Idiots
in [Design]
|
From: Nobody on 4 Jan 2010 12:58 On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 17:37:47 +0000, Nico Coesel wrote: > IMHO they should have stopped him at Schiphol regardless of all the > lists. With a bit of luck the bodyscanners will be operational like > they should have been long ago. It's far from clear that they would have detected PETN. Also, just because something is visible to the scanner, it doesn't mean that the operator will notice. The TSA regularly tests the effectiveness of X-ray scanning by trying to smuggle prohibited items and seeing if the operator notices; usually, they don't notice.
From: Vladimir Vassilevsky on 4 Jan 2010 13:20 Nobody wrote: > On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 17:37:47 +0000, Nico Coesel wrote: > > >>IMHO they should have stopped him at Schiphol regardless of all the >>lists. With a bit of luck the bodyscanners will be operational like >>they should have been long ago. > > > It's far from clear that they would have detected PETN. It is far from clear that there actually was any PETN. The facts from news media simply don't fall into one picture. > Also, just because something is visible to the scanner, it doesn't mean > that the operator will notice. The TSA regularly tests the effectiveness > of X-ray scanning by trying to smuggle prohibited items and seeing if the > operator notices; usually, they don't notice. TSAs probably prevented a LOT of possible stupid accidents like someone trying to take a gasoline tank or something like that. I don't blaim TSA. VLV
From: Richard Henry on 4 Jan 2010 16:10 On Jan 4, 9:58 am, Nobody <nob...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 17:37:47 +0000, Nico Coesel wrote: > > IMHO they should have stopped him at Schiphol regardless of all the > > lists. With a bit of luck the bodyscanners will be operational like > > they should have been long ago. > > It's far from clear that they would have detected PETN. > > Also, just because something is visible to the scanner, it doesn't mean > that the operator will notice. The TSA regularly tests the effectiveness > of X-ray scanning by trying to smuggle prohibited items and seeing if the > operator notices; usually, they don't notice. Where did you get that legend?
From: YD on 4 Jan 2010 22:08 Late at night, by candle light, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> penned this immortal opus: >YD wrote: >> Late at night, by candle light, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax >> <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> penned this immortal opus: >> >>> JosephKK wrote: >>>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 17:38:50 +0000, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Fred Abse wrote: >>>>>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 15:30:12 +0000, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I was watching CSI last night and the usual thing happened that pissed >>>>>>> me off. They were examining a laptop and the baddie "hacked in" and >>>>>>> deleted the files while they stood helpless. Someone ought to suggest >>>>>>> they try removing the HDD and copying it first as a matter of routine. >>>>>> A lot of the "science" in CSI is dubious, Remember the construction worker >>>>>> who got electrocuted? >>>>> Maybe I missed that, but electrocuting yourself with 110VAC takes some >>>>> doing. I've had plenty of 240VAC "bites". >>>>> >>>>> I also like the way they can turn a 320x240 cam into a HD image with a >>>>> bit of "processing". "Hey - can you blow up the image of that car number >>>>> plate reflected in that guy's sunglasses." >>>> That kind of detail expandability was actually possible with old >>>> Kodacolor 25 ASA. Nothing commercially available since has matched it. >>> That must be near the quantum limit. >> >> Actually it's due to the extremely fine grain of the low sensitivity >> films. Needs some very expensive optics to do it justice. >> >> - YD. > >Even so, it must be close to the diffraction limit of light, as well as >being a very efficient sensor. Diffraction is the limit for the optics. Don't know what you mean by efficiency in the context, the low sensitivity makes for rather long exposure times. In faster films the resolution is usually limited by grain. Some years ago I saw an exhibit of what can be done with a 4x5 field camera and good optics. The scene was a small lake with some woods in the background. The whole scene, and parts of the negative were selectively enlarged to 8x10, yelding some 20 separate pictures. What most impressed me was a picture of a flower. On the scene it was just about visible, on the blow-up one could see the veining in the leafs sharp as a tack. That part of the negative can't have been more than a millimeter or two across. The lenses weren't very big, but the guy carried them around in a huge padded case and took them out only when everything else was already set up. - YD. -- Remove HAT if replying by mail.
From: Dirk Bruere at NeoPax on 4 Jan 2010 21:08
YD wrote: > Late at night, by candle light, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax > <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> penned this immortal opus: > >> YD wrote: >>> Late at night, by candle light, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax >>> <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> penned this immortal opus: >>> >>>> JosephKK wrote: >>>>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 17:38:50 +0000, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Fred Abse wrote: >>>>>>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 15:30:12 +0000, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I was watching CSI last night and the usual thing happened that pissed >>>>>>>> me off. They were examining a laptop and the baddie "hacked in" and >>>>>>>> deleted the files while they stood helpless. Someone ought to suggest >>>>>>>> they try removing the HDD and copying it first as a matter of routine. >>>>>>> A lot of the "science" in CSI is dubious, Remember the construction worker >>>>>>> who got electrocuted? >>>>>> Maybe I missed that, but electrocuting yourself with 110VAC takes some >>>>>> doing. I've had plenty of 240VAC "bites". >>>>>> >>>>>> I also like the way they can turn a 320x240 cam into a HD image with a >>>>>> bit of "processing". "Hey - can you blow up the image of that car number >>>>>> plate reflected in that guy's sunglasses." >>>>> That kind of detail expandability was actually possible with old >>>>> Kodacolor 25 ASA. Nothing commercially available since has matched it. >>>> That must be near the quantum limit. >>> Actually it's due to the extremely fine grain of the low sensitivity >>> films. Needs some very expensive optics to do it justice. >>> >>> - YD. >> Even so, it must be close to the diffraction limit of light, as well as >> being a very efficient sensor. > > Diffraction is the limit for the optics. Don't know what you mean by And the grain size. > efficiency in the context, the low sensitivity makes for rather long Number of photons to "flip" a grain of emulsion. > exposure times. In faster films the resolution is usually limited by > grain. > > Some years ago I saw an exhibit of what can be done with a 4x5 field > camera and good optics. > > The scene was a small lake with some woods in the background. The > whole scene, and parts of the negative were selectively enlarged to > 8x10, yelding some 20 separate pictures. > > What most impressed me was a picture of a flower. On the scene it was > just about visible, on the blow-up one could see the veining in the > leafs sharp as a tack. That part of the negative can't have been more > than a millimeter or two across. I would have thought that the limit is due to air turbulence, assuming unlimited optics. > The lenses weren't very big, but the guy carried them around in a huge > padded case and took them out only when everything else was already > set up. Well, lens size beats megapixels every time. -- Dirk http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show |