Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Defeated

orenhazi.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–440 of 445 posts

Re: Defeated

#431

Post by cavilling_elite »

takluyver wrote: post #325
cavilling_elite wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed, I opt-out every time I can. This gives me a chance to talk to the TSA agent. This puts human faces on the, typically, blurry screen of human mass. When they ask why I opt-out, I explain about the numerous times I have filled out the comment cards mentioning the real danger of cataracts because you don't tell people to close their eyes. Explain that my engineering background fully understands both the x-ray an…

Can you elaborate on the risk to eyes? I've not heard about this, and Wikipedia doesn't mention it, either for mm-wave or backscatter (I hadn't even realised there were two different technologies in use until now). What kind of risk level are we talking about? Do your eyelids offer any real protection against it?

As far as I can tell, the x-ray works similar to the dentist office. While, the basic idea behind the active backscatter mm-wave is similar to radar. It is my understanding that the majority of the TSA owned mm-wave machines are active. You have a number of antennas that pulse and listen. I would need to look up the specs, but I suspect they are in the 75 GHz range which is above the oxygen absorption (60 GHz) but below more expensive technologies in the 100+ GHz range. There are a number of "cheap" technologies that have emerged for radar in this range on the market at the 75 GHz frequency, and I think it is being driven by this technology.

All in all, the mm-wave at the powers they use are harmless. The depth of penetration to the skin is sub millimeter and your body dissipates any heat that would be generated. It is most likely a pulsed system and your overall exposure time is small. But, the most fragile part of your body is your eyes. The capillary blood vessels are much smaller and wouldn't dissipate the heat as readily as the body. And it is my professional opinion, that overtime, it could do damage to your lenses and cause cataracts. I would love to get a grant to study these effects.

As far as I have seen, there are no IEEE specs on specific absorption rates (how much heat energy is created by being irradiated with a source), they are typically categorized as "body", "head", and "appendages". If anyone has information on specific body parts (I personally need it for teeth and fingernail work I do) I would be very interested in the FDA specific absorption rates.

When you close your eyes your eyelids will dissipate any heat generated and the mm-wave will not penetrate through the skin. One interesting test would be if anyone could get what the images look like, and see if you can tell where the eyes are. If there there is a difference in the backscatter, that would mean that the mm-wave is being absorbed differently in the soft tissue of the eye.

In my professional opinion, just close your eyes. If you fly once a year, it probably isn't a big deal. If you fly all the time, I would close my eyes.

Re: Defeated

#432

Post by cavilling_elite »

zombio wrote: post #401
takluyver wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you elaborate on the risk to eyes? I've not heard about this, and Wikipedia doesn't mention it, either for mm-wave or backscatter (I hadn't even realised there were two different technologies in use until now). What kind of risk level are we talking about? Do your eyelids offer any real protection against it?

I'd also like to know.

see above, pls.

Re: Defeated

#433

Post by jellicle »

tptacek wrote: post #329
jellicle wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They produce naked images of your body, which are stored indefinitely.

Where by "indefinitely" you mean "not at all".

Ah, it's tptacek again: rarely right, but never in doubt.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20012583-281.html

Re: Defeated

#434

Post by chris_wot »

jballanc wrote: post #32

There is an extremely simple solution: leave. I've not lived in the US for almost two years now. I've only had to travel back twice in that time. Meanwhile, in the same time I've visited France, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Germany multiple times. None of those travel experiences were nearly as unpleasant or stressful as my two trips to the US. Furthermore, the technology communities that are growing up in these pla…

You're joking. There's nothing simple about leaving a country of which you are a citizen! Besides, if you don't like something in a democracy, you work towards changing it. You don't just up and leave.

Re: Defeated

#435

Post by mjolk »

mercer wrote: post #429
donohoe wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The short (and unhelpful) answer is that I didn't intend to move here. I came here for a long vacation of sorts (quit dev job in Ireland, swore never work in IT again, first stop on taking a year out to travel the world...). I was at a point where I'd over-stayed tourist visa and was getting ready to move on and then I met a girl...

So it goes! I don't know why it surprises me, but a sizable portion of the expats here in Berlin originally came for a guy/girl.

Meeting a guy/gal is a major biological driver in life. Other than food/physical safety, what is more important in life?

Re: Defeated

#436

Post by tinkerdol »

FedRegister wrote: post #158
tinkerdol wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

May I suggest Germany? At least in regards to your first point, they have recently relaxed barriers. Right now all you need is a four-year degree in order for you to come and look for work for up to 6 months. The chances of anyone reading this finding work are extremely high because there's a shortage of skilled professionals. http://www.make-it-in-germany.com/en/ Or, start out studying for a Master's degree first to…

I speak enough German to not completely embarrass myself when out in public, and I would like to get my Masters in Computer Science (adding on to my BSc in Computer Science). What programs would you recommend?

Hi, sorry for the late reply!

First step is to figure out if you prefer a University or a "Hochshule" -- kind of a foreign concept. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hochschule).

The Universities come with more prestige, are larger, offer a wider variety of programs, and are more theoretically based. Therefore if you like computer science theory, taking classes that are math-intensive and could include things like algorithm optimization or building compilers, a University is the clear choice. I have heard only awesome things about TU Munich and TU Darmstadt, although any of the big TU's are probably great.

The other option, a Hochschule, is more practice based. Although there will be a mixture of theory and practice at both types, the distinction lies in the emphasis. So if you want to spend more time going straight to writing code, a Hochschule might be the better choice. The other advantages of a Hochschule are that they can be focused on a particular topic (if you are looking for something specific) and they definitely will have smaller classes. This means the professors know you, and you go directly to them for help for which they are often freely available (contrast with a Uni -- usually either go to a TA or have to schedule an appointment with the prof a week ahead through their secretary etc.)

I went to a Hochschule and was beyond pleased. There were only 20 people in my whole program so the individual help you can get from Professors was amazing. I actually studied Geoinformatics not Computer Science directly (and therefore searched for that specialty), but I think any of the larger cities will have good Comp Sci M.Sc. possibilities at their Hochschules.

In any case you can always visit ahead of time if you can to talk to the professors and sit in on classes. If that's not possible they are also very responsive to calls and emails... they often have preferred quotas for foreign students and love to recruit them.

Hope that helps!

Re: Defeated

#437

Post by B-Con »

xxpor wrote: post #414
B-Con wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That only addresses the active display. What about storage? Do we have any official confirmation on that?

That's kind of a moot point, isn't it? Even if they do store it, it's literally just a picture of a generic drawing of a human.

No, I'm talking about the original hi-res image.

(More detailed write-up: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6279027)

Re: Defeated

#438

Post by ilyanep »

laureny wrote: post #422
ilyanep wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right, driving was a bad example. That being said, it's silly to continue adding modes of transport to things that are "privileges, not rights" until people really have no real and significant freedom of movement. Perhaps my example should have been "walking around outside your house".

That's a slippery slope fallacy, let's stay away from these, please. Here is the deal: flying brings you conveniences and comes with inconveniences. It's entirely up to you which one outweighs the other, but whatever the choice you make, you can't claim that a right is being taken away from you if you are turned away from a flight. If you really think you have a case, call the ACLU and see them laugh at you.

Okay, but trains are legitimate ground, because the TSA has previously set up in the New York subway (http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/28/travel/tsa-vipr-passenger-trai...). To some extent, stop-and-frisk (as I linked to above) means that there are governments in the country who feel that they can search you while you're walking around, so my bringing them up isn't that silly.

Again I ask, what modes of transport are privileges and how many of them can we take away (not because you are incompetent at controlling them, but because you refused to subject yourself to a search) without completely destroying freedom of movement?

Re: Defeated

#439

Post by dTal »

xxpor wrote: post #415
coldpie wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They perform a meaningless task with no purpose other than to instill a certain emotion in their audience. Lots of job titles fit that definition, I like to use the word "clown." Edit for a slightly less flippant response. I do not respect the job these people do, and I like to degrade their position of authority. I like to make them hate their job, which is one of the reasons that I opt-out of the naked scanners and…

> I want to tear the TSA down to where it was pre-9/11 So non-existant. > I do not respect the job these people do, and I like to degrade their position of authority. Then you're just an asshole. Do you seriously think most people become TSA agents to go on a power trip? Do you actively degrade prostitutes as well? What about newspaper editorialists you disagree with?

Oh, get off your high horse. coldpie said "I do not respect the job these people do" and "I like to degrade their position of authority", not "I do not respect these people" and "I like to degrade these people". The TSA performs no useful function and is actively harmful through regular abuses of their position of power. Their employees are still humans and deserve to be treated like them, but their job deserves no respect, or else the term "respect" is now meaningless. Their position of authority absolutely deserves to be degraded. Take your straw men elsewhere.

Also, "non-existant" [sic] is exactly where I'd like to see the TSA.

Re: Defeated

#440

Post by 3pt14159 »

r00fus wrote: post #394
3pt14159 wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just off the top of my head, countries that are both freer and less insane: Canada, The Netherlands, Norway, Iceland, New Zealand, Singapore, Estonia, Latvia, Switzerland. Freer in terms of personal freedom, civil rights, economic freedom. In the US you have: 1. Forced to sign up for the draft. 2. Your "Army Reserves" and "National Guard" DEPLOYED to fun places like Afghanistan on a rotating schedule. No they did not…

While I agree with you on numerous points, your point #1 is pretty much par for the course in lots of countries. In fact, I think the move to not draft those signed up (forcibly, I agree) is the reason that some of the other points (e.g.: #2,#3) are even issues - if the burden of war were spread in a regular manner (and forcibly) on the US populace, there would be very little tolerance for war... all those armchair s…

You confuse group outcomes for individual rights. It is wrong to force me to die for your cause. It is just that simple.
Post reply on HN