4 ms·
These weren't nearly as high resolution as I expected. I'm surprised they're even useful. I guess that's encouraging in one aspect.
by slashcom 16y ago
These weren't nearly as high resolution as I expected. I'm surprised they're even useful.
I guess that's encouraging in one aspect.
- yafujifide 16y agoAccording to the article, "this mismanaged machine used the less embarrassing imaging technique."
- Xuzz 16y agoIt might (partially) be due to the "identifying features" being removed from the images.
- pak 16y agoThis is an older machine, the newer backscatter X-ray type make pictures that look like this: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-20022861-10391704.html http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-20022861-10391704.htm... Yep, your "junk" is fully visible. Paparazzi's wet dream... I mean, if the LAPD can't keep pictures of a battered Rihanna from TMZ[1], wait until Paris Hilton decides to fly commercial through LAX. (Celebrities can't always afford charter, can they?) [1] http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,498157,00.html http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,498157,00.html
- chunkbot 16y agoI can't imagine Paris Hilton's backscatter images being all that sensational. You can find much more detailed images with a cursory search online. I get your point, though.
- matwood 16y agoThe conspiracy side of me says these lower resolution images were purposely released to try and calm the public backlash. I remember seeing much higher resolutions images when these machines first came out.