It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by whoshotJR
reply to post by Dasher
In some tribes you were stoned to death for looking at something the wrong way. In others they will kill their young for being born on the wrong days.
Times have changed as so has the world. Tribes didn't face flying and security measures like we do today or they would probably work towards the same measures we are putting in place.
The Bible is a whole different topic and one could argue that the power structures we see today were caused by organized religion. You could easily make the correlation that the bible is the reason we have the problems we currently do. The bible doesn't teach you to accept everyone for who the are it tells you that only the chosen religion will be loved by god and the rest will be burned in the fires of hell. That doesn't seem very accepting to me like what you are preaching.
Originally posted by WTFover
I asked this question in another thread, but thought I'd repeat it here, to a different audience.
I would like to ask those who know much more about software than me, this question, which could end the dispute over the scanners. If I can pose it in an understandable manner.
Is it possible to have the scanner software examine each pixel of the image and compare them using preprogrammed parameters? If so, could the images only be made visible to a security screener, when a certain number of pixels fall within those parameters?
It appears to me that any potential contraband is visible, due to the lightness or darkness of the pixels, which compose that image. In other words, a metal weapon, such as a knife or gun, is seen as a darker image. A concealed powder or liquid is seen as a lighter image.
So, my idea is that if a person is scanned and no anomaly is detected, by the scanner's software, then no image is displayed on the screener's monitor. Then, everyone would just have to ensure they have nothing on their person, which would activate the software's preprogrammed alerts.
Does that make sense?