsa > airport, or any of the several test installations around the country. not tulsa but i fly enough to deal with the tsa several times a month. > For > me, and others who have to endure the 10 - 15 pat down delay every time I > travel, it is a blessing. not everyone gets a patdown unless they alarm the wtmd. for the vast majority of travelers, the body scanner is slower and less effective, which your link confirms. the body scanners should be optional for those who prefer them. the tsa originally said they'd be secondary, but they lied and now they're being deployed as primary screening. > Wouldn't know about you, but I get tired of some > geezer sticking his hands down my pants at the airport and having an > audience watching. you can always ask for a private screening. would you prefer to have a strip search by an anonymous person whom you can't even see? someone such as the screener in miami who made jokes about the size of another screener's penis? a bigger problem is that body scanners *can't* detect something in body cavities or even under a fold of flesh of an obese person. tuck a knife under a large breast and strap it down with a sports bra, and it can't be seen on the body scanner. stuff explosives into a rectum and it will go undetected. furthermore, the long term effects of the scanner are not known. the effects are cumulative. worse, a female who is menstruating and using feminine protection might need to go through a rather invasive check to see if that item in her underwear is a pad or explosives. > BTW: What's in YOUR wallet, pants, belt, shoes, watch, rings, jewelry, > glasses, etc., etc., etc. > > You might find this enlightening if your mind is open... > > <http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Debate:_Full-body_scanners_at_a > irports> you might actually want to read that link. it points out exactly the issues that i said: Full-body scanners are incapable of revealing explosives hidden in body cavities Full-body scanners will slow airport security check-points. The International Air Transport Association says the scanning process will take 45 seconds for each passenger A British defense-research firm reportedly found that full-body scanners can be unreliable in detecting "low-density" materials like plastics, chemicals, and liquids, which is what the 2009 Christmas "underwear bomber" had stuffed in his briefs. the manufacturer of the body scanner themselves have said that it would not have found the crotch bomber's payload since it was stuffed behind his penis, at the bottom of his underwear. the body scanners shoot front to back, not up, and his penis would have obscured it. an explosive trace detection (etd) would have caught it, such as the puffers that were in use a few years ago. unfortunately those failed frequently and were pulled. over on the pro side, Full-body scans make terrorist attacks more difficult. Michael Chertoff, the former homeland security secretary, said in an interview: michael chertoff is a consultant to the companies that sell the body scanners and he's made quite a bit of money by pushing them. in other words, he's a paid shill. meanwhile, while innocent travelers continue to be harassed, the cargo that is just a few feet underneath them in the cargo hold is more than likely *not* inspected. |