Clbuttic mistake
-
a case where censorship makes the situation appear worse than it really was :
go make yourself a@#$%tail and relax
from the comments section here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100324/od_nm/us_britain_scanner_odd
-
Hahaha, cock.
-
Personally, I find this comment to be even more WTFy: "If your body is so shameful that this is so tragic you either spend too much time in church or not enough time in the gym." I like false dichotomies because they are either awesome or totally perfect.
-
-
Do we have proof that "Christine" actually wrote "cocktail" and not something else?
-
I was looking at
"Margetson told the Sun she had been "traumatized" by what had happened and had informed police and her bosses at the airport's operator BAA."
and thinking about all the passengers who were probably being oggled, but didn't realize it, leading me to think:
"If a person is oggled and doesn't realize it, are the traumatized?"
-
TRWTF is that you read the comments on Yahoo News articles.
-
@OzPeter said:
I was looking at
"Margetson told the Sun she had been "traumatized" by what had happened and had informed police and her bosses at the airport's operator BAA."
and thinking about all the passengers who were probably being oggled, but didn't realize it, leading me to think:
"If a person is oggled and doesn't realize it, are the traumatized?"
If traumatizers are oggled, only the ogglers will be traumatized.
Or something.
-
I once played on a poker site that filtered mention of their competitors-- including names, acryoyms, nicknames, and such. Since a lot of other poker sites used the work "Full" in their title, they filtered it too.
Always made me laugh when their own system would announce "SoAndSo wins the hand with a F*** House"
-
@OzPeter said:
It would be more relevant to ask "If a person is ogled and doesn't realise it, ...", there not being any such thing as "oggling".I was looking at
"Margetson told the Sun she had been "traumatized" by what had happened and had informed police and her bosses at the airport's operator BAA."
and thinking about all the passengers who were probably being oggled, but didn't realize it, leading me to think:
"If a person is oggled and doesn't realize it, are the traumatized?"
-
@DaveK said:
@OzPeter said:
It would be more relevant to ask "If a person is ogled and doesn't realise it, ...", there not being any such thing as "oggling".I was looking at
"Margetson told the Sun she had been "traumatized" by what had happened and had informed police and her bosses at the airport's operator BAA."
and thinking about all the passengers who were probably being oggled, but didn't realize it, leading me to think:
"If a person is oggled and doesn't realize it, are the traumatized?"
I figured he was referring to the ogg audio code.
-
@Zecc said:
Do we have proof that "Christine" actually wrote "cocktail" and not something else?
They did in fact put punctuations marks there, and not words. They did that so make it seem worse than it is and so that more people will watch it from notes about it on such as this web-site, for example.
-
@zzo38 said:
@Zecc said:
I can't tell if you were being sarcastic, but that was exactly my point.Do we have proof that "Christine" actually wrote "cocktail" and not something else?
They did in fact put punctuations marks there, and not words. They did that so make it seem worse than it is and so that more people will watch it from notes about it on such as this web-site, for example.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
You mean like "If a tree falls in a forest, and a lossy codec oggles all the data, does it make any noise?"@DaveK said:
@OzPeter said:
It would be more relevant to ask "If a person is ogled and doesn't realise it, ...", there not being any such thing as "oggling".I was looking at
"Margetson told the Sun she had been "traumatized" by what had happened and had informed police and her bosses at the airport's operator BAA."
and thinking about all the passengers who were probably being oggled, but didn't realize it, leading me to think:
"If a person is oggled and doesn't realize it, are the traumatized?"
I figured he was referring to the ogg audio code.
Yeh, sure, that makes sense. It musta been that.
-
@DaveK said:
If a tree falls in a forest
There has to be some kind of joke with "noise floor" here, but I can't quite formulate it.
Something like,
if a tree falls on the noise floor, does it make a sound you can hear in an ABX test?
But it's not optimal.
-
-
@DaveK said:
He probably meant "goggled," because at least that's a verb.@morbiuswilters said:
You mean like "If a tree falls in a forest, and a lossy codec oggles all the data, does it make any noise?"@DaveK said:
@OzPeter said:
It would be more relevant to ask "If a person is ogled and doesn't realise it, ...", there not being any such thing as "oggling".I was looking at
"Margetson told the Sun she had been "traumatized" by what had happened and had informed police and her bosses at the airport's operator BAA."
and thinking about all the passengers who were probably being oggled, but didn't realize it, leading me to think:
"If a person is oggled and doesn't realize it, are the traumatized?"
I figured he was referring to the ogg audio code.
Yeh, sure, that makes sense. It musta been that.
-
@bstorer said:
@DaveK said:
He probably meant "goggled," because at least that's a verb.@morbiuswilters said:
You mean like "If a tree falls in a forest, and a lossy codec oggles all the data, does it make any noise?"@DaveK said:
@OzPeter said:
It would be more relevant to ask "If a person is ogled and doesn't realise it, ...", there not being any such thing as "oggling".I was looking at
"Margetson told the Sun she had been "traumatized" by what had happened and had informed police and her bosses at the airport's operator BAA."
and thinking about all the passengers who were probably being oggled, but didn't realize it, leading me to think:
"If a person is oggled and doesn't realize it, are the traumatized?"
I figured he was referring to the ogg audio code.
Yeh, sure, that makes sense. It musta been that.
Maybe Googled? That's a verb, according to the hep kids these days.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
But "Googled" has a Damerau-Levenshtein distance of 2 from "oggled", while "goggled" has a distance of 1. Clearly "goggled" is the empirically better guess.@bstorer said:
@DaveK said:
He probably meant "goggled," because at least that's a verb.@morbiuswilters said:
You mean like "If a tree falls in a forest, and a lossy codec oggles all the data, does it make any noise?"@DaveK said:
@OzPeter said:
It would be more relevant to ask "If a person is ogled and doesn't realise it, ...", there not being any such thing as "oggling".I was looking at
"Margetson told the Sun she had been "traumatized" by what had happened and had informed police and her bosses at the airport's operator BAA."
and thinking about all the passengers who were probably being oggled, but didn't realize it, leading me to think:
"If a person is oggled and doesn't realize it, are the traumatized?"
I figured he was referring to the ogg audio code.
Yeh, sure, that makes sense. It musta been that.
Maybe Googled? That's a verb, according to the hep kids these days.
-
@bstorer said:
@morbiuswilters said:
But "Googled" has a Damerau-Levenshtein distance of 2 from "oggled", while "goggled" has a distance of 1. Clearly "goggled" is the empirically better guess.@bstorer said:
@DaveK said:
He probably meant "goggled," because at least that's a verb.@morbiuswilters said:
You mean like "If a tree falls in a forest, and a lossy codec oggles all the data, does it make any noise?"@DaveK said:
@OzPeter said:
It would be more relevant to ask "If a person is ogled and doesn't realise it, ...", there not being any such thing as "oggling".I was looking at
"Margetson told the Sun she had been "traumatized" by what had happened and had informed police and her bosses at the airport's operator BAA."
and thinking about all the passengers who were probably being oggled, but didn't realize it, leading me to think:
"If a person is oggled and doesn't realize it, are the traumatized?"
I figured he was referring to the ogg audio code.
Yeh, sure, that makes sense. It musta been that.
Maybe Googled? That's a verb, according to the hep kids these days.
But who wants to "goggle" nekkid ladies? On the other hand, I Google that all the time.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
Have you ever been to the airport? It's like 60% men, 25% trolls, 10% old people, 4.8% average-looking women, and 0.2% attractive women. Nobody is going to be Googling pictures of them, naked or otherwise.@bstorer said:
@morbiuswilters said:
But "Googled" has a Damerau-Levenshtein distance of 2 from "oggled", while "goggled" has a distance of 1. Clearly "goggled" is the empirically better guess.@bstorer said:
@DaveK said:
He probably meant "goggled," because at least that's a verb.@morbiuswilters said:
You mean like "If a tree falls in a forest, and a lossy codec oggles all the data, does it make any noise?"@DaveK said:
@OzPeter said:
It would be more relevant to ask "If a person is ogled and doesn't realise it, ...", there not being any such thing as "oggling".I was looking at
"Margetson told the Sun she had been "traumatized" by what had happened and had informed police and her bosses at the airport's operator BAA."
and thinking about all the passengers who were probably being oggled, but didn't realize it, leading me to think:
"If a person is oggled and doesn't realize it, are the traumatized?"
I figured he was referring to the ogg audio code.
Yeh, sure, that makes sense. It musta been that.
Maybe Googled? That's a verb, according to the hep kids these days.
But who wants to "goggle" nekkid ladies? On the other hand, I Google that all the time.
-
@bstorer said:
@morbiuswilters said:
Have you ever been to the airport? It's like 60% men, 25% trolls, 10% old people, 4.8% average-looking women, and 0.2% attractive women. Nobody is going to be Googling pictures of them, naked or otherwise.@bstorer said:
@morbiuswilters said:
But "Googled" has a Damerau-Levenshtein distance of 2 from "oggled", while "goggled" has a distance of 1. Clearly "goggled" is the empirically better guess.@bstorer said:
@DaveK said:
He probably meant "goggled," because at least that's a verb.@morbiuswilters said:
You mean like "If a tree falls in a forest, and a lossy codec oggles all the data, does it make any noise?"@DaveK said:
@OzPeter said:
It would be more relevant to ask "If a person is ogled and doesn't realise it, ...", there not being any such thing as "oggling".I was looking at
"Margetson told the Sun she had been "traumatized" by what had happened and had informed police and her bosses at the airport's operator BAA."
and thinking about all the passengers who were probably being oggled, but didn't realize it, leading me to think:
"If a person is oggled and doesn't realize it, are the traumatized?"
I figured he was referring to the ogg audio code.
Yeh, sure, that makes sense. It musta been that.
Maybe Googled? That's a verb, according to the hep kids these days.
But who wants to "goggle" nekkid ladies? On the other hand, I Google that all the time.
I dunno, some of those beefy TSA lesbians kind of do it for me, what with the uniform and bad attitude and fine hairs on their upper lip.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
"Hep kids"? Type A, B or C?@bstorer said:
@DaveK said:
He probably meant "goggled," because at least that's a verb.@morbiuswilters said:
You mean like "If a tree falls in a forest, and a lossy codec oggles all the data, does it make any noise?"@DaveK said:
@OzPeter said:
It would be more relevant to ask "If a person is ogled and doesn't realise it, ...", there not being any such thing as "oggling".I was looking at
"Margetson told the Sun she had been "traumatized" by what had happened and had informed police and her bosses at the airport's operator BAA."
and thinking about all the passengers who were probably being oggled, but didn't realize it, leading me to think:
"If a person is oggled and doesn't realize it, are the traumatized?"
I figured he was referring to the ogg audio code.
Yeh, sure, that makes sense. It musta been that.
Maybe Googled? That's a verb, according to the hep kids these days.
Man, I've heard of "heroin chic" and "elegantly wasted", but good old-fashioned jaundice, that's really decadent!
-
@morbiuswilters said:
Yeah, but the TSA dikes are the gogglers. You are the Googlee and, despite your girlish appearance, you are definitely not their type.@bstorer said:
@morbiuswilters said:
Have you ever been to the airport? It's like 60% men, 25% trolls, 10% old people, 4.8% average-looking women, and 0.2% attractive women. Nobody is going to be Googling pictures of them, naked or otherwise.@bstorer said:
@morbiuswilters said:
But "Googled" has a Damerau-Levenshtein distance of 2 from "oggled", while "goggled" has a distance of 1. Clearly "goggled" is the empirically better guess.@bstorer said:
@DaveK said:
He probably meant "goggled," because at least that's a verb.@morbiuswilters said:
You mean like "If a tree falls in a forest, and a lossy codec oggles all the data, does it make any noise?"@DaveK said:
@OzPeter said:
It would be more relevant to ask "If a person is ogled and doesn't realise it, ...", there not being any such thing as "oggling".I was looking at
"Margetson told the Sun she had been "traumatized" by what had happened and had informed police and her bosses at the airport's operator BAA."
and thinking about all the passengers who were probably being oggled, but didn't realize it, leading me to think:
"If a person is oggled and doesn't realize it, are the traumatized?"
I figured he was referring to the ogg audio code.
Yeh, sure, that makes sense. It musta been that.
Maybe Googled? That's a verb, according to the hep kids these days.
But who wants to "goggle" nekkid ladies? On the other hand, I Google that all the time.
I dunno, some of those beefy TSA lesbians kind of do it for me, what with the uniform and bad attitude and fine hairs on their upper lip.
-
Maybe Christine was suggesting a fucktail. I think I'll go pour myself one of those.
-
The government says staff using the machines are properly supervised and would not be able to see the person being scanned.
So, there's two people watching me waggle my willie on the screen in the darkened room?
I should get union rates for a public performance.All images are deleted.
Not true for at least two scenarios that I can think of:
- Plane takes off and makes an unplanned vertical landing in a field somewhere. The FAA & FBI will want to review the passenger scanner images to see if someone smuggled something through, so there's a good chance that policy will dictate that images be kept until the plane lands successfully.
- Bad guy goes through the checkpoint, and the scanner successfully detects the bomb they have strapped to their chest. Bomber is arrested and goes to trial. The judge will ask the question: "So, how did you know to pull Mr. Alleged Bomber out of the crowd?" No record of the scan, no probable cause.
- Plane takes off and makes an unplanned vertical landing in a field somewhere. The FAA & FBI will want to review the passenger scanner images to see if someone smuggled something through, so there's a good chance that policy will dictate that images be kept until the plane lands successfully.
-
A lot of people still maintain the machines should have *no* storage at all, i.e. not just delete the images but never store them in the first place. Which is the most retarded thing I've ever heard of.
I mean, the things are useless now. Making it so that you can't go back and review something you missed would make it aggressively useless.
Meanwhile, you can get a job loading luggage into a plane, or delivering meal packets, or filling them up with fuel, or a hundred other airport jobs with about 2 sheets of paperwork. And yeah, in theory those people get security scanned too, but in reality their security scan is more like, "oh you have a staff badge, go on through."
-
Or you can strap a bomb to your chest, get a tattoo that says "You will never, ever stop us", stroll up to the scanning booth, and as soon as everyone freaks out, blow up yourself (and a few hundred people crammed in like sardines).
I'd bet anything that that image would be saved.
-
@anothercontractor said:
1. Plane takes off and makes an unplanned vertical landing in a field somewhere. The FAA & FBI will want to review the passenger scanner images to see if someone smuggled something through, so there's a good chance that policy will dictate that images be kept until the plane lands successfully.
This is the TSA we're talking about. I find it completely believable that they would design a system that intentionally deletes potential evidence as soon as the person exits. After some dickhead in a turban detonates a bomb, we'll find out no record of the images was kept and the TSA will ask for $500 billion to hire the brightest minds the world has to offer so that they can invent and perfect some kind of image-storing technology. And all of the money will be spent on "executive retreats" and visits to Chinese massage parlors. Then after the next terrorist attack, we will hear about how we need a new bureacracy to "supplement" the TSA and protect the American people from terrorists and "unhappy endings". I also find it completely believable that the current policy has every image uploaded to an unprotected, publicly-accessible FTP server somewhere in Washington, and that the agents sell the best pictures to porn sites to get beer and cocaine money.
@anothercontractor said:
2. Bad guy goes through the checkpoint, and the scanner successfully detects the bomb they have strapped to their chest. Bomber is arrested and goes to trial. The judge will ask the question: "So, how did you know to pull Mr. Alleged Bomber out of the crowd?" No record of the scan, no probable cause.
That's not how probable cause works. For one thing, having agents see the scan would be enough to warrant suspicion. If a cop sees you breaking into a house, he doesn't need a videotape of the incident to have probable cause to detain and question you. Probable cause would only come into play if the person's intent to commit a crime was discovered via illegal means. Security checkpoints at airports are not illegal means, obviously. Secondly, probable cause don't mean shit in an airport. Airports are not your home or a public space. By entering the airport, you are agreeing to comply with random searches. The only guidelines they have to follow are those published by the TSA or airport authority (which is pretty much powerless and just does what the TSA says, in any case). There is no Constitutional right guaranteeing you access to an airport. They can search you for any reason whatsoever.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
Then after the next terrorist attack, we will hear about how we need a new bureacracy to "supplement" the TSA and protect the American people from terrorists and "unhappy endings".
After the next attack, we will discover that the TSA agents didn't notify federal agents of the bomber because the telephone was on the other side of the room from the scanner desk, and what am I, a marathon runner? So then we'll spend $90 billion dollars on a new agency to act as a liason between the TSA and other agencies, but most of the money will be funneled into a program to videotape American citizens while they pee, on the off-chance that their sexual organs are harboring a terrorist sleeper cell. @morbiuswilters said:
I agree that probable cause is irrelevant here, but I think he just fucked up in saying "probable cause" when he meant to say "evidence." Most likely he just grasped into the deep recesses of his mind for a vaguely related term in the hopes of sounding smart. At least he didn't throw out a random Latin phrase, that'd be a real modus tollens, amirite?@anothercontractor said:
2. Bad guy goes through the checkpoint, and the scanner successfully detects the bomb they have strapped to their chest. Bomber is arrested and goes to trial. The judge will ask the question: "So, how did you know to pull Mr. Alleged Bomber out of the crowd?" No record of the scan, no probable cause.
That's not how probable cause works.
-
@anothercontractor said:
All images are deleted.
Not true for at least two scenarios that I can think of ....
Well the TSA has published full resolution pics from the scanners (as provided by the manufacturer), yet claims that the images (from machines used at airports) can't leave the scanners and are deleted immediately after being viewed. So the capability must exists in some form for the images to be moved off the machine. Interestingly the TSA blog says:While we have said this many times, it bears repeating, TSA will not keep, store or transmit images.
Yet to be really paranoid they don't say if any other government agencies can operate the devices. I'm sure the FBI and CIA would love to get a look at the data.
-
Totally unrelated to the scanning, but I was perusing the TSA blog site and started reading about how it is not the TSA that is confiscating laptops at airports, but the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). From TFA
So where is the confusion taking place? Well, many passengers often confuse CBP with TSA. Why? They have uniforms with the Department of Homeland Security patch and some people automatically assume they are TSA officers since they’re working in an airport capacity. TSA and CBP officers have different uniforms. The CBP uniform is navy blue, while the TSA uniform is more of a royal blue. You will only interact with CBP when you’re coming into the country.
Its totally silly to think that the TSA is confiscating the laptops - they are not the ones with the navy blue uniforms!
-
It's retarded for the TSA itself to not keep the images. If we're going to be subjected to these stupid machines, let's actually make them useful... here's a little play written after the first successful terrorist attack after these machines are installed:
Public: "How did they get (blah) onto the plane?"
TSA: "Shit, we dunno, we didn't store the image."
Public: "How do we prevent it happening next time?"
TSA: "Uh... pray more?"
I mean, I'm with the people objecting to these things being installed in the first place, they're expensive, address a mostly-imaginary problem, and are offensively intrusive. But if they're going to install them despite our objections, please let them install the useful version and not neuter them to make them useless in addition to all of that.
-
@bstorer said:
@morbiuswilters said:
Then after the next terrorist attack, we will hear about how we need a new bureacracy to "supplement" the TSA and protect the American people from terrorists and "unhappy endings".
After the next attack, we will discover that the TSA agents didn't notify federal agents of the bomber because the telephone was on the other side of the room from the scanner desk, and what am I, a marathon runner? So then we'll spend $90 billion dollars on a new agency to act as a liason between the TSA and other agencies, but most of the money will be funneled into a program to videotape American citizens while they pee, on the off-chance that their sexual organs are harboring a terrorist sleeper cell.The 9/11 hijackers went to strip clubs in the weeks leading up to the attacks. Clearly, we need 24/7 video surveillance of all tittie bars (especially the champagne rooms) to look for would-be terrorists.
@bstorer said:
I agree that probable cause is irrelevant here, but I think he just fucked up in saying "probable cause" when he meant to say "evidence." Most likely he just grasped into the deep recesses of his mind for a vaguely related term in the hopes of sounding smart. At least he didn't throw out a random Latin phrase, that'd be a real modus tollens, amirite?
"Evidence" makes no sense, either, since he was talking about agents actually finding a bomb, which would be all the evidence they need. The only time the "evidence" from the scanners would matter is if someone was searched and they didn't have a bomb and they went on to sue. But even then, it's likely irrelevant, since locus in quo is an airport and the standard for airport security agents is reasonable suspicion.
-
@bstorer said:
$90 billion dollars
Which they will withdraw from an ATM Machine
-
@belgariontheking said:
Only if they know their PIN number.@bstorer said:
$90 billion dollars
Which they will withdraw from an ATM Machine
-
@bstorer said:
@belgariontheking said:
Only if they know their PIN number.@bstorer said:
$90 billion dollars
Which they will withdraw from an ATM MachineAnd if they are suffering from RAS syndrome
-
@EJ_ said:
@bstorer said:
That's hardly a problem if they use the correct GUI interface to enter the BIC code@belgariontheking said:
And if they are suffering from RAS syndrome@bstorer said:
Only if they know their PIN number.$90 billion dollars
Which they will withdraw from an ATM Machine
-
@bjolling said:
@EJ_ said:
@bstorer said:
That's hardly a problem if they use the correct GUI interface to enter the BIC code@belgariontheking said:
And if they are suffering from RAS syndrome@bstorer said:
Only if they know their PIN number.$90 billion dollars
Which they will withdraw from an ATM MachineAre the machines running on GNU Unix? They should consider using the GTK toolkit for the GUI then. If on Windows, they can simply use the MFC classes instead.
-
bstorer must feel so shitty rght now.
-
@dhromed said:
bstorer must feel so shitty rght now.
Dunno, I'm thinking that it wasn't redundant - he was indicating that 90 billion dollars was a string. Mmmm, paperchain.
-
@dhromed said:
Whose turn was to change the diapers anyway?bstorer must feel so shitty rght now.
But I'd like to point out that "GNU linux" is not redundant. And it should be "graphical GUI interface" and "Microsoft MFC classes" — ok, maybe not because it breaks the pattern.
-
@Zecc said:
But I'd like to point out that "GNU linux" is not redundant.
I'd like to point out that he said "GNU UNIX"
-
@belgariontheking said:
I'd like to point out that's what she said@Zecc said:
But I'd like to point out that "GNU linux" is not redundant.
I'd like to point out that he said "GNU UNIX"
-
@belgariontheking said:
I'd like to point out he did in fact say GNU Linux.@Zecc said:
But I'd like to point out that "GNU linux" is not redundant.
I'd like to point out that he said "GNU UNIX"I'd like many things, but I can't have them.
Of course, GNU Unix is a paradox. I'm guessing that's a side-effect from the LHC experiments?
-
-
@dhromed said:
@Zecc said:
Pesto is going to have an aneurism when he sees this, and his blood is going to be on YOUR HANDS.LHC experiments
Surely you mean the LHC collider?
-
@belgariontheking said:
I hate a queijo fresco, tomato, lettuce and pesto sandwich for lunch. It wasn't bad.@dhromed said:
@Zecc said:
Pesto is going to have an aneurism when he sees this, and his blood is going to be on YOUR HANDS.LHC experiments
Surely you mean the LHC collider?
-
@Zecc said:
I hate a queijo fresco, tomato, lettuce and pesto sandwich for lunch. It wasn't bad.
Zecc, OT, why is your avatar a default-head-shaped portal to an ocean kingdom ruled by turtles?
-
@dhromed said:
Zecc, OT, why is your avatar a default-head-shaped portal to an ocean kingdom ruled by turtles?
Well, I was getting fed up with my previous avatar (
), so I decided I should make a new one (
).
It's based on a photo I got on an email containing National Geographic photos. I couldn't find it on their site, but here it is somewhere on the net:
Sorry for the lame answer, but I feel uninspired today.
But now that you mentioned the word "portal" you gave me an idea.
It's still a bit rough, but I'll make it better some other time:
EDIT: waidasec, this feels eerily familiar. Is there a user with this kind of avatar already?
EDIT 2: and speaking of avatar, have you seen this "Avatar 2 trailer" yet?
