@Winston Smith: It took me a while to figure out what on earth you're talking about, and it seems that you're referring to a 1973 decision of the 9'th circuit court, not from scotus. Can't find any "validation" from scotus, whatever. As it is, the searches are deemed indeed "administrative", which makes them "ok" (not…

@ddrussianinja: I would (will) refuse the scanner for the following reasons (I repeat myself, said this before): the scanners don't find *everything*; the TSA can't be trusted; the radiation might be more than TSA likes to admit (check the U of California study); the next target from terrorists will be a bomb in the…

@espinha:

@Sjenkins7000: sorry about the clueless part, still, there is hint of naivite around your original post. First, you seem to believe everything "they" say, from the hilarious survey with 2 questions (per link you attached) to the TSA statements that the machines are effective and harmless. Second, because there seems…

@espinha: " If a piece of technology could have helped it, then I'm all for it" - how about if they chain you to the chair for the duration of the flight. Let's say that the chains are indeed comfortable and you can still scratch your nose, of you can ask the flight attendant to do it for you. How about if they put…

@Sjenkins7000: quite contrary, the results of the obsession start showing - pilots are not required to be scanned or patted-down anymore, fresh news. Now is time to continue, until TSA starts getting a clue and hopefully some brains.

@J0hnP: with the wii app I get a button for subtitles before playing the movie...

@lucasway89: I think is worth repeating over and over "what's the fuss about":

@Winston Smith: The point you're holding to is not worth defending. To consider valid "not flying if that's objectionable" while the alternatives are "not travelling" or "take the boat over the ocean" is dwelling in a theoretical argument that can't be taken seriously, unless you're in an school environment doing an…

@Winston Smith: "douche" came from gap between the point of the article and your answer, which frankly looked to me intentional.

@Winston Smith: the right to privacy, douche. Amendment 4 "privacy of the person and possessions as against unreasonable searches (4th Amendment)", and it's been proven before that the x-ray backscatter machines and the patting is ineffective against someone hiding things inside "cavities"... Hence the search is…

@BloggerBobTSA: look mr. TSA, you're lying or are delusional. First, even if equipment can't send/store or whatever, a douche with a cellphone with a camera can snap pictures of whatever s/he feels like. So your "rules" can be bent. Second, it's been stated and proven that people with bad intentions can bring stuff…

@BloggerBobTSA: look mr. TSA, you're lying or are delusional. First, even if equipment can't send/store or whatever, a douche with a cellphone with a camera can snap pictures of whatever s/he feels like. So your "rules" can be bent. Second, it's been stated and proven that people with bad intentions can bring stuff…

@terry: "house and food expenses"? I was talking about insurance, not house and food. Up to this point, for the last x number of years, including a hurricane, I didn't use the house insurance for anything (the damage was lower than deductible). Guess what, if I draw the line, that's some $15,000 thrown in the garbage…

@terry: So you're that guy that really liked CE...

@superflat44: guess what, if the persons (or process, for that matter) would be efficient, THERE WOULDN'T BE ANY LINE. Sorry for screaming, almost choked on something. Also, a TSA person that brought to my attention that it doesn't matter that the liquid in a bottle is almost done, is the container that can't be…

@Joel Johnson: then it's an awesome success! ; )

@skierpage: "But it didn't work out that way, I think Cyc stalled at 60,000 facts"

@certifiedfryguy: I hate those buttons period, they are mostly context dependent, in which case it makes sense to put them inside the apps, in a way that's consistent with the UI.

Sam Spratt is da bomb, the illustration is awesome. The article is not bad, whatever, let me see what's on Gizmodo while I read Gizmodo