And your point is? If you can't take cams in to control room, you can't see the individual who is being scanned so you don't know whether a celebrity or not, who cares? And if you do care, go in the slow line and have a scurity officer grab your wife or daughter's crotch.hmm seems like good job to have ...
When will the naked pictures show up on the internet?
- Thread starter fuji
- Start date
My point is..... as long as its people running security, they will find ways to circumvent controls, break the rules, and images will be captured, kept, and eventually posted. People are fucked that way. This should be a no-brainer.
Cheers!
i have seen guards and other airport staff go through metal detectors (which beeped) and not one of them, bless their little hearts, was stopped
Was a plane crash last night.
Addis Ababa-bound Flight ET409 burst into flames and crashed into the Mediterranean shortly after take-off from Beirut airport in stormy weather.
Not even before the first bodies were pulled from the sea they were saying how it can not be terrorism related. Yet eyewitness were saying they seen a ball of fire in mid air--oh yeah lighting struck it but then I hear in the past lighting hits planes all the time and its no big deal for the airplane.
They said the same thing last June when the Air France jet just came apart in mid air, oh no way it was terrorism.
Yeah right, then why all the hassles at the airports??
Addis Ababa-bound Flight ET409 burst into flames and crashed into the Mediterranean shortly after take-off from Beirut airport in stormy weather.
Not even before the first bodies were pulled from the sea they were saying how it can not be terrorism related. Yet eyewitness were saying they seen a ball of fire in mid air--oh yeah lighting struck it but then I hear in the past lighting hits planes all the time and its no big deal for the airplane.
They said the same thing last June when the Air France jet just came apart in mid air, oh no way it was terrorism.
Yeah right, then why all the hassles at the airports??
Of course we have no idea how faked up this un-sourced pic actually is. But the text misrepresents it. A quick, simple check shows the big—maybe only—difference between the pix is that one is a negative of the other. Both equally revealing.hmm seems like good job to have ...
One way or another, this approach to making the skies 'safe' will invade everyone's privacy a little today, more tomorrow and so forth. When we're all flying naked, do we really imagine terrorism will stop?
Your point is that because of the slim chance that someone's modesty may be bruised we should stop doing something that could make flying for millions and millions more safe. Indeed, stop three potential attacks and save 900 lives versus a few people's images on the internet? As you say "no brainer".
I understood your point, I was being sarcastic. I just think that individual rights of a potential few should not override the rights of very many to have a safer life.
No where in life is there a doctrine, bill of rights that states we are guaranteed fairness and no embarrasment in life. Unfairness is a natural by-product of life. Caoul some things leak? Yes. Will it be mortifying, yes! Again so what!
or train, or drive, or......
A test not long ago determined that one person in a mid sized vehicle costs less in fuel than a fully loaded train and a plane is a little less damaging than a train, but not as little as a car.
Think of it for a second and it makes sense: to carry a person, a plane not only has to carry the weight of the person, but the weight of the seat, food, drink, etc PLUS the weight of the plane itself. PLUS it has to carry the fuel to carry all that load PLUS the fuel to carry the fuel. Rub can confirm this but I think 30% of the fuel on an average jetliner is burned/used just to carry the fuel.
If I can find the study I will post it but as the green party says: the most efficient way of reducing fuel consumption isn't flying, taking the train, or a hybrid, but to not take the trip at all. A phone call to germany is a LOT more efficient than any method of transportation........
So, the moral of the story? If you don't want to put up with the secuity measures? DON'T FLY
Please let me clarify.... my point was not to say that scanners are not a good thing..... just that human nature will get the better of ppl and it WILL be abused.
Cheers!
Think of it: You know how big a gas tank your vehicle has and how far it gets you. Now think how big a tank a diesel locomotive has and how much weight it's pulling how far. Now you can't bulk load people like you can pig iron, although the airlines are getting there, but until you show us your numbers I'm going with trains being more efficient.
I don't know if this is the study mentioned on the program I saw, but it is getting there....
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17260-train-can-be-worse-for-climate-than-plane.html
the think that you have to consider with these other modes of transport are the facts that very VERY often, the large capacity vehicles are not filled to capacity. Look at a bus for eg: How many thousands of kilometers does it travel with no one on board but the driver? Is that more efficient than a smart car going from point a to b carrying one person? HELL no.
I remember flying to Denver once and I think it was a A320 airbus. (capacity 250 people). There were 8 of us on board. For half the flight we all sat around with the flight attendants shooting the shit.
The thing about cars etc is typically, we don't run them around empty. SOme go out for recreation drives but for the most part, we have a destination in mind so we go there. Stop. Come home, stop. We don't do the circuit 20 or 30 times.
I think that is where you lose the efficiency. Running around empty.
I had a neighbour who used to drive a bus and he said he did one route that in 8 hrs, on a GOOD day, he'd carry maybe 8 passengers. Run a bus for 8 hrs to carry 8 people.
And how many times have we seen a bus or streetcar LOADED to the tits with people crammed in like sardines. Then one or three behind it, totally empty. Now the first one is being efficient: with lots of passengers, but the others? ZERO efficiency. They are 100% waste.
(then you couple in the fact that in the first one, it might be bordering on over capacity so it is consuming more fuel to carry that many passengers).
Makes sense no?
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17260-train-can-be-worse-for-climate-than-plane.html
the think that you have to consider with these other modes of transport are the facts that very VERY often, the large capacity vehicles are not filled to capacity. Look at a bus for eg: How many thousands of kilometers does it travel with no one on board but the driver? Is that more efficient than a smart car going from point a to b carrying one person? HELL no.
I remember flying to Denver once and I think it was a A320 airbus. (capacity 250 people). There were 8 of us on board. For half the flight we all sat around with the flight attendants shooting the shit.
The thing about cars etc is typically, we don't run them around empty. SOme go out for recreation drives but for the most part, we have a destination in mind so we go there. Stop. Come home, stop. We don't do the circuit 20 or 30 times.
I think that is where you lose the efficiency. Running around empty.
I had a neighbour who used to drive a bus and he said he did one route that in 8 hrs, on a GOOD day, he'd carry maybe 8 passengers. Run a bus for 8 hrs to carry 8 people.
And how many times have we seen a bus or streetcar LOADED to the tits with people crammed in like sardines. Then one or three behind it, totally empty. Now the first one is being efficient: with lots of passengers, but the others? ZERO efficiency. They are 100% waste.
(then you couple in the fact that in the first one, it might be bordering on over capacity so it is consuming more fuel to carry that many passengers).
Makes sense no?
Thanks tboy. I note that the study clearly focusses on the empty seat factor for all modes except cars. I'm sure you enjoyed that eight passenger Airbus, but if ViaRail, Amtrak, Greyhound and the TTC were as good at packing passengers into trips as the airlines usually are, their emissions per passenger mile would drop considerably. That is the point of the article: empty trips cost. Which is what I think every time I look at a packed road and realize there's just one driver and four or more empty seats in almost every vehicle in sight. Now just imagine the million and a half daily TTC riders all buying cars and demanding road space and tell us we can afford to bulid it, it'll be cheaper. Really.
As for supporting infrastructure costs, that's a hugely vague and grey area. Do we factor in the airport to city centre railway as a cost of the airport? What proportion of the city centre to airport roads do we charge against the airport if we don't build the train? The asphalt roads we drive on would be there in some form, unpaved perhaps, if we had no cars. Do we charge them to 'general existence of people' call them amortized, and charge only the paving to car usage? For all that we want those numbers to be objective, they all depend on so many human, value-driven choices that they're inevitably political. Which means they have at least as much to do with popularity as practicality.
Consider a Parisian boulevard. Three or four lanes of traffic both ways, a wide landscaped strip each side, then two or three lanes used for parking, more landscaping, then a sidewalk wide enough* for cafés and whole groups of strollers to share. University Avenue isn't wide enough to qualify. Napoleon's commissioner of roads dynamited whole neighbourhoods to put them through—for pedestrians and carriages—and was hated for it. But although Parisians are as divided about cars as anywhere else, now they love the Boulevards and no one can imagine Paris w/o them. So how do we cost out that sort of infrastructure? It'll always be grey, it'll always be political.
It's what keeps society going, and ultimately that is a benefit, not a cost. But garbage abandoned for someone else, however much or little there is, that's a cost.
Now aren't we supposed to be talking nekkid pitchurs?
As for supporting infrastructure costs, that's a hugely vague and grey area. Do we factor in the airport to city centre railway as a cost of the airport? What proportion of the city centre to airport roads do we charge against the airport if we don't build the train? The asphalt roads we drive on would be there in some form, unpaved perhaps, if we had no cars. Do we charge them to 'general existence of people' call them amortized, and charge only the paving to car usage? For all that we want those numbers to be objective, they all depend on so many human, value-driven choices that they're inevitably political. Which means they have at least as much to do with popularity as practicality.
Consider a Parisian boulevard. Three or four lanes of traffic both ways, a wide landscaped strip each side, then two or three lanes used for parking, more landscaping, then a sidewalk wide enough* for cafés and whole groups of strollers to share. University Avenue isn't wide enough to qualify. Napoleon's commissioner of roads dynamited whole neighbourhoods to put them through—for pedestrians and carriages—and was hated for it. But although Parisians are as divided about cars as anywhere else, now they love the Boulevards and no one can imagine Paris w/o them. So how do we cost out that sort of infrastructure? It'll always be grey, it'll always be political.
It's what keeps society going, and ultimately that is a benefit, not a cost. But garbage abandoned for someone else, however much or little there is, that's a cost.
Now aren't we supposed to be talking nekkid pitchurs?
Comparing cars and busses, with respect to the article:
If you have 50 people on a bus during the day, but only 5 at night, you have LARGE savings during the day, then small losses at night, versus the car. Presumably you have to run the bus at night in order to get all those 50 people on during the day, they need to have convenience 24/7 or they will switch back to a car. It seems likely to me that the huge daytime savings will compensate for the less efficient night operation.
That said there are efficient night solutions, namely jitneys. Instead of running a bus along a fixed route that has only 5 people in it, allow people to call in what stop they are at, and have a van pick them up. The van could pick up and drop multiple people, optimizing its route, and burning a hell of a lot less fuel than a bus. Think airport express type van. The vans would cover everyone in a large area and transport them to a main line that would carry enough people to be worthwhile.
There are lots of innovative things that could be done if the TTC could get off its ass.
If you have 50 people on a bus during the day, but only 5 at night, you have LARGE savings during the day, then small losses at night, versus the car. Presumably you have to run the bus at night in order to get all those 50 people on during the day, they need to have convenience 24/7 or they will switch back to a car. It seems likely to me that the huge daytime savings will compensate for the less efficient night operation.
That said there are efficient night solutions, namely jitneys. Instead of running a bus along a fixed route that has only 5 people in it, allow people to call in what stop they are at, and have a van pick them up. The van could pick up and drop multiple people, optimizing its route, and burning a hell of a lot less fuel than a bus. Think airport express type van. The vans would cover everyone in a large area and transport them to a main line that would carry enough people to be worthwhile.
There are lots of innovative things that could be done if the TTC could get off its ass.
