I submitted this story a few months ago, but it wasn't picked up, so I guess now will be good time to recount the main facts:

I can't find the full article anymore (paywall), but the abstract is here [ama-assn.org]. It is interesting to note that the authors also wrote this:

The article also points out that since TSA officials do not allow outside scrutiny of the actual radiation levels of the machines, we cannot know if they perform as intended or if they expose us to more radiation. But still, I think they are probably a lot safer than you would have thought.

Although I completely agree with your opinion, I think you could have articulated it with less profanities. This usually assures better responses and not something along the line of "No, you fuck off!"

Here's a nice movie IBM made to commemorate the last 100 years. It appeared in my submission from January that didn't get picked up. Oh well.

I think Stalin beat him, but point well made.

Talking about the cloud, here is today's XKCD. Enjoy.

The point of a Jewish state is that for the first time in modern history, the Jewish people will have a place they are not discriminated against. The Jewish state is not meant to be a place where we discriminate others. Granted, things are not perfect, and I agree that it is easier being Jewish in Israel than Arab, but you can just pick any one of Israel's neighbors to see places where the government treats strangers, women and sometimes even its own citizens with a rough hand.
It's always funny when every small slip-up by Israel is covered and shown as a proof to the inhumanity of the Jewish state, when most (if not all) of the Arab states practice human-rights violation on a daily, if not hourly, basis; and with much worse offences.

I submitted this story a few months ago, but it wasn't picked up, so I guess now will be good time to recount the main facts:

I can't find the full article anymore (paywall), but the abstract is here. It is interesting to note that the authors also wrote this:

The article also points out that since TSA officials do not allow outside scrutiny of the actual radiation levels of the machines, we cannot know if they perform as intended or if they expose us to more radiation. But still, I think they are probably a lot safer than you would have thought.

Israel is not a country where people are persecuted for speaking their mind. If you would just look a couple of weeks back, many Arab citizens protested around the country to remember the Nakba. Do most of the Jewish Israelis agree with them? No. Did anyone interfere with their right for peaceful assembly? Not in the least. In places where the assemblies became violent, only there did the police intervene.

Legally? Yes. Of course, if an Arab would try to buy a house in the middle of an orthodox neighborhood, it will be frowned upon, but such will be the case if I, a Jewish person, will buy a house in the middle of an Arab village.

Yes, I personally know of several such cases. It's not common, but it's not illegal.

I think in a way it's the same as the situation regarding Cochlear Implants (CI) for profound hearing loss. CI are good for adults that lost their hearing at an advanced age, or for babies that are hearing impaired from birth, provided the CI are implanted at a young age (usually before the age of 6-12 mo). The reason is that every sense in our body has both a receptor part (eye, ear, nose, etc.) and an area of the brain tasked with processing the information*. The area in the brain is developed by being stimulated, just like a muscle is built by use. But it's worse than muscles: if the area has never been used, it cannot develop in a later age, so you have to stimulate it as soon as possible. Today it is known that the sooner you implant a baby with a CI, the better the results.
That was the medical side of the issue. The other part is moral: How can we decide for someone if he needs something? Lots of blind and deaf people have succeeded in life without help. OTOH, there is no doubt that life is much harder when you are short one modality compared to everyone else, and this handicap is much more obvious for blindness than it is for deafness. I think the moral dilemma is more difficult for deaf people (esp. deaf children born into deaf families; hearing parents would like nothing better than to have "normal" children). For blindness I don't think there will be any objection to such treatment.

So, assuming the technology gets there (and it will, someday):
Medically - The implant will probably be useful for congenital blindness (if implanted at an early-enough age) and for people who have lost their vision in later life.
Morally - Although there might be some objection about tempering with a child who is too young to decide for himself, I believe most would agree its for his benefit. At a later age, people can decide for themselves (although I personally would love to get my vision back, if I ever lost it).

* This is a bit of an oversimplification since a bit of preliminary processing happens in the sensing organ.

P.S.
I don't think you have to be so pedantic about using both male and female pronouns [s(he), his/her]. Just use the male, and everyone will understand you meant both. Nobody will think you meant to treat only men, and not women.

Damn, a post that is Informative, Insightful and Funny all at once, with a dash of Flamebait and most definitely Underrated (and I am saying this while it is scored +5 Informative). Well done, sir!