Balta1701

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 16, 2010 -> 03:53 PM) I believe I have a right to not have my naked body scanned or physically searched in order to get on a plane. It goes too far. Ok, so then, where would you draw the line? Do they have a right to search your possessions? To put you through an X-Ray machine? The Shoes off part? Is this the only place at which you'd draw the line or have other "security theater" efforts gone too far as well?

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Nov 16, 2010 -> 03:51 PM) Not if you consent to the search. And they don't have to give you access to the plane if you don't consent to the search.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 16, 2010 -> 03:49 PM) You don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy to not be groped and/or recorded naked as part of some bulls*** security measure? You're clearly conflating issues here (whether it's legal and whether it's effective).

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Nov 16, 2010 -> 03:48 PM) Which is also not being checked for. Which is of course an argument for checking for it, not an argument for not doing something.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Nov 16, 2010 -> 03:45 PM) So you still think they're groups of terrorists to get on a plane to take over the controls and fly them into buildings? I don't see a 9/11 type scenario taking place now that the cockpit doors are locked. A plane blowing up is not as bad as a very large train station blowing up where there could be several hundreds of people. If you actually want to kill hundreds of people in a train station with a single weapon, you're probably going to need to use gas.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 16, 2010 -> 03:44 PM) You could be right, I don't know. This would go back to design basis threats and risk assessment. In terms of damaging other buildings, you'd need one particularly powerful explosive or one very poorly designed structure. Look how well, for example, the WTC took a massive car bomb explosion directly underneath it.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Nov 16, 2010 -> 03:32 PM) Exactly. And for each one of them there are virtually no actions taken to prevent catastrophic terrorist attacks (see: London Subway Bombing). This point, of course, is not an argument against the TSA instituting intrusive measures if they're effective...it's an argument that other methods of transportation need securing as well.

I also flash back to 2005 and remember that Scott Podsednik, the leadoff hitter, was a lefty as well.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 16, 2010 -> 03:14 PM) (1) Since when does having a right to be somewhere suddenly cut off your constitutional protections? Pretty sure illegal immigrants are afforded the protections of the Constitution despite not having the right to be here. (2) There will be lawsuits and people will win and society gets to continue picking up yet another tab that doesn't need to be paid. Multi-million dollar lawsuits just means the airlines get to tack on an extra 2 dollar government fee to sit in a fund for those lawsuits. It won't stop employees from doing it, just like criminal threats won't either. There's absolutely no need for these scanners, and there's even less of a need to save the pictures afterwards. The systems weren't supposed to save images. Are they actually doing so? Anyway, it's not like that would stop a person who wanted to save them. Just sit in the room and pull out your cell phone camera. The only thing that will genuinely stop employees from doing so is a combination of penalties and checks of the type of people who get in there. Criminal penalties might. Of course, people will still do so. The illegal immigrant thing is of course a bogus comparison, and frankly you ought to know better. You give up various levels of your constitutional rights all the time. Every time you set foot outside your door, you've given up some measure of your rights. If you set foot into a building that you don't own, you give up more of your rights.

Ok, here's my general comment. The TSA is fully within its rights to do whatever the Hell it wants here...because there is no constitutional right to get on a plane. You have the right against unreasonable searches and seizures, but the key is the "unreasonable" part...since there's no guarantee of a right to get on a plane, there is no such thing as an unreasonable search in that case. However...this is obviously messy for the TSA and it's messy in a silly way...because, just like so many other "safeguards", it is more security theater than anything else. Convincing a person dedicated to blowing up a plane that they need to put a bomb in their underwear or frankly, shoved up their colon isn't the hard part; it's convincing them to blow up the plane in the first place. If these scanners were fool-proof, sure, but they're clearly not, they're just a small, additional level of difficulty that a determined terrorist could bypass with a little bit of effort. The reality is...the TSA needs to be very careful here, because frankly, I think we all know it's only a matter of time before the images acquired here are smuggled out, and every time it happens it ought to be a multi-million dollar lawsuit.

QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Nov 16, 2010 -> 02:52 PM) I would be more then willing to open negotiations with a package around John Danks. That's how much i value a player with the potential of Justin Upton. Exact same things said in the Sox catch-all thread about 2 hours ago.

The fact that they got a person named Einstein to comment means I should just shut up and believe them.

QUOTE (Tony82087 @ Nov 16, 2010 -> 02:38 PM) What I'm saying is the Bulls line wouldn't be so slanted if Kurt Thomas wasn't include don the left hand side. However, as the 2nd oldest player in the league, and the Bulls having a relatively young roster outside of Thomas, it's not very accurate(not at fault of the list, those are the rules.) Then don't worry about the slope, and worry instead about where they are on the RH side and what teams are above and below them.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Nov 16, 2010 -> 02:34 PM) I think some people wrote stuff off just because of gas prices and didn't factor in the fact that the added cost savings actually outweighed at times the added fuel costs. Plus if you need a truck for what you do, you need a truck. Really though, if you had to guess what %age of truck owners absolutely need to own a truck, would you guess it's a large majority? I wouldn't. I'll bet for a lot of people it's a convenience at times (heck I can think of a few times when it would have been a convenience for me). If I'm right about that, then in the event of a gas price spike, the demand for trucks would be very elastic; the people who might like them but don't need them would opt downwards.

X is gonna give it to you, says DMX.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Nov 16, 2010 -> 02:38 PM) I have no problem with it, but I don't think they should be touching your junk. In-between those areas happens to be an ideal place to hide explosives. Also, between the cheeks on the back as well...which isn't covered in a normal pat-down...and frankly, is probably only a matter of time.

Link with official document

One bit from the actual report...here's a discussion of how the system may well have set itself up so that foreclosures became cheaper than keeping people in their homes.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 16, 2010 -> 02:11 PM) No joke. Your choices are pretty much truck or Cadillac. Vague memory of hanging out with a former NW Indiana cadillac dealer and hearing about how much of his business was cash purchases...

Very windy though.

Roy Halladay takes home a unanimous cy young award.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 16, 2010 -> 02:07 PM) Didn't we learn a lesson last year from this exact approach? The problem this season was going in with an obvious potential gaping hole at 1 position and trying to justify it. I don't think Tex was suggesting leaving the DH spot unclaimed until midseason.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Nov 16, 2010 -> 01:55 PM) Chances are they don't cut him. Just considering the recent issues they had, his questionable relationship with the Shanahans, and his age, the contract extension makes much more sense if they do have that option. Of course it's somewhat nice...but the odds of it being used are incredibly low unless it's somehow lockout-security. It's almost a useless opt-out...the only way it'd get used is if Shanahan decides before next July that he's going to Haynesworth McNabb.

Link And 1 more bit: Yes they absolutely f***ing should be looking into the mess that is HAMP.

Tuesday's gone with the wind